User talk:Boundarylayer

What are you doing here? Just playing, but if this is your first night at my talk-club, you have to talk...Also, rule 1 is : Don't talk about talk-club.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question.

Most, if not all, of the content on this talk page is largely supportive of edits I've made and interesting documents I've found. It is essentially a digital scrap-book of notes taken during research and though it may appear odd, if you've ever researched a topic you'll know that, such lines of enquiry, often have a tendency to branch out very rapidly. Boundarylayer (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start with a bold statement: What artistic or marketting strategy connects Noel Gallagher with Shakespeare? A preposterous comparison you might say, but would you like to bet on that?

At the time of Shakespeare it was common to appreciate more the similarity with an admired classical work, and Shakespeare himself avoided "unnecessary invention".^[1][2][3]

Noel Gallagher is cut from the very same cloth, he is an honest artist when it comes to explaining where he gets his "inspiration". He openly acknowledges he writes songs that have concepts and structures "lifted" from previous work, mainly his favorite band, the Beatles, he has no trouble admitting this song writing approach and on the charge that this is just advanced plagarism, he unabashedly likes to shrug this off by saying, "you're just kicking yourself that you didn't think of doing it first".

This is not to say that Shakespeare and Noel Gallagher are not talented polishers or improvers of art. That is of course a skill in-of-itself that doesn't exactly grow on trees. However it is undeniable that both Shakespeare & Gallagher honed in on, or followed, what 1930s marketting guru, Raymond Loewy, called his primary insight into why people like the things they do. It essentially boils down to the marketing philosophy of "more advanced yet acceptable". "Loewy believed that consumers are torn between two opposing forces: neophilia, a curiosity about new things; and neophobia, a fear of anything too new. "As a result, they gravitate to products that are bold, but instantly comprehensible. Loewy called his grand theory “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable”—maya. He said to sell something surprising, make it familiar; and to sell something familiar, make it surprising."^[4]

Many have re-discovered this truth, several years ago, "Paul Hekkert, a professor of industrial design and psychology at Delft University of Technology, in the Netherlands, received a grant to develop a theory of aesthetics and taste. On the one hand, Hekkert told me, humans seek familiarity, because it makes them feel safe. On the other hand, people are charged by the thrill of a challenge, powered by a pioneer lust. This battle between familiarity and discovery affects us “on every level,” Hekkert says—not just our preferences for pictures and songs, but also our preferences for ideas and even people. “When we started [our research], we didn’t even know about Raymond Loewy’s theory,” Hekkert told me. “It was only later that somebody told us that our conclusions had already been reached by a famous industrial designer, and it was called maya."^[5]

Many questions about popularity and why certain technologies fail to achieve acceptance, likewise can be explained by using this kind of sieve-like classification scheme, pioneered by Loewy. Questions like: Why did the gamecube fail, why is there such opposition to GMOs, or even why isn't my favorite band popular with everyone? Could it be that not everyone has been exposed to the songs you grew up listening to, so what may be semi-familiar to you, is not semi-familar to them? Quite distinctly, but with the same framework of thinking, could it be that the gamecube was a failure for that computer games-console company, as they misapplied the philosophy of; "to sell something familiar make it surprising"? I think this is definitely one way to explain the failure, as the gamecube was as, the name suggests, shaped like a bulky platonic cube, so people instinctively put it in the social pariah category, as it required customers to get over the mental hurdle of the practical realities of how exactly were they going to make the unwieldy shaped cube, fit into the slot where their previous games console resided - the ubitquitous rectangular shelf. For you young-ins reading this, Wall mounted flat-screen TVs were not yet commonplace at the time, so TVs had to sit on big wooden cabinets, cabinets that frequently were designed to store rectangular cuboids, not literal cubes.]

Now all that about consumer products and why band A is liked more than band B, is pretty much on the light-side of applications of this MAYA/familiarity concept. Taking it to a more serious matters: why are so many tribes against vaccination and what can be done about increasing acceptance rates? I wonder, could it be useful to take the persuasion that Loewy/Hekkert discovered, this "MAYA" technique to these misunderstanding tribes? By telling the tribe that: a vaccine is nothing different than an advanced and more permanent version of the protective measure of a snake-handler injecting("ingesting") miniscule amounts of venom, so as to build up a resistant "shield" that would save his life when he inevitably gets bitten by a man-killing snake. I do really wonder, could this be an effective tactic to employ, that would save lives?

Similarly, could it be used to increase the acceptance and popularity of Genetically modified organism? As thru the MAYA lens, one begins to see why certain memes are effective at persuasing others. Such as - "man has been modifying organisms for generations, just look at the number of dog breeds, which trace their origins all the way back to the relatively homogenous looking wolf, GMOs are just a continuation of this human tradition, to manipulate organisms to better suit our society, now we're just making it a science and no longer do we have to wait around for generations of breeding to occur to see the traits we desire".

This is, all well and good, and a nice thing to keep in mind, if you like to play-it-safe and don't want to fall into the trap of becoming the dredded "social-outcast".

But if you want my take on it, I loathe similarity and the more "out-there" a new thing is, the better, because if you think about it, all the great things you see around you started off with people initially shaking their heads at it in disapproval, only for a small group of the smarter public-at-large to then stop, and to really see it thru and realize that in fact, it was a brilliant idea. It is only from really "out-there" things that a monumental revolution can spring, not merely the slow evolution of playing-it-safe that we see around us and we're all so jadedly bored by.

T.rue G.enius undeniably comes from these "out-there" people. Yet our culture has increasingly shunned them, in favor of wanting to live on the slow death that is the self-reflecting, slow-improvement street the Western world now sits with its collective fat-ass. Despite it being obvious that what we desperately need to solve the world's problems is precisely these kind of out-there solutions. This cancer of being cautious in what you allow yourself to imagine, should be firmly picked up and kicked out the door, ejected into the fire, as this lack of imagination is the very problem we see in the economy, in the glacial advancement of science, etc.

True Genius however is always strongly opposed by those with investments in the present system of culture, take the first person to invent fire, or take Einstein's general relativity for example. I don't know how familiar you are with the over-arching public and scientific reaction, but it would be an understatement to say that the latter was not widely accepted, and still has groups that refuse to entertain the possibility that; yes, the cosmos does appear to behave like a 4-dimensional fabric, in which gravitational waves propagate. So you should shudder to think what they did to the first person to reliably ignite a fire(though maybe they were scared to death of that wizard/witch, and made them their god...who knows, I've a hunch though that people didn't instantly accept it).

As Henry Ford, the man primarily responsible for revolutionizing travel into something that is now quick and cheap, famously put it, "don't give people what they want, if I had given people what they wanted, I never would've mass produced the car, I would've been out there trying to sell faster, shinier, horses".

Boundarylayer (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the range of Projector and the Spartacus ref. as I think we need more reliable sources. I hope it is OK with you. Perhaps we could restore our sensible specualtion after the DYK attempt. I have raised this on the talk page. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

No problem, the reference is all we have to go on though, I continued this discussion with you on the talk page, unfortunately you never replied. Hope you're alright! Boundarylayer (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Government of Ireland Act 1914, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ISTB351 (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reference is now provided, please see pg 168, Cork was a centre of considerable industrial capacity in the early 20th century, much as Belfast was^[1] Boundarylayer (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This attack never received much publicity, although it took place in Belfast's city centre and the victims (5 in all) were both Catholic and Protestant. As soon as I find sources I shall create the article. Martin Dillon describes the attack in detail in his book on the Shankill Butchers (they helped carry it out), but only one chapter is currently available on Google Books. Another attack which did receive a lot of publicity when it happened but has since been forgotten was the Benny's Bar bombing by the UDA in Sailortown, Belfast. It took place on Halloween night 1972. Two little girls in costume playing outside near a bonfire were killed in the blast.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You added some text to Firestorm, but did not add the source from which you got it. Most of it was copied from:

• American National Fire Protection Association (2005), Scawthorn, Charles; Eidinger, John M.; Schiff, Anshel J. (eds.), Fire Following Earthquake, Issue 26 of Monograph (American Society of Civil Engineers. Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering), American Society of Civil Engineers Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (illustrated ed.), ASCE Publications, p. 68, ISBN 9780784407394

Please see Wikipedia:Copyright violations which is a legal requirement. I have modified the edit so that it is now a quote and not a breach of copyright.

On a slightly different note. I also cleaned up the citations that you gave. You might like to take a look at how I did it as it is always easier to follow edits to citations one has been involved in creating than just reading the help page Footnotes.

Finally I removed the sentence "This is regardless of what initially..." because I could not find mention of thermal heat from an atomic blast causing a firestorm in the cited material, and even if I had, there is a question of if it would be a WP:SYN to couple it to the quote. -- PBS (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Firestorm/Archive 1#Minimum firestorm requirements -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you did not clean up the reference section at all, you have cited Glasstone and Doland but the authors names are Glasstone and Dolan. Not 'Doland', where did you get that from? secondly, the 2005 book you mentioned(if it contains the same material) has copied Glasstone and Dolan's 1977 book.

I did cite were I sourced the material:

The effects of Nuclear Weapons, as can be found here--> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/effects/eonw_7.pdf#zoom=100 look at pg 24 of the thermal effects chapter. Notice the author's name Dolan' and not 'Doland' as you suggested.

If the 2005 book copies Dolan's book then that's news to me, but don't go around claiming copyright nonsense when I clearly did cite the source, if you had been bothered to actually look at the edit history.

And as for the last point, yes I agree it would be better to go for something like a direct quote as it may cause confusion amongst readers(as evidenced by you), you even went to the extent of reverting what the source essentially says, so yes instead of my succinct Regardless of what initially causes the fires, including the thermal pulse from a Nuclear Weapon

We should go for the direct quote, that says the same thing - "7.61 The incendiary effects of a nuclear explosion do not present any especially characteristic features. In principle, the same overall result, as regards destruction by fire and blast, might be achieved by the use of conventional incendiary and high-explosive bombs. ..."

• Glasstone, Philip J.; Dolan, eds. (1977), ""Chapter VII — Thermal Radiation and Its Effects", The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (Third ed.), United States Department of Defense and the Energy Research and Development Administration, pp. 229, 200, § "Mass Fires" ¶ 7.58 {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Boundarylayer (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With your recent addition to the article Firestorm. You added a citation:

• The Cold War Who won? pg 82 to 88 Chapter 18 http://www.scribd.com/doc/49221078/18-Fire-in-WW-II

As far as I can tell you are citing page 88 but, I could not work out from the link how to see what the :full citation is (publication date) author, isbn etc. Please could you add that information to the article. :-- PBS (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could Philip, I tried searching for the book online with no hits or leads towards what the books ISBN number is, or author. All I know about the book is that it seems to be called The Cold war: Who won? and that Chapter 18 is on scribd and it was published on the 18 Dec 2010.

However all is not lost, The material within the book is well referenced, citing the firebombing reported in Horatio Bond’s famous book Fire in the Air War National Fire Protection Association,1946, p. 125 [Why didn’t Berlin suffer a mass fire?]

The table on pg 88 of Cold War: Who Won? was sourced from the same 1946 book by Horatio Bond Fire in the Air War pg 87 and 598. Fire in the Air War is for sale from amazon, and on my wish list, included is it's ASIN number. http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Air-War-Horatio-Bond/dp/B000I30O32 ASIN: B000I30O32

I'm also wondering Philip, do you consider Modern cities likely to Firestorm in a Nuclear Warfare scenario?

Personally, from what I've read, including Lynn Eden's 'Whole World on Fire', Mass fires would likely result but the vast majority of modern cities would not be expected to Firestorm, which is a whole different animal, sadly Eden appears to consider the two to be one and the same. An example being that she writes Nagasaki formed into a firestorm on pg 20 of her book, but supplies no reference for that, she really stands alone with that opinion, and if she considers the fire at Nagasaki to be a firestorm then the fires at Kassel in WWII/ the Bombing of Kassel in World War II and many other large mass fire conflagrations must then also be considered a firestorm under her definition.

The fact that Nagasaki didn't form a firestorm is well referenced. Quotation from THE ATOMIC BOMBINGS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI by The Manhattan Engineer District, June 29, 1946.

The conflagration in Hiroshima caused high winds to spring up as air was drawn in toward the center of the burning area, creating a "fire storm". The wind velocity in the city had been less than 5 miles per hour before the bombing, but the fire-wind attained a velocity of 30-40 miles per hour. These great winds restricted the perimeter of the fire but greatly added to the damage of the conflagration within the perimeter and caused the deaths of many persons who might otherwise have escaped. In Nagasaki, very severe damage was caused by fires, but no extensive "fire storm" engulfed the city. In both cities, some of the fires close to X were no doubt started by the ignition of highly combustible material such as paper, straw, and dry cloth, upon the instantaneous radiation of heat from the nuclear explosion. The presence of large amounts of unburnt combustible materials near X, however, indicated that even though the heat of the blast was very intense, its duration was insufficient to raise the temperature of many materials to the kindling point except in cases where conditions were ideal. The majority of the fires were of secondary origin starting from the usual electrical short-circuits, broken gas lines, overturned stoves, open fires, charcoal braziers, lamps, etc., following collapse or serious damage from the direct blast. http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/hiroshim/hiro_med.html

Also in Exploratory analysis of Firestorms: pg 34 Nagasaki did not produce a fire storm. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0616638

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Anti-nuclear movement with this edit. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you, -— Isarra (HG) ༆ 16:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given your strongly pro-nuclear POV and many false accusations about others, I am prompted to ask: Are you a sock of User:Grundle2600? Johnfos (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of that User before Johnfos, are they Irish too? furthermore I am insulted that you would suggest I am Pro-Nuclear, I cite everything I write and seek only to present the truth. Furthermore, where have I made 'false accusations about others'?

Listen, I understand you have been following me around on Wikipedia challenging many of my edits, including in relation to the Anti-nuclear movement and recently regarding Sovacool's Life cycle CO2 emission from Nuclear power ->

Nuclear Power

low-carbon power

Benjamin K. Sovacool

Climate change mitigation

You inserted 'Not in citation given' tages with respect to the 2012 Yale university reference I provided, so I sent you an explanation presenting that indeed both statements I made are in the citation, that 'nearly by a factor of three' is correct, as Sovacool cites 288 g CO2 per kWh, and the Yale Universty cites max of 110 g CO2 per kWh. However I have noticed you just completely removed the explanation I posted to you, on your talk page, on the 24th of August, may I ask, why did you do that?

Again, I request for you to remove those tags.

Finally, could you please desist in harassing me? It seems you have enough on your plate with your reincarnation research Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Thanks.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. --John (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John, I'm starting to notice a trend wereby the user Johnfos reports me to you simply because he disagrees with my referenced edits.

I have attempted to ask for outside help with this matter, requesting the user Rama to moderate- User_talk:Rama#Request_for_assistance_with_Anti-nuclear_movement

Please, take a look at the situation from our perspective for a moment, and you will see that my edits are well referenced, I understand from Johnfos's point of view they may appear distruptive as they do not follow his ideology, however I all I have tried to do is present the facts and level the bias in many of the articles here on wikipedia.

Hope you understand,

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 12:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your reply. Nobody "reported" you in this instance; I noticed you making quite a few edits which seemed to contravene WP:NPOV. I strongly suggest enlisting the help of other editors in article talk before making potentially controversial edits in future. --John (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted John, I'll do that more often, however I would like to make you aware that I am being harassed by the user Johnfos, they even attempted to erroneously report me as a sock, which is detailed below.

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I am your sock puppet.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boundarylayer

PeterWesco (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are they serious? how low will this anti-science zealot Johnfos go? Thankfully they realized we are seperate users, furthermore I object to the assertion that I'm anti environment. Just look at the edit history of Bromomethane, I recently added the alternatives sections.

Can you please move your agreement down to the move section:

Talk:Mountaintop_removal_mining#Requested_move — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWesco (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although like I explained earlier, I think that Coal MTM should be stopped as the available evidence suggests that the human impacts of the process are unacceptable.

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having noticed you removed my reply to you via your talk page a number of days ago, I've taken it upon myself to put my post here.

Like you I am becoming increasingly aware that wikipedia has become a soapbox for many environmental groups, who attempt to overblow the environmental impacts of many human endeavours, including Supersonic Transport. However in terms of Coal use, I tend to agree with the peer reviewed conclusions on the issue. Coal use kills more people and pollutes the environment far more than all other human enterprises combined. That is not to say that the article wasn't a POV piece pushed by the likes of the usual suspects, which clearly it was, and I commend your efforts in attempting to set it straight.

However although I am aware of Carbon capture and remediation technology, these have yet to be fielded on a large scale, and if they are fielded, I imagine that the price attached to them will make Coal uneconomical in comparison to other sources of energy.

So although I agree with your efforts in principle, that is, to present the facts and not the environmental weasal words, scare mongering and half truths popular amongst the likes of the the usual suspects. On the other hand, from what I've read, No matter which way you look at it Coal use is destroying a lot of ecosystems, and most importantly endangering human health, and for that reason I do not support it.

For example,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110623090001.htm

'The researchers, led by Melissa Ahern, health economist and associate professor in WSU's College of Pharmacy, found 235 birth defects per 10,000 births where mountaintop mining is most common in four central Appalachian states. That's nearly twice the rate of 144 defects per 10,000 in non-mining areas.'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101006085228.htm

coal-fired power plants are the leading source of mercury air emissions globally

Best wishes,

Boundarylayer (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot use YouTube and the like as sources. See WP:RS regarding policy on what can be used. --John (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, are you referring to -

During a 2010 lecture at the Univserity of Missouri, which was broadcast by C-Span, Dr. Mueller has also argued that the threat from nuclear weapons, including that from terrorists, has been exceedingly overexaggerated, both in the popular media, and by officials.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lbbZ3oF-xA Book TV: John Mueller, "Atomic Obsession"

Because I can replace it with the following http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/AtomicO

I'll do that right now. Boundarylayer (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit better. We do prefer secondary sources where possible. I have copy-edited your additions to conform with WP:NPOV. Good effort. --John (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man, I'm lucky that it was available, just trying to make the encyclopedia more representative of the expert opinion on the matter, have a good one!

Boundarylayer (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a collaborative project and edits like the one you made here are not acceptable. Here is why. I had laboriously corrected errors you made in your previous edit and your edit highlighted restored these. These errors include, but are probably not limited to:

• We only capitalise proper nouns and the starts of sentences. Words like "nuclear", "coal", and "gas" are not therefore capitalised, unless of course they start a sentence.
• The possessive form of the pronoun "it" is "its", and not "it's". Misusing the apostrophe this way is ugly and shows ignorance of basic English usage. Restoring the error with a hostile edit summary shows you are not here to work collaboratively, and that is a shame.
• We endeavour to write in a neutral manner here. This necessitates avoiding many of the words and constructions you seem to use as a matter of habit. We are specifically not allowed to "balance" one point-of-view with an opposing one, which is something you seem to want to do. Instead it is better to rewrite entirely in a way which is neutral. This I have not seen you do, or even try to do.

I have tried to engage with you and to help you to understand our norms; by trashing my work you hve indicated that you do not value my efforts. This makes me sad. I will therefore take no further part in working with you; in the interests of openness though, I will tell you that I will continue to monitor your edits. The next time I see you editing tendentiously or combatively, I will inform another administrator and ask for a block to be placed on your editing privilege. I know it is a steep learning curve to understand how we work here, but even a new user like you has to show a willingness to learn. I suggest that if you wish to avoid some sort of negative consequences, you will wish to alter the whole way you are editing. The next step is entirely up to you. Best regards, --John (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of Boundarylayer it seems that the caps were inadvertently added because they were in links. The way links work, is that the first letter can be upper or lower case, only the rest of it is case sensitive, but it is important to be careful to see the affect on the paragraph by inserting caps where they do not belong. So I do think the above is a bit harshly worded. Delphi234 (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John, my sincere apologies if you feel that I have destroyed your work, I thought we were working well together? Yesterday was some good team work I thought. Sadly, you don't feel the same way.

I'll look at the edit history of a few of the articles I editted yesterday and try to see what you mean and correct them.

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having just got back from work, I have taken a look at the edit in question - here upon doing so, I recognized instantly what you were trying to say, but honestly you got the wrong end of the stick.

It's my fault entirely, you see, I work out of notepad and copy paste directly from it into wikipedia. The order of edits that have led up to the misunderstanding were:

I made my first edit(with all the incorrect capitalizations) then unbeknownst to me, you helpfully fixed my over-capitalization etc, but then I found a new piece of information to be added(the International Court of Justice section) and blissfully unaware of your helpful intermediate edit, I added it to my over capitalizated notepad version and proceeded to copy it directly into wikipedia again(completely nulling all your work). I didn't think anything of it at the time, but having now recognized you went to the bother of trying to help me out, and removed the over capitalizations, I completely understand your frustration.

And in regard to my reason for editing, or edit summary, the second time I wrote - Injected some facts, double standard noted and reduced the bias.

That wasn't aimed at you, but at the article itself, the double standard of the article before my 1st edit was in respect to plastering the massive insurance cost of insuring against Chernobyl class events onto the page, but neglecting to make readers aware that this isn't uncommon to Nuclear plants as the insurance cost necessary to similarly insure every hydroelectric plant against Banqiao dam class failures would also be astronomical. After my 2nd edit(were I was blissfully unaware of your helpful hand) I was describing the double standard of the page in respect to not mentioning the insurance cost from fossil fuel use and rising sea levels. Hence the 'reduced the bias' and the 'injected some facts'.

The edit summary wasn't aimed at you at all man, my sincerest apologies for how it looked, I can understand it from your shoes.

Honestly, my mistake, but you completely got the wrong end of the stick, it was one big misunderstanding.

hope we can put this behind use. Boundarylayer (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate the apology. I do think that you need to rein in your strong opinions as per WP:NPOV. Your editing has a hint of WP:GREATWRONGS about it and that is best avoided. --John (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying about WP:GREATWRONGS but upon reading it, it appears that it is only a problem when the edit goes unreferenced, as I take pride in citing everything I write, if my references aren't good enough, just let me know. In respect to our previous misunderstanding, I'm confident that we can put it behind us?Boundarylayer (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is much more complicated than that Boundrylayer. I can write an article about someone and have it be nothing be negative material, all true, all sourced, but it still wouldn't be neutral. You can do with with any politician, for example. Wikipedia requires articles are not biased for or against, but rather we simply publish facts of all relevant sides, presented neutrally. This means, written in a tone that someone would write it if they didn't care one way or another about nuclear power. If you have strong feelings about nuclear power, pro or con, that makes it much more difficult, and maybe impossible. I've been here 6 years and have worked on thousands of articles, but there are some areas I can't work because I know I can't be neutral enough: I have too many opinions about them. So, I avoid them, or at most, will drop ideas on the talk page of the article and allow others who are not emotionally invested to add the material. If your goal is simply to get the material into the article, that would be a problem as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a general purpose website, and as such, there is a vetting and editorial process that requires neutrality. If you feel you can't be completely unbiased about a topic, sticking to the talk page is the way you keep out of trouble with POV edits. References are only part of the solution, balance is just as important. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input Dennis, to be honest, I don't have strong feelings about nuclear power, I do however have strong feelings about the endemic level of misinformation spread about it. If you could take a look at the High-level radioactive waste management talk page for a moment, you can see that is exactly what I'm trying to fix, published only a few hours before your message to me I have requested a collabortive effort to rewrite the utterly backward lede.

It is this seeming blind eye given to all this misinformation on wikipedia that worries me, and as it goes utterly unchallenged, with no 'POV' tags even attached I have to shake my head in disbelief. It is the fact this material has been sitting here so long on an encyclopedia that so shocks me, and spurs me on to right these obvious WP:GREATWRONGS, if I come off as un-neutral when doing this, then I can see nothing else to blame but the editorial process and apparent 'vetting' you say is supposed to catch these unsupported claims.

Not to be contrarian, but you say you publish facts, yet in the example above - High-level radioactive waste management - Where are the referenced facts in the lede that support the opening paragraphs, namely that the isotopes mentioned are 'High-level'? There is not a single sentence in the references that support that claim, and as I bring up on the talk page (with references), the lede couldn't be much more wrong as all the isotopes mentioned are in fact classified as 'Low-Level'.

Boundarylayer (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not qualified to determine the balance in nuclear articles, I'm just an admin that looks to preserve the peace. From my own experience as an editor, let me offer you this. When I'm trying to add info to give an article balance, and it gets reversed due to bias (yes, it has happened to me, more than once) I take it to the talk page, in the spirit of WP:BRD. If you just keep reverting, you shoot yourself in the foot and people will think you are being a POV warrior. If you politely address the edits on the talk page, and do so in a calm manner, then you have the chance to inform or educate others as to why the addition is needed. What you will find is often they will have ideas, perhaps taking part of your addition, rewording it or putting it in a different place, which will solve the problem. Or maybe they have a good reason why it shouldn't be there and you learn something. In general, the calmest people seem the most rational, and are the most persuasive here, just like in the real world. This isn't the fastest way to build an encyclopedia or fix problems, but our goal isn't speed, it is accuracy, and sometimes that means discussing, teaching each other, compromising. It should be done in a collegiate manner, which means a little deliberation and discussion if there is any controversy in the edits. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but WP:BRD is the most effective way to fix articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, I've just been exacerbated by the sheer level of misinformation being pushed out there. I've dutifully taken your advice on board and hope you have taken note that I haven't attempted to edit the High-level radioactive waste management page at all, my only input has been on the talk page.

Boundarylayer (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comments on Mojo-chan editing. What you saw is consistent with what I've seen on a different article. In another series of edits, on a completely different topic, he/she heavily changed material, without being knowledgeable about it. He/she even came up with rationale about some of the comments, that turned out to be unscientific at best. I think he/she means well, but his attempts are misguided. He/she thinks he knows, but in reality doesn't know about the subject.--Gciriani (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, they appear to not even have a high school level of scientific knowledge. Could I ask, what other topics have they disgraced?

Honestly, I was beginning to lose hope in wikipedia, your message has lifted my spirits by reminding me, I am not alone.

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was Electrical muscle stimulation. You can see that in the talk page there was quite a heated discussion beteween him/her and me, at one time. Eventually more knowledgeable editor started contributing. So do not be discouraged, and persist :-) --Gciriani (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lucky that, I know some people who are working on applying EMS to prevent muscle and bone loss from occurring in astronauts in free fall/'low gravity', its getting funding from the European space agency.

http://newsletter.enterprise-ireland.com/1dizr14imgu16wqwz8efc7?a=6&p=20093535&t=19885095

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/item/24575-astronauts-stay-fit-in-spac

update this year - http://www.ucd.ie/ucdtoday/2012/04APR/01-A-stimulating-experience-at-zero-gravity/index.html

The technique was also looked at by the Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory -

AIAA PAPER 90-3135

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910014388_1991014388.pdf

S ee page 46 to 47. EMS was studied to create more life like training flight simulators.

the paper discussed above is here, but is closed access.

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1990-3135

The US air force in 2008 also looked at EMS to increase blood pressure(and therefore prevent black outs) in pilots who run the risk of passing out under combat maneuvers/G-LOC environments.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a535870.pdf

This would be worthy of addition, no?

Boundarylayer (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit saying that the CND symbol was previously used by the 3rd Panzer Division of the Bundeswehr.The source you give does not refer to the Bundeswehr but to the Wehrmacht. If you trace back the claim that the CND symbol was used by the Wehrmacht, you will find that it comes from Theodor Hartmann's Wehrmacht Divisional Signs (London: Almark Publishing Co., 1970). Hartmann includes a drawing of what he says is a sign of the 3rd Panzer Division but no photo and no source. Hartmann is unknown apart from this book. For all these reasons he is an unreliable source. All other sources depend on Hartmann.

There is a photo showing the vehicle marking on the right, posted on Axis History Forum. The poster says it belonged to the 3rd Panzer Division; another poster says it was the 4th Panzer Division. Either way, it is easy to see how in 1970 it might have reminded Hartmann of the CND symbol and how he might have altered it for his book, either intentionally or unintentionally. Marshall46 (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is original research. Marshall46 (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your POV, but it really isn't OR.

have a look at any one of these references.

http://www.granddistraction.com/the-peace-symbol/

&

http://www.crossroad.to/Books/symbols1.html#peace

&

http://www.vikingrune.com/2009/07/norse-runic-third-reich-symbols/

&

Runic insignia of the Schutzstaffel

&

Beside the 'IN' here on a Panzer 3 nazi tank model-

http://www.panzerworld.net/pictures/00166.jpg

Therefore, contrary to your POV, it isn't original research at all.

The symbol does indeed have an ancient and diverse history, I honestly find it bewildering why you are trying to censor this information. Please revert your censoring.

Thanks.

Boundarylayer (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The symbol does indeed have ancient uses attached to it, with many references to that fact, from Viking runes to represent death*, to Nazis to the present CND use. You may argue that the Viking runes are not the CND symbol due to the fact they lack the circle. Granted, that's spliting hairs, but I can partly understand that. However it does appear that the symbol, with the circle included, was also used by the Nazis.

• see the Death rune here - Algiz and read the 'German Mysticism' section.

& again see here- Runic insignia of the Schutzstaffel

See here - http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/24/247.html

& for the circle included, see here- From the University of milwaukee.

http://web.archive.org/web/19991104132643/http://www.csd.uwm.edu/~jpipes/heer4p.html

&

4th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)

&

http://www.feldgrau.com/PzDiv.php?ID=4

Presently the Campaign for nuclear disarmament article makes no mention to the fact that the CND resembles that of the Death Rune of the Vikings, nor does it make any mention to the fact the CND symbol is exactly the same as the 4th Panzer Division. This is a very strange omission.

This is no conspiracy, just a mere coincidence. it's not an 'exceptional claim' at all Marshall.

Boundarylayer (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nuclear power, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fukushima disaster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--John (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling an edit libel is considered a legal threat on Wikipedia, as it is an attempt to stifle or bully the editorial process with legal menace. — Coren ^(talk) 13:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is even more trivial than the "legal menace"; just say "oops, I didn't know that rule and won't do it again, and I certainly intend no legal action." --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've received a message from an obvious DUCK Boundarylayerlives on my userpage if an admin wants to tag that. Where did the blocking admin seek to clarify the issue before blocking as mentioned at WP:NLT to make certain it was an actual legal threat? Considering Johns very strong criticism of Boundarylayers editing [1] etc, the block should never have been made by him. He is clearly involved. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am obviously Boundarylayer and wouldn't use this account if I was able to reply without it.

I was a bit bewildered at the initial ban and so I had to look through my edits to see where I had made the legal threats, having found what I think is the offending section. I think it a bit extreme but would obviously re-word False and libel to simply false and misleading if given the opportunity to do so.

As jpgordon mentioned I didn't know the rule against using the word libel, and I didn't intend, nor do I intend, any legal action.

Thanks jpgordon!

I think this was one big misunderstanding, but if Dennis Brown Unblocked me in a few weeks for making legal threats that'd be cool, I suppose I should be happy enough with that, as long as it isn't indefinite?

Boundarylayerlives (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the admins here are probably in the US, so you might have to wait a few hours for a reply. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• BoundaryLayer, Note Dennis Brown's reply: Stop using other accounts like Boundarylayerlives and wait a week [2]. Using other accounts is considered ban evasion. Even though Boundarylayer is blocked, you can still use it on this page to talk. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I wasn't aware that I could still edit my talk page with my original username while it was blocked, thanks for the heads up!

I'll wait a week no problem.

See you both on the 5th of November?

Boundarylayer (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boundarylayer for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Pelarmian (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked the latest puppet. I understand that you don't understand the policies here, and trying to cut you a little slack, but you can only edit using the original account (as was pointed out above) and only here. Lets let this set a bit and I will be happy to review the case in week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I wasn't aware that I could still edit my talk page with my original username while it was blocked.

I'll wait a week no problem.

See you on the 5th of November.

Boundarylayer (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Boundarylayer's original infraction was serious, and he does appear genuinely not to understand Wikipedia policies, but before his block is lifted I think he ought to acknowledge his mistakes. Pelarmian (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He already did. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unblocking you because it's obvious you understand now that calling good-faith edits libellous can make other editors believe you intend on suing them for libel, the blocking admin has become inactive, you understand that Wikipedia does not allow the use of sockpuppets, and the block is (was) currently set to never expire. Good luck editing, and my talk page is available if you have questions! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll remove the word libel from the edit that caused all this now. As I've said, I would have removed the word previously if I had known there was such a strong rule against. Water under the bridge and all that, regardless, thank you for your time and help!

Boundarylayer (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be unaware that slander is actionable in law, and therefore to accuse somebody of slander, as you do on my talk page, is to make a legal threat. You have been blocked for this before and I suggest that in future you consider more carefully what you write. Pelarmian (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making legal threats. The word slanderous has been changed to malicious. Thanks for the heads up, this time!

Boundarylayer (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...to offer you a tip. You seem to bump up against the "no legal threats" issue a lot. Any language that is designed to "chill" the conversation, ie: make people feel like there is a legal consideration so they should not talk or edit, that is going to be considered a legal threat. You will do better to focus on the merits of edits, on the policy issues, and less on your interpretation of what is slander/libel/illegal. If you find yourself wanting to comment on the legal status of an edit or comment, in any way, don't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries man! though to make everything clear, I have only used the words 'libel' and 'slanderous' in their defined non-lawsuit capacity. I've never attempted to chill the conversation with legal speak, or commented on the legal status of an edit.

I've been using the synonyms 'insulting' and 'malicious' now that I know it is taboo to use 'libel' and 'slander', in an attempt to lay to rest the idea that I've been issuing legal threats or trying to chill people with legal speak.

Boundarylayer (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B, thx for your collaboration.

Cf. your "By the why your google document is not available to be viewed, I was prompted with a message to request approval." I fell asleep right before I could press the public to all button :) It's open now. Thx for pointing it to me. So you can delete the remark now. Another line that gets deleted is always welcome I assume. Lots of your lines that need to be taken up in the article ... good luck ! :) --SvenAERTS (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B, just got an email from this wikibot that notifies me when something/somebody wrote something on my talk page. All these possibilities still amaze me. But coming to the point. I just clicked on the versions button of the page on nuclear power. It's been edited a lot since my edits. Otherwhise try to catch me on skype:svenaerts and let's use it's share screen functionality. That will make things go a lot faster. I've noticed your clashes with this Mojo person.--SvenAERTS (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

just received a message notifying me of your edit in my user page regarding skype. I'm still learning how developing a discussion works using these talk buttons. Shit now that topic below this one is not showing, just this topic is showing when editing/typing this paragraph. It referred to a request to solve a conflict. Don't know how the wikipedia bot detected and signalled it to you. Isn't that the way to go forward? --SvenAERTS (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding Mojo, if that's true wat you're writing, well the only thing is if you have references to the claims in what you're writing ... then it's ok. This is a "boring" encyclopedia. Just gathering facts and explanations based on facts will do too I guess. You can count upon me if you need a judge. PS I'm a judge at the Environmental Court of Brussels :) --SvenAERTS (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Great, how's Ireland doing? :) or do I want that answer considering we are over 80% dependent on fossil fuel imports. I digress, could you judge this for me- I initially added the following Berkeley paper. http://pb-ahtr.nuc.berkeley.edu/papers/05-001-A_Material_input.pdf that compares 1990 Wind and 1970 Nuclear plants on a steel and concrete usage basis, per unit of energy delivered. This was ridiculed as irrelevent, however Wind power(including modern/ next generation 2030 turbines) will still use more concrete and steel than Nuclear power. The reference below USGS augments and supports the argument of the earlier 1990 Wind turbine & nuclear plant Berkeley study.

According to the United States Geological Survey modern wind turbine towers - contain large quantities of steel and concrete, with current and next generation, that is Circa -2030- wind turbines not appreciably changing this fact, with 139.9 metric tons of steel and Iron required per MW(of nameplate) wind power installed in 2011 turbines, and 123 metric tons of steel and Iron in next generation, 2030 turbines.

• http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5036/sir2011-5036.pdf Wind Energy in the United States and Materials Required for the Land-Based Wind Turbine Industry From 2010 Through 2030. Page 11 and table on pg 12.

With this 120+ metric tons of steel and Iron per MW being nameplate 2030 wind turbines, and therefore not actual power generation, one must apply the correcting calculation for the low capacity factor of the power source being used, as was corrected for in the prior University of California Berkeley study that cites 460 metric tons/MWe(ave) of steel being required for a 1990 Wind system when corrected for capacity factor.

Use the formula on the page below(as the Berkeley professor used) and you arrive at almost the same figures for even the 2030 wind turbines. If you'd like to double check for your own piece of mind. I did not include that corrected value in the article for the very reason as that would be considered Original research.

• http://pb-ahtr.nuc.berkeley.edu/papers/05-001-A_Material_input.pdf see page 5, note the capacity factor correction value which is absent from the USGS materials required for wind turbine data. Therefore 1990 wind turbines steel per MW usage cannot be perfectly compared with 2030 wind turbines steel per MW usage until Winds capacity factor is corrected for. Which is ~30%

Nevertheless even without correcting for capacity factor, in comparison the quantity of steel for nuclear is 40 metric tons (MT) per MWe(ave) being required for a 1970’s vintage nuclear power plant, and this is to say nothing of modern Generation III reactor and future Generation IV reactor designs which are following a trend of using less concrete and steel than older generation reactors.

This wind agency further backs up the USGS data. A wind turbine with a tower of 50-120 meters in height requires 100-200 metric tons of steel, with the hub and nacelle requiring 7-20 metric tons of Iron, and the drivetrain 15-25 metric tons of steel

• http://www.awea.org/issues/supply_chain/upload/supplier-handbook.pdf page 17 to 27.

Boundarylayer (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution.

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! ~~Ebe123~~ → report 15:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only know about pottery kilns, nothing about glass or smelting. You might be able to do glass work in a pottery kiln, which usually fires to 1300 deg. C., but I don't know about smelting. There's no need to get a new kiln. You can probably find one on ebay. Pelarmian (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check out ebay so. Have you done much pottery glazing? I was looking for an electrical or forced air wood heated kiln/furnace but all the electrical kilns I've encountered appear to all max out at 1287 C, I'll really need ~1700 C at the minimum.

I have up to now just being making do with rigged up David Gingery charcoal furnaces for metal casting and copper smelting. However I wish to transistion up and out to Iron, & Platinum smelting and glass and pottery work. Have you worked with Kaolinite/Mullite crucibles before? As they sound like a nice cheap alternative to Silicon carbide and other expensive refractories.

For example most of what is on email are the following kilns that are limited to ~1287 C. http://www.paragonweb.com/

These don't even have a maximume tolerated temperature listing- http://aimkiln.com/aimcrucible1411c.htm and these aren't suitable, and gas fired. http://www.wesman.com/products/combustion-systems/wesman-burners.html

Boundarylayer (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glazes rarely go above 1300 - very exceptionally some porcelains are glazed nearer to 1400. At 1700 clay melts. 19:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I hear you man, I've watched many a Seger cone slump over and end up as a pool! But I don't need that temp for the clay glazing, I need it for smelting! :-D That is why I would like if there were an electrical temperature controlled resistance heated - all in one triple use kiln/furnance available. I've got Seger cones and a hand held pyrometer but it's quite a balancing act with those.

Boundarylayer (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea to keep one discussion in one place. Please put your comments in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Talk page on not on my Talk page. And please sign your contributions. Pelarmian (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because you get very quickly an overview of what's going on in the region/city. You meet for sure all the rich and powerful and their projects that all get either objections from the neighbors, either they want some derogation, either they want to ditch a fine from the environmental police in my case. And it runs like a little fire one has been appointed and all of a sudden people that despised you have to change their attitudes. Finally, one can also explain things in ones own words and mine are known to be in very plain language and e.g. lastly I've been able to transfer a lot of my technical knowledge on gsm's and radiation. Here in Brussels we have recently imposed a max of 1,5 V/m per gsm operator and since there's 4 operating in Brussels, the max total is 3 V/m. With that I think we've got the most stringent legislation in Europe and possibly in the world. This results in potential spots with no cover, which leads to unrest with the mobile phone operators as they have a legal obligation to cover the whole territory. The operators find them between a rock and a hard place: a population that wants service and nimby. I suggested an opening in that nobody obliged complaining users that can't use their mobile phone to buy mobile phones without an external antenna. Remarkable how there was no knowledge on the relation of antenna's and gain. That's nice to see one can help both technically and legally. I think it will be picked up: smart judge there, he even understands the technical side. What is frustrating is how the legal texts are published and that the legal dpt's from the universities don't enter into an endeavor to make things more readable, searchable, understandable with schemes and all. I think it possible to make it into flow-charts. Wikipedia and collaborative working is unknown apparently in these ivory towers. The pay is however small compared to what I'm used, so as soon as there's another large project ... they'll miss me. --SvenAERTS (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did my thesis at the VITO-SCK•CEN - Study Centre for Nuclear Energy. I got the privilege to meet some of the retired / independent consultants of the first hour of nuclear technology. At these days they lived days of euphoria, really believing they were working on giving a great gift to humanity: unlimited near to free of charge energy. Many annex research projects were part of one and the same big research, e.g. what to do with all that energy ... heating of greenhouses e.g. etc. Really "green" people... until the nuclear missile part came in, one couldn't be sure if what was said was the truth of part of a spionage-counter-spionage plan. Many of the nowaday greens should remember this. It's not fair demonizing a priori someone or a group. I'm all in favor of clear speech and collaboration in getting facts on the table and use scientific facts and debate to get closer to the best solutions.--SvenAERTS (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the demonizing of nuclear energy because of its potential use to make nuclear weapons. I find that those who often demonize nuclear energy are simply not aware that nuclear technology in the form of research reactors produce the majority of the worlds medical isotopes, isotopes that save millions of lives each year, every year. Radiopharmaceuticals for example are produced in research reactors. Similarly, weapons grade material is produced in production reactors and not in power reactors which are the reactor design that dominate the worlds electricity supply, so it is rather misleading to suggest nuclear weapon proliferation will increase if civil nuclear power reactor numbers increase, just as it would be misleading to suggest radiopharmaceutical costs would diminish and life saving medicines would be more available if power reactor numbers increased.

Furthermore, nuclear peace is a real and quantitative effect of nuclear weapons, there is no stronger explanation for why we have entered into this time period of long peace and such comparatively low levels of war deaths. Beginning with the introduction of nuclear weapons, a downward trend in war deaths has occurred since 1945, a trend that was on the increase from 1500 until 1945. It is for this reason that many contend that we should give the nuclear bomb the Nobel peace prize.http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929553,00.html

http://jcr.sagepub.com/content/53/2/258.short journal of conflict resolution. Do nuclear weapons produce stability? It found they do.

http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/uploads/Rauchhaus_Evaluating_the_Nuclear_Peace.pdf The full paper above, published by the author.

Steven Pinker wrote a considerable amount on the reduction of war deaths since 1945, here is a video of a lecture he presented, start at the 20 minute mark to get to the point, although he argues it was a multitude of factors that have reduced the number of war deaths, his graphs of deaths from 1500 to 1945 give you a sense of the long peace we are in right now. - http://talkminer.com/viewtalk.jsp?videoid=_gGf7fXM3jQ&q=#.UQ2lm2d9UYQ

Boundarylayer (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a simple enough compromise between developed and developing nations over CO2 emissions, something fair and rational such as - once your nations quality of life reaches X value, you have to start adhering to the 6000+ dollars of GDP per ton of CO2 legal requirement. Presently the EU for example(where pretty much everyone has a high quality of life) would cut its CO2 emissions by more than half if every country in the EU followed the Swiss and French electricity models of using high amounts of Hydro power(when available) and nuclear power in an economical low-carbon power manner, the technology is ready to go today. There is no point waiting around listening to all the greenwashing from the Wind and Solar industries while meanwhile Germany is all talk about cutting CO2 but really is building more coal burning power plants.

Rich nations must lead by example, Germany, by building more fossil fuel plants, has made a complete mockery of the kyoto protocol. To a point that if I were from India or China I would tell you where to shove your tax too. You can't blame them, so I don't blame developing countries, I blame developed countries who have the financial flexibility to drastically cut CO2 emissions, but choose instead to increase them

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24434&#.URTV_GdhpZw It is a crime against humanity to convert agricultural productive soil into soil which produces food stuff that will be burned into biofuel.”

Mr. Ziegler argued that biofuels will only lead to further hunger in a world where an estimated 854 million people – 1 out of 6 – already suffer from the scourge; 100,000 people die from hunger or its immediate consequences every day; and every five seconds, a child dies from hunger.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7065061.stm Boundarylayer (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the OECD factbook 2011-2012, worldwide, Iceland(85.6%) and Brazil(45.8%) exploit the greatest proportion of renewable energy to supply their total energy requirements(including electricity and other energy needs) with the world average percentage at 13.1%. Other countries in the OECD with a high total energy supply from renewable sources are - New Zealand(38.6%), Norway(37.3%), Sweden(32.7%),Austria(26%) Portugal(24%), Finland(24.9%), Chile(22.7%), Switzerland(18.8%), Denmark(18.8%), Canada(16.5%) and Estonia(14.4%).^[1]

Worldwide, other non-OECD nations with a higher percentage of renewable energy representing their total energy needs, than in comparison to the average from OECD countries(7.6%), are - Brazil(45.8%), Indonesia(34.4%), India(26.1%) and China(11.9%).^[2][3]

For all OECD countries taken as a whole, the contribution of renewables to total energy supply increased from 4.8% in 1971 to 7.6% in 2010,* In general the contribution of renewables to the energy supply in non-OECD countries is higher than in OECD countries.^[4] With the world average percentage of total energy supplied from renewable energy at 13.1%(including OECD countries and non-OECD countries) in 2010. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/deliver/fulltext/3011041ec051.pdf OECD Factbook 2011-2012: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics. PDF indicator.

• that is a tiny increase.

The United Nations classifies a particular subset of presently operating nuclear fission technologies as renewable. Reactors that produce more fissile fuel than they consume - breeder reactors and, eventually, nuclear fusion, are classified within the same category as conventional renewable energy sources, such as solar and falling water.^[5]

Information on nuclear power should be in this article. It should include the fact most reactors aren't sustainable beyond a few hundred years right now, but fast reactors are.

Presently only 1 major reactor technology operating can be consider sustainable, essentially forever, the BN-600, but Phénix also demonstrated a greater than one breeding ratio and operated for ~30 years.

Therefore Nuclear power can be sustainable, as sustainable as Geothermal energy.

Geothermal energy is classified as a conventional renewable energy source here, however it consumes radioactive decay heat in the ground, with the geothermal electricity page confirming that all geothermal power plants have reduced their output after their peak. Therefore it is illogical for it to be classified as renewable whereas man made breeder reactor nuclear power is classified as non renewable(by some sources). Indeed that is one of the many reasons why pages such as Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy exists. As Stanford Professor Navid Chowdhury pointed out - The IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency), decision that it will not support nuclear energy programs because its a long, complicated process, it produces waste and is relatively risky, proves that their decision has nothing to do with having a sustainable supply of fuel. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/chowdhury2/

Both the Phénix reactor of the 1970s and the presently operating BN-600 are successful breeder reactors. Nuclear power has been demonstrated to be sustainable, and there is enough U-238 to run in breeder reactors for hundreds of thousands of years according to the OECD (references on the Nuclear power page). So nuclear power is just as 'renewable' as geothermal energy which as that article points out, also runs on nuclear processes - nuclear decay and is technically also 'finite' on astronomical timescales so to is breeder reactor technology.

The problem is 'synthetic fuel' is too broad a term, as it predominately means the manufacturing of liquid fuels from coal and fossil gas. As renewable fuels should mean that they are carbon neutral fuels, this completely excludes classifying geothermal power plant produced synthetic fuel as renewable fuel*.

Now of course, the basic chemistry behind making synthetic fuel(e.g the Sabatier reaction) is indifferent to where the carbon and hydrogen building blocks of the fuel come from, the synthetic liquid fuel producing Fischer-Tropsch process can be piped up to any hydrogen and carbon dioxide source to run on. Such as piped up to a landfill gas/'biogas' plant and the synthetic fuel produced would naturally be classified as a renewable fuel source. Another renewable source of synthetic fuel can be found when the chemical process is piped up to many other sources of carbon and hydrogen, such as sea water which contains both carbon dioxide and hydrogen, and just like the biogas to synthetic fuel route, it too needs to be coupled with a power source to provides the heat and electricity to do the chemistry magic to manufacture renewable synthetic fuels. Clearly therefore, only these two scenarios should be regarded as cases of 'renewable fuel'.

This difference should be clearly explained to readers, otherwise unscrupulous fossil fuel(e.g coal) to liquid, and non-renewable CO2 to liquid advocates will start pulling the wool over peoples eyes. For example the CO2 produced by the geothermal plant at Carbon Recycling International comes from CO2 that is not renewable*, and it results in a net increase in the CO2 in the biosphere*, it is CO2 that, (like a less extreme case of coal to liquid,) would otherwise be sent up an exhaust chimney. Sure, this is therefore CO2 that gets recycled before eventually finding its way into the atmosphere, but it is by no means 'renewable' as it results in a net increase in the CO2 inventory of the biosphere. So Renewable_energy#Carbon_neutral_and_negative_fuels should be changed to reflect this fact.

Only synthetic fuels produced with carbon sourced from the carbon dioxide inventory already in the biosphere should be classified as renewable synthetic fuel, that includes Carbon from wood, landfill gas, and Carbon extracted from sea water, all of which are truly renewable CO2 sources. For example, Dimethyl ether is presently being produced from wood byproducts derived from paper manufacture, and the US navy are preparing to start manufacturing synthetic fuel derived from sea water via the Fischer-Tropsch Process by using their ubiquitous heat source on their supercarriers - nuclear reactors.

• CO2 from geothermal power plants, a paper presented for the international geothermal conference. - www.jardhitafelag.is/media/PDF/S12Paper103.pdf Note Figure 2 that clearly displays CO2 emissions from geothermal zones increase once a power plant begins to exploit the zone. Therefore classifying any synthetic fuel produced by geothermal plants as 'renewable synthetic fuel' is clearly incorrect as it is a net polluter of CO2.

Personally, we should strive to get away from carbonaceous fuels altogether, that is, including a move away from biomass for human health and environmental reasons e.g particulate matter inhalation, and instead for economic reasons, wherever feasible we should move towards electric cars,(reluctantly hybrids) and a reliance on more electric trains(e.g the TGV) and for heating homes - district heating and heat pumps are systems already in operation, and therefore already environmentally friendly and economical. The use of biomass, and renewable synthetic fuel should be only for supplying people and devices in remote areas, such as heating isolated homes and fueling aircraft respectively.

In the US the goal to increase the percentage of U.S. solid waste that is recycled from 52 percent in 2008 to 62 percent by 2012 was achieved. The US's nuclear plants also had a goal to reduce by 25 percent the amount of low-level radioactive waste (Class B and C) they generated by 2012, compared to the 2002 through 2006 average of 1,552 cubic feet. In 2011, the US power plant fleet exceeded both of these goals.

http://www.duke-energy.com/environment/reports/environmental-health-and-safety-metrics.asp - a power generation company

903 cubic feet of nuclear waste in 2011 is equal to ~25,000 liters, which is the volume of an Olympic sized swimming pool, divided by 100. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/JeffreyGilbert.shtml

Technical options for the advanced liquid metal reactor. By United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Worth a read. available online.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chemistry

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-04/uranium-rebound-seen-as-japan-considers-nuclear-energy-markets.html

Technical options for the advanced liquid metal reactor. the - IFR By United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. available online.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=Lr0sPxjBD2MC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=breeding+ratio+of+generation+III+0.6&source=bl&ots=7TZbugNMw1&sig=hJCQiehlHXztK-Dvs-m9vlb9rZ4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=S_IUUZPYHsPMhAeSmoHYCQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=breeding%20ratio%20of%20generation%20III%200.6&f=false

page 15.

http://goneri.nuc.berkeley.edu/tokyo/2008-12-11_Peterson.pdf liquid salt advanced high temp reactor design.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash: Abundance, Forms, and Environmental Significance

http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/SciAm-Dec05.pdf http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf ^[6] Fast neutron reactor refs.http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf98.html

Any fast reactors with low enrichment fuel running on lead coolant?

Future of the industry- http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2059252

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/are_fast-breeder_reactors_a_nuclear_power_panacea/2557/

Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia: Science, Technology, and Applications, Volume 1 stats on fast reacors. http://books.google.ie/books?id=rVe9y4JKecsC&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=breeding+ratio+of+lwr&source=bl&ots=hsxRz-qDHs&sig=Ay7CxZyZ8HbG3w6hJoJr7UTBZqY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GPcUUfSrHouKhQeXkoGYCw&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=breeding%20ratio%20of%20lwr&f=false typical pwr brreding ration 0.72.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fasbre.html#c4 Such a fbr reactor can produce about 20% more fuel than it consumes by the breeding reaction. Enough excess fuel is produced over about 20 years to fuel another such reactor. Optimum breeding allows about 75% of the energy of the natural uranium to be used compared to 1% in the standard light water reactor .

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html For comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.

Dirty bomb or radiological dispersal devices would not be fatal.

Since a dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths, many do not consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction.^[7] Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological, not physical, harm through ignorance, mass panic, and terror.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/reports/1986/3445605662565.pdf properties of spent fuel. http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/library/power_line/detail/06/

http://www.cns-snc.ca/publications Donald R. Wiles, The Chemistry of Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal, Polytechnic International Press, 2002 In The Chemistry of Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Nuclear_Plant h2 production. http://httr.jaea.go.jp/eng/index.html high temp reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATd6MbiPtCI Hydrogen fuel production -https://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2005/preliminaryprogram/session_1591.htm JET FUEL on carriers nuclear - http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/U.S.-Navy-Investigates-Making-Jet-Fuel-from-Seawater.html http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/18/1180151/-Seawater-electricity-jet-fuel http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/#more-6020

Nuclear Tanker Producing Liquid Fuels From Air and Water: Applicable Technology for Land-Based Future Production of Commercial Liquid Fuel - http://canes.mit.edu/node/196

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_West_Reactor_%28OWR%29 look at that cherenkov! Spacecraft parts - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_wheel

LNT and cosmic silence low background chamber for testing mice 2012 WIPP. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjp%2Fi2012-12037-7

All of the fission products produced by thorium molten salt Reactors will decay to benign levels of the radioactive natural background within 350 years. The majority (83%) of fission products of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors decay to the benign levels of the radioactive natural background in 10 years. All of the remaining 17% of fission products decay to natural background levels in 350 years[Le Brun, C., “Impact of the MSBR concept technology on long-lived radio-toxicity and proliferation resistance”, Technical Meeting on Fissile Material Management Strategies for Sustainable Nuclear Energy, Vienna 2005 .]- probably IAEA symposium

THORIUM proliferation. https://www.fas.org/blogs/sciencewonk/2012/08/back-to-thorium-the-thorium-cycle-and-non-proliferation/

http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/pdf/9_1kang.pdf U-233 bred from common thorium ore mostly Th-232 is more hazardous to personnel than reactor bred Pu-239 from U-238. Therefore thermal neutron thorium reactors are more proliferation resistant than U-238 based breeders. The U-233 generated is contaminated with U-232 page 10

U-232 can also be produced by two successive single neutron captures starting with naturally-occurring Th-230. Thorium-230 is a decay product of U-234, which is in turn a decay product ofU-238, is in secular equilibrium at a concentration of about 17 ppm in natural uranium. Minimizing U-232 production therefore requires naturally thorium that is minimally contaminated with Th-230 from intermixed or nearby natural uranium. In the calculations described below, we have assumed zero Th-230 contamination and have tested the sensitivity of the results to a contamination level of 1 ppm. page 14 and see page 11 for thorium 230 to U-232 decay path

Recently, there has also been a revival of interest in thorium in the U.S. and Western Europe because it can be used to increase the achievable burnups in light-water-reactors operating on a once-through fuel cycle and also reduce the quantity of weapons-usable transuranic elements in radioactive waste.14 Five successive neutron captures are required before Np-237 is produced from Th-232 whereas a single neutron capture on U-238 produces Pu- 239 (see Figure 6).15 Proposals have therefore been brought forward for lightwater- reactor designs in which thorium largely replaces U-238.

For LWRs with feasible target replacement schedules (on the order of ten times the frequency for maximum driver-fuel burnup) the concentration of U- 232 will be above 100 ppm. At such contamination levels, remote production operations would be required to produce fuel or weapons on a large scale without incurring large occupational doses. However, it could still be feasible for a highly motivated group to make a few nuclear weapons with this material without remote processing facilities. The U-232 contamination level in U-233 would reach about 2000 ppm in thorium LMFBR core fuel in equilibrium recycle. pg 20-21

On the one hand, gamma radiation from U-232 makes the U-233 from high burnup U-233-thorium fuel cycles more of a radiation hazard than plutonium. On the other hand, because of its low rate of spontaneous-neutron emission, U-233 can, unlike plutonium, be used in simple “gun-type” fission-weapon designs without significant danger of the yield being reduced by premature initiation of the fission chain reaction. page 23 In the case of the molten-salt U-233 breeder reactor, it was proposed to have continual chemical processing of a stream of liquid fuel. Such an arrangement also offers a way to completely bypass the U-232 contamination problem because 27-day half-life Pa- 233 could be separated out before it decays into U-233. [29] The designers of the molten-salt breeder reactor planned to do this so as not to lose Pa-233 to neutron capture before it decays into fissile U-233. In any case, no fuel cycle involving the separation and recycle of U-233 would approach the proliferation resistance of unreprocessed spent fuel from which the radiation dose rate is on the order of one thousand rem per hour at one meter for decades after discharge.

ORIGEN2 (ORIGEN 2.1: “Isotope Generation and Depletion Code Matrix Exponential Method,” [Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Radiation Safety Information Computational Center, August 1996]). MCNP is a monte carlo nuclear power code that follows each neutron emitting until it hits a nucleus.

6. International Atomic Energy Agency, “The Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities,” INFCIRC/225/Rev.4 (http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/program/ protection/index.html). Vomiting would begin within a few hours and a short-term dose of ionizing radiation could be lethal at a whole-body dose of 200 rems. Lethality within 10 days would be virtually certain above 1000 rems (The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, 3rd edition, Samuel Glasstone and Philip J. Dolan, eds [US Departments of Defense and Energy, 1977], Table 12.108).

24. Examples of average neutron-flux levels in the different reactors (in units of 1014 neutrons cm-2 sec-1 ) are: CANDU: 2.35, PWR: 3.25, and LMFBR core ((Th,U)O2): 40.1 and radial blanket (ThO2): 5.1. (A.G. Croff and M.A. Bjerke, “Once-Through CANDU Reactor Models for the ORIGEN2 Computer Code”

25. The U-232 and U-233 concentrations include respectively the U-232 precursor, Pa- 232 (1.3 day half-life), and the U-233 precursor, Pa-233 (27 day half-life). Adding 1 ppm Th-230 to pure Th-232 increases the U-232/U-233 ratios compared to those without Th-230 by 0.04%, 3.5%, 3.3%, and 0.00% respectively, for thorium mixed with HWR natural-uranium fuel, a thorium target in a HWR core, thorium mixed with LEU fuel in a PWR, and thorium in the radial blanket of an LMFBR. In the case of the thorium target and blanket elements, we have assumed residence times in the reactor equal to those of the driver fuels.

31. A Study on the Direct Use of Spent PWR Fuel in CANDU Reactors: Fuel Management and Safety Analysis,” (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, KAERI/RR- 1345/93, 1994). DUPIC

http://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?00796025.pdf safeguards with the use of DUPIC.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ubMg0-uvR9wJ:www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41032.pdf+&hl=en&gl=ie&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiCp_w-GFgRWydo_YwTX09OipGV8UuCEd_CfjgJluqQBGvHysGpylsvVpcvPE1Oky7V7wNjYwq9kwHZKuTgsu5-OBwvaHEVcdeGlT7GrKTUvwvWJe-8xHxicPWPo1HWS5maEy8L&sig=AHIEtbRVUiOMyJ4nZM5fch5jrM90lV_mJg Price of the korean reactors in UAE and their own costs for their opr-1000 and APR-1400 - U.S. and South Korean Cooperation in the World Nuclear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons non-proliferation signaturies almost every country. so no prolif concerns.

Beznau Nuclear Power Plant - Connected to a district heating system which supplies hot water to industries and households. It also contains the oldest operating nuclear power plant in the world, built in 1969. It's defense in depth- 'notstand' system is above and beyond what the safety regulation requires, but the plant operators built it anyway.

Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant - survived the largest earthquake and tsunami humanity has ever experienced, safely shutting down without incident. 'notstand' systems are therefore unnecessary for reactors designed in the 70-80s.

CANDU's for being able to burn up LWR 'nuclear waste'/spent nuclear fuel and being able to run on natural uranium rather than enriched uranium. A major non-proliferation goal, as no enrichment facilities are needed. Although the 'waste' burning capability really is what makes it worthy of addition.

BN-600 Russian Fast breeder reactor. Breeds more fuel than it consumes and its diminutive descendant the BN-350 provided a desalination system producing fresh water.

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station - 3 reactors, the only reactors not near a large body of water, instead the installation's cooling is provided by evaporating water from a sewage treatment plant.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant In February 2009, Calvert Cliffs set a world record for pressurized water reactors (PWRs) by operating for almost two years, 692 days, non-stop.^[8] In addition, Unit 2's capacity factor in 2008 was a world-record high of 101.37 percent.^[9]

HTTR Japanese High temperature test reactor that reached criticality in 1999, it is helium cooled and its outlet temperature loop reaches 850 C and is thus being used to produce Hydrogen via the Sulfur-iodine cycle.

Closed reactors that have served as test beds to future proposed designs.

Experimental Breeder Reactor I - Dec 20th 1951: 1.4 MWth first electricity-generating nuclear power plant when it produced sufficient electricity to illuminate four 200-watt light bulbs, it also proved the Breeder concept.

Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant -(not at all one of the best, but one of the first) June 26th 1954, 5MWe, forerunner to the poorly designed RBMK, the first 'civil' nuclear reactor to supply electricity to a power grid.

Calder Hall -(not at all one of the best, but one of the first) 27th August 1956, 50MWe x 4 Magnox reactors, the first nuclear power station to deliver power in commercial quantities.

Fort St. Vrain Generating Station The design of which serves as the basis for the DOE's Next Generation Nuclear Plant(NGNP), a High temperature gas reactor, with the GT-MHR aka the EM-2 and finally the 'Antares reactor' chosen by the DOE, being its direct successor- to be built for the NGNP by ~2020. Antares - http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Areva_modular_reactor_selected_for_NGNP_development-1502124.html

Aircraft Reactor Experiment - Pioneered molten salt cooling, was BeO moderated. Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment - Serves the basis for the LFTR thorium reactor to be built by 2030 in the US and the Chinese racing ahead with building a LFTR by no later than 2025 due to their higher dedication to the technology.

Experimental Breeder Reactor II - serves as the basis for the Integral Fast Reactor and the descendant S-PRISM

Criteria: http://www.skirsch.com/politics/ifr/DOEnuclearstudy.pdf

The Integral Fast Reactor, termed the Na metal pyro in the paper is number 1 over all, this is probably going to be built soon with the S-PRISM being its closest descendant. I'm also partial to the LFTR which I don't see as being all that competitive unless it has a high temperature output in the form of a Very high temperature reactor. In terms of the current crop of reactors, the AP1000 and Korean standardized designs( OPR-1000 and APR-1400) are probably thy most economical of designs being built as of 2013. The APR-1400 almost finished in Shin Kori S.Korea derives part of its heritage from the System 80+. This IAEA document outlines its RCS and other safety critical parts & this congressional document from pg 5 onwards, also deals with S.Korea's ambitious NPP build goals(similar to France's in the 1980s) S. Korea also has expressed a desire to reprocess, but the USA has denied them that right due to proliferation concerns pg 10+. READ In the congressional document above it describes how the The APR1400 was sold to the United Arab Emirates for $5 Billion per reactor in a 4 reactor deal. This works out as $3,571/MW, whereas in S.Korea it is reported the price per reactor is $3.15 Billion. With the cost difference between the two countries primarily due to the the lack of indigenous experience with nuclear engineering and construction in the UAE, in comparison to the mature experience in S.Korea.

Economics- issues with the under construction EPR is that it has so many active safety features(4 redundant systems) it is no wonder it is having cost over runs. To be fair though it is only beginning to be rolled out, and its economies may improve with mass production. The passive safe AP1000 and the many S.Korean designs being built in the United Arab Emirates have much better economics. The above paper concluded the Next gen CANDU design had the best economics in $/kWe.

Of note, is that the EPR will use 17% less uranium than current operating LWR's in a quantity per unit of electricity delivered, kg/kWe metric. page 126 - 3 Rs of Nuclear Power: Reading, Recycling, and Reprocessing Making a Better ...
By Jan Forsythe

Moreover. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf116_processheat.html The economics of NPPs will be substantially increased once Nuclear Process Heat for Industry becomes more mainstream**, fresh water producing desalination nuclear power plants(such as the already operating BN-600, and especially hydrogen production via the economical high temperature electrolysis process and the even more economical high temperature thermochemical(sulfur-iodine cycle). H2 production is needed in ammonia synthesis, hydrogenation of crude oils, and (attractive from an energy independence and climate change point of view) - synthetic fuel synthesis-(which will probably be fielded by the US carrier fleet first).

Reactor output temperatures need to be a minimum of 750C with 900 C being the most economical, rivaling natural gas produced Hydrogen according to the sources in the world-nuclear page.

• • http://www.ngnpalliance.org/

As for existing plants, the Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program is making existing reactors in the USA more economical than initially suggested on a $/kWe metric. Capital and operating costs per unit energy, which can be reduced by enabling power uprates and lifetime extension for existing NPPs and by increasing the rated powers and lifetimes of new Generation III+ NPPs; http://energy.gov/articles/modeling-and-simulation-nuclear-reactors-hub

This is important as all the ~5000$/kWe figures you see thrown around for new NPPs are assuming a 40-60 year life span. When really the new crop of reactors will have a ~80 year life span. As older Gen II reactors in the USA are being extended to a 60 year life span as we speak, it is not a stretch to suggest that new Gen III reactors will live for 80 years.

Safety, - Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant showed that 1980 reactor tech is pretty much safe enough even under assault by nature's most destructive earthquakes, mag 9. However small modular reactors due to there small reactor size are much easier to cool passively and much less prone to accidents in a LOCA due to the radius of the core being smaller, and therefore more coolant likely to be in contact with it. http://www.idrc.info/userfiles/image/presentations2008/Burgherr_Peter_Comparative_Risk_Assessment_of_Severe_Accidents_in_the_Energy_Sector.pdf Paul scherrer institute Nuclear power is already the safest form of power- page 16, & 17 - note curiously that the graph that includes latent deaths of nuclear does likewise not include Coal, Oil, gas or hydro latent deaths.- if it did have a graph of all latent, and a combine acute and latents deaths/GWe graph nuclear power would be shown in an even more favorable light.

Waste- The closest to construction mass waste burning/spent fuel burning design is the Gas turbine modular helium reactor (now known as the Energy Multiplier Module) with the S-PRISM probably a close second, many other designs will achieve this too, called closing the nuclear fuel cycle. The advanced CANDU reactors already do an ok job of waste burning. There will always be fission products that need storing, but the technology is available to store these and in some cases trans-mutate these into lesser hazards. The real waste concern isn't the radioactivity of the waste, but the unnecessarily high volume wastage of 95% of the initial fuel. After reducing the volume with this, the waste concerns lie with the transuranics Pu-239 etc., which could possibly be a target for nefarious persons after the Cs-137 in the spent fuel has decayed away (~300-600 years) etc. Some geological disposal of wastes (e.g Cs-137) will not only be economical but responsible. Efforts should be made to trans-mutate waste as much as possible, such as Tc-99. As for I-129 it's not even proper dangerous in my book, half life of millions of years, low energy beta particle emitted etc.

Sustainability - long term (centuries plus) waste burners(getting energy out of the ~97% of the uranium not burnt in once through Gen II LWRs. Breeders fast and thermal, and once through LWR thorium reactors.

Proliferation resistance(in situ reprocessing or preferably, eliminating reprocessing altogether). The Proliferation risk really lies largely in waste disposal and off site reprocessing plants, and not in hypothetical Hollywood scenarios were terrorists must seize control of a reactor for the required days-months timescales to extract enough Pu-239 or U-233, and then successfully fly off with weapons usable material. They would fail within hours, as their element of surprise would be totally lost. So no, proliferation concerns are over hyped. What is not over hyped is the need to burn the present spent fuel/waste down to eliminate the transuranics(potentially weapons usable), after that the waste issue is over-hyped too as the volumes of waste is manageable. Moreover the gas industry inject their NORM waste [(naturally occurring radioactive material) brought up from the ground during gas extraction] right back into the ground and no one(rightly) bats an eye.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=VemjbZfvry8C&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=ipsr+reactor&source=bl&ots=V1PFSRsu1R&sig=CgG_HefLR9mWJqTjHtCLKjUIMoE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=C5gvUdSXA5GThgft44DQAw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=ipsr%20reactor&f=false International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies 43rd Session By R. Ragaini

Page 114 onwards discusses safety and waste burning designs, including their historic lineage.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=LZ7zBwWLyLEC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=ipsr+reactor&source=bl&ots=RjrcdZBH5t&sig=CFdyY4mBX774oMKN2D-Z2OAiZKk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=C5gvUdSXA5GThgft44DQAw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=ipsr%20reactor&f=false 3 Rs of Nuclear Power: Reading, Recycling, and Reprocessing Making a Better ... By Jan Forsythe 120ish onwards.

As for the acronyms in the original paper above. the IPSR/ Integral primary system reactor is NOT the IFR. the IRSR is pretty much an integral PWR, which is a cost and safety design improvement in the IRIS International Reactor Innovative and Secure, and the B&W mPower babcock and wilcox small modular reactor recently approved in Tennessee as a competitor to gas fired power stations*, all of these designs have the whole cooling loop inside the pressure vessel, and not in a separate building.- Although personally I can see any issues with the turbine being much more maintenance intensive to fix than they currently are, as issues with turbines would necessitate opening the entire pressure vessel itself to fix a turbine issue- lets hope they have low maintenance turbines as standard.

As for the PMR(prismatic modular reactor) I believe this most closely related to the DoE's Next Generation Nuclear Plant which upon searching leads me back to two reactors the GT-MHR(which has prismatic elements) but more likely it is reference to the DoE's chosen 2012 NGNP the prismatic steam-cycle high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (SC-HTGR). http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Areva_modular_reactor_selected_for_NGNP_development-1502124.html.

As for PBR pebble bed reactors, favorably reviewed in the first above link, in the world nuclear news link - Capital costs for a plant with an installed capacity of 2400-3000 MWt would be some 30% less using 625 MWt prismatic reactor modules than with 250 MWt pebble bed modules.

• http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/business/tva-and-babcock-wilcox-in-nuclear-reactor-deal.html?_r=0

As a side note, worth a read - Behavior of nuclear fuel during a reactor accident

insert these see also's everywhere. -

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/288/5469/1177 A Nuclear Solution to Climate Change? http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/energy/Readings/nuclear_solution_climate.pdf

   William C. Sailor*,    David Bodansky,    Chaim Braun,    Steve Fetter,    Bob van der Zwaan 

W. C. Sailor, D. Bodansky, C. Braun, S. Fetter, B. van der Zwaan, Science 288 , 1177 (2000).

As of 2011, the share of renewables in electricity generation is around 19%, with 16% of global electricity being produced by hydro power and 3% from new renewables.^[10]

Much of the global economical hydro power potential was, as of 2012, already exploited,^[11] This is including the 27 nation European Union, were most of the favorable hydro power sites have already been exploited, and due to environmental concerns, it is unlikely that the EU-27 could see more expansion.</ref>http://setis.ec.europa.eu/newsroom-items-folder/hydropower-generation Much of the activity in this sector in Europe will focus on the refurbishment of an overall ageing hydro power park, while a modest exploitation of unused potential, mainly in Austria, Romania, the Iberian Peninsula and France can be expected.Table 4.2 gives the estimated values of hydropower generation in GWhand in terms of the share in the gross electricity generation for theEU Member States for 2010 and indicates the expected evolution for 2020and 2030 [European Commission, 2009]. Hydropower generation in theEU-27 was 323 TWh in 2010, accounting for 9.8 % of gross electricity generation and around 60 % of electricity generation from renewables.The economic potential is estimated to be around 470 TWh/y. Annual generation is expected to increase modestly up to 341 TWh/y in 2020 andup to 358 TWh/y in 2030. Nevertheless, in terms of the share in thegross electricity generation, and due to increasing electricity demand,a share decrease to 9.2 % in 2020 and further down to 8.8 % in 2030 is expected. This estimation is based on the fact that the most favourable sites are already being exploited across the EU-27, while due to environmental restrictions, it’s unlikely that Europe could see much more expansion.

New hydro projects have continued to cause the displacement of populations, for example on the scale of the 1.3 to 1.5 million people were displaced to make way for the Three Gorges Dam.^[12][13]

In 2009, climate scientist Mark Z. Jacobson and colleagues published a plan to power 100% of the world's energy with wind, hydroelectric, and solar power by the year 2030, in the plan they suggested that the plan depends more on politics and social acceptance rather than on cost or other technical issues.^[14][15] The authors estimate the cost of the system, over twenty years, might be on the order of USD 100 trillion(not including transmission wire costs),^[16] with wind farms occupying 1 percent of the earth's land, and the non-rooftop photovoltaics and concentrated solar power plants occupying about 0.33 percent of the earth's land.^[17]

In 2013, author and environmental scientist Vaclav Smil has also expressed skepticism of the proposals to depend primarily on wind and solar generated energy, and in his analysis he has instead determined that only with the use of all low carbon power sources might there be a realistic ability to mitigate climate change. In his analysis of the Wind and Solar dominated world energy plan he identified intermittent supply, relatively low efficiency, the cost and complexity of conversion and growing community opposition to the industrialized footprint of solar installations and Wind farms as all the negative factors preventing the plan from being considered probable.^[18][19]

Presently some countries, with favorable geography, geology and weather well suited to an economical exploitation of renewable energy sources, get most of their electricity from renewables, including from geothermal energy in Iceland (100 percent), and Hydroelectric power in Brazil (85 percent), Austria (62 percent), New Zealand (65 percent), and Sweden (54 percent).^[20] With Sweden's energy and climate policies being determined to be the second most sustainable in the world, in a 2011 report by the World Energy Council, entitled Policies for the future: 2011 Assessment of country energy and climate policies, which ranked country performance according to an energy sustainability index.^[21] The best performing nations were Switzerland, Sweden and France.

Renewable power generators are spread across many countries, with wind power providing a significant share of electricity in some regional areas: for example, 14 percent in the U.S. state of Iowa, 40 percent in the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein, and 25 to 30 percent in Denmark.

Increased use of biofuels (such as ethanol fuel and biodiesel that can be used in today's diesel and gasoline engines) could also reduce emissions if produced environmentally efficiently, especially in conjunction with regular hybrids and plug-in hybrids. For electric vehicles, the reduction of carbon emissions will improve further if the way the required electricity is generated is from low-carbon power.

France, which produces approximately 80% of its electricity from nuclear power has been called "a success story" that has put the nation "ahead of the world" in providing cheap, CO₂-'free' energy.^[22]

In terms of large industrialized nations, mainland France has the lowest carbon dioxide production per unit of GDP in the world.^[23] (include references I have below)

As all electricity generating thermal power plants produce 'waste heat', including nuclear power plants, NPP's also have the potential to use this waste energy to supply steam and hot water to industries and households, and therefore offset the use of carbonaceous fuels which otherwise, are usually burnt to heat water. Electricity generating nuclear power plants have, as of 2013, routinely supplied industrial and residential buildings with hot water, via heat exchangers, in what is termed a district heating system,^[24] although due to the fact that electricity is also being generated at the power plants, it is more accurately termed a nuclear Combined Heat and Power(CHP) system.

Presently in Switzerland, about 2,400 users (20,000 persons) in general housing, apartment houses, factories, and farms utilize the electricity and district heating generated by the Beznau Nuclear Power Plant. In the steam supply to factories using the Swiss Gösgen Nuclear Power Plant, the saving of 15,000 tons/year of fossil fuel oil has been realized with the power plant supplying steam to local industries, including one paper factory.^[25] Both of these Swiss district heating projects started based on experiences in the oil crisis in the 1970's.^[26] A plan for utilizing a Nuclear CHP Cogeneration system in Finland, in place of the currently operating fossil fuel system, was estimated to have the potential to reduce the country of Finland’s annual carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 6%, or by up to 4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.^[27] Heat was recycled and used in CHP systems in six nuclear power stations in five countries during 2003: Switzerland (Beznau and Gösgen), Bulgaria (Kozloduy VVERs), Lithuania(Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant), Slovak republic (Bohunice VVER-440s), and Hungary (Paks Nuclear Power Plant).^[28]

Nuclear power plants can also use the waste heat, generated in the process of making electricity, to Desalinate water. Although presently shut down, the BN-350 fast reactor on the Caspian sea produced 120,000 m³ fresh water/day from sea water over a period of twenty years, 1973 to 1993.^[29] Interest in nuclear desalination is driven by the expanding global demand for fresh water and by concern about GHG emissions and pollutions from fossil fuels.^[30][31]

Due to France's low greenhouse gas emitting nuclear power dominated electricity grid, the total carbon dioxide emissions from a plug-in electric car recharged by the French electricity grid is approximately 12g per kilometer travelled.^[32] This compares more favorably than the emissions emitted from one of the most successful hybrid cars, the Toyota Prius, which produces carbon dioxide emissions at the higher rate of 105g per kilometer travelled.^[33]

Numerous studies and assessments (e.g., by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),^[37] International Atomic Energy Agency,^[38] and International Energy Agency^[39] have stated that as part of the portfolio of low-carbon energy technologies, nuclear power will continue to play a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the United States government, without nuclear power plants the United States would release nearly 700 million metric tons more carbon dioxide annually, with greenhouse gas emissions becoming 28 percent greater in the electricity industry. That's approximately the same amount of carbon dioxide now produced annually by all of the automobiles in the United States.^[40][41]

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama stated, "Nuclear power represents more than 70% of our noncarbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option." ^[42]

Whoever added this in good faith does not appear to be aware that just because you use the carbon in coal stack CO2 emissions twice doesn't mean you really help the environment much at all. Synthetic fuels only make sense from a climate point of view if you get the CO2 from seawater or (less efficiently) the air, in every other respect however that the editor was right on the money, I have resurrected what they wrote in this regard, all if it makes economical, sustainable and climatic sense. This is what they wrote.-

The carbonic acid in seawater is in chemical equilibrium with atmospheric carbon dioxide. The United States Navy has done extensive work studying and scaling up the extraction of carbon from seawater.^[43][44] Work at the Palo Alto Research Center has improved substantially on the Navy processes, resulting in carbon extraction from seawater for about $50 per ton.^[45] Carbon capture from ambient air is very much more costly, at between $600 and $1000 per ton. At present that is considered an impractical cost for fuel synthesis or carbon sequestration.^[46][47]

Commercial fuel synthesis companies suggest they can produce fuel for less than petroleum fuels when oil costs more than $55 per barrel.^[48] The US Navy estimates that shipboard production of jet fuel from nuclear power would cost about $6 per gallon. While that was about twice the petroleum fuel cost in 2010, it is expected to be much less than the market price in less than five years if recent trends continue. Moreover, since the delivery of fuel to a carrier battle group costs about $8 per gallon, shipboard production is already much less expensive.^[49] The Navy's estimate that 100 megawatts can produce 41,000 gallons of fuel per day indicates that terrestrial production from nuclear power would cost less than $1 per gallon.^[50]

Check that last ref, as it's slow to load.

Also discuss the sulfur-iodine cycle, there is a fair bit on world nuclear's site IIRC. However you'll need stronger refs than those guys provide.

Renewable energy- 'synthetic fuel' is too broad a term as it predominately means the manufacturing of liquid fuels from coal and fossil gas. As renewable fuels are also carbon neutral fuels, this completely excludes classifying geothermal power plant produced synthetic fuel as renewable fuel*. Now of course, the basic chemistry behind making synthetic fuel(e.g the Sabatier reaction) is indifferent to where the carbon and hydrogen building blocks of the fuel come from, the synthetic liquid fuel producing Fischer-Tropsch process can be piped up to any hydrogen and carbon dioxide source to run on. Such as piped up to a landfill gas/'biogas' plant and the synthetic fuel produced would naturally be classified as a renewable fuel source. Another renewable source of synthetic fuel can be found when the chemical process is piped up to many other sources of carbon and hydrogen, such as sea water which contains both carbon dioxide and hydrogen, and just like the biogas to synthetic fuel route, it too needs to be coupled with a power source to provides the heat and electricity to do the chemistry magic to manufacture renewable synthetic fuels. Clearly therefore, only these two scenarios should be regarded as cases of 'renewable fuel'.

This difference should be clearly explained to readers, otherwise unscrupulous fossil fuel(e.g coal) to liquid, and non-renewable CO2 to liquid advocates will start pulling the wool over peoples eyes. For example the CO2 produced by the geothermal plant at Carbon Recycling International comes from CO2 that is not renewable*, and it results in a net increase in the CO2 in the biosphere*, it is CO2 that, (like a less extreme case of coal to liquid,) would otherwise be sent up an exhaust chimney. Sure, this is therefore CO2 that gets recycled before eventually finding its way into the atmosphere, but it is by no means 'renewable' as it results in a net increase in the CO2 inventory of the biosphere. So Renewable_energy#Carbon_neutral_and_negative_fuels should be changed to reflect this fact.

Only synthetic fuels produced with carbon sourced from the inventory already in the biosphere should be classified as renewable synthetic fuel, that includes Carbon from wood, landfill gas, and Carbon extracted from sea water, all of which are truly renewable CO2 sources. For example, Dimethyl ether is presently being produced from wood byproducts derived from paper manufacture, and the US navy are preparing to start manufacturing synthetic fuel derived from sea water via the Fischer-Tropsch Process by using their ubiquitous heat source on their supercarriers - nuclear reactors.

• CO2 from geothermal power plants, a paper presented for the international geothermal conference. - www.jardhitafelag.is/media/PDF/S12Paper103.pdf Note Figure 2 that clearly displays CO2 emissions from geothermal zones increase once a power plant begins to exploit the zone. Therefore classifying any synthetic fuel produced by geothermal plants as 'renewable synthetic fuel' is clearly incorrect as it is a net polluter of CO2.

Personally, we should strive to get away from carbonaceous fuels altogether, that is, including a move away from biomass for human health and environmental reasons e.g particulate matter inhalation, and instead for economic reasons, wherever feasible we should move towards electric cars,(reluctantly hybrids) and a reliance on more electric trains(e.g the TGV) and for heating homes - district heating and heat pumps are systems already in operation, and therefore already environmentally friendly and economical. The use of biomass, and renewable synthetic fuel should be only for supplying people and devices in remote areas, such as heating isolated homes and fueling aircraft respectively.

Boundarylayer (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc7rRPrA7rg&feature=youtu.be

LOCA accident on future fusion reactors, negligible release, include Co-60 and W-187 isotopes that dominate. ARIES-ST safety design and analysis. http://aries.ucsd.edu/LIB/REPORT/ARIES-ST/FINAL/ast-6-safety.pdf

http://www.afs.enea.it/dipacel/Eudora%20Backup/copied%20from%20Mac%2015-7-2008/Spool%20Folder/481002814/ukaea-fus-539.pdf dose rates of 2-20 mSv/h, typical of plasma facing components after intermediate storage for up to 100 years. page 8. Consideration of strategies, industry experience, processes and time scales for the recycling of fusion irradiated material.

http://dspace.cc.tut.fi/dpub/handle/123456789/20930 page 22. Development of Remote Handling Pipe Jointing Tools for ITER

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/ Fusion-Fission hybrid.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/01/20/fear-of-radiation-its-all-in-the-noise/

Integrated Molecular Analysis Indicates Undetectable Change in DNA Damage in Mice after Continuous Irradiation at ~ 400-fold Natural Background Radiation - 5 week chronic low dose study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3440074/pdf/ehp.1104294.pdf

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/radiation_effects_did_nobel_prize_winner_hermann_muller_lie-82835 Muller lied.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/53939/radiation-exposure

The Price-Anderson Act, the world's first comprehensive nuclear liability law, has been central to addressing the question of liability for nuclear accidents since 1957. It is renewed every ten years or so, with strong bipartisan support, and requires individual operators to be responsible for two layers of insurance cover: #The first layer is where each nuclear site is required to purchase US$ 300 million coverage from private insurers. #The second layer, if required, is jointly provided by all US reactor operators: this layer is funded through retrospective payments of up to US$ 96 million per reactor, collected in annual instalments of US$ 15 million and adjusted for inflation. Combined, the total provision comes to over US$ 10 billion paid for by the utilities (the United States Department of Energy provides US$ 9.5 billion for its own nuclear activities). Beyond this coverage, and irrespective of fault, the United States Congress, as insurer of last resort, must decide how compensation is provided in the event claims exceed the covered US$ 10 billion. In 2005, the Act was renewed again by the US Congress as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Include the fact that the hydroelectric sector is likewise insured by the government as a last resort, in case of a major accident.

Design and construction of nuclear explosives based on normal reactor-grade plutonium is difficult and unreliable, but was demonstrated in 1962 from plutonium from Magnox reactors.^[51]

Much popular concern about possible weapons proliferation arises from considering the fissile materials themselves. For instance, in relation to the plutonium contained in spent fuel discharged each year from the world's commercial nuclear power reactors, it is correctly but misleadingly asserted that "only a few kilograms of plutonium are required to make a bomb". Furthermore, no nation is without enough indigenous uranium to construct a few weapons (however, that uranium would have to be enriched).

Plutonium is a substance of varying properties depending on its source. It consists of several different isotopes, including Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-240, and Pu-241. All of these are plutonium but not all are fissile – only Pu-239 and Pu-241 can undergo fission in a normal reactor. Plutonium-239 by itself is an excellent nuclear fuel. It has also been used extensively for nuclear weapons because it has a relatively low spontaneous fission rate and a low critical mass. Consequently plutonium-239, with only a few percent of the other isotopes present, is often called "weapons-grade" plutonium. This was used in the Nagasaki bomb in 1945 and in many other nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, "reactor-grade" plutonium as routinely produced in all commercial nuclear power reactors, and which may be separated by reprocessing the spent fuel from them, is not the same thing at all. It contains a large proportion – up to 40% – of the heavier plutonium isotopes, especially Pu-240, due to it having remained in the reactor for a relatively long time. This is not a particular problem for re-use of the plutonium in mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for reactors, but it seriously affects the suitability of the material for nuclear weapons. Due to spontaneous fission of Pu-240, only a very low level of it is tolerable in material for making weapons. Design and construction of nuclear explosives based on normal (i.e. routinely discharged) reactor-grade plutonium would be difficult and unreliable, and has not so far been done. A nuclear device has been made however from low-burned plutonium from a Magnox nuclear reactor. It was tested in 1962. Its composition was never officially released but was evidently around 90% of fissile Pu-239. This method of production was very expensive, unreliable and easily detectable (fuel has to stay in the reactor for relatively short period (few weeks) as opposed to normal use (few years)), and with a relatively small yield. All these factors contributed to the fact that apart from the test device used in 1962 no new ones were created.^[52][53]

Weapons usable definition change, after the magnox sourced plutonium test of 1962, Now weapons usable plutonium has to have a purity of more than ~80% Pu-239. http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/osti.gov/www.osti.gov/html/osti/opennet/document/press/pc29.html

All nuclear operators are obliged to measure radiation on and around their sites as well as reporting all particles and radiation they emit. This has to be attested by an independent audit office. This practice is more or less the same in all countries that are members of IAEA. In a case where there is a significant release, i.e. above prescribed limits defined by NCRP and obligatory for all IAEA members, this has to be reported to IAEA and be given INES mark 5 or higher, which is very rare.^[54] INES events in last 6 months can be reviewed here.^[55] All equipment is regularly checked. In addition all operators are obliged to release full lists of measurements into the public domain.^[56] An individual living near a nuclear plant will on average get from it around 1% of the natural radiation levels.^[57][58] That is well within safety limits.

In Britain, detailed studies carried out by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) in 2003 found no evidence of raised childhood cancer around nuclear power plants. They did find an excess of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) near other nuclear installations including AWE Burghfield, UKAEA Dounreay and BNFL's Sellafield plant although COMARE said that a link with nuclear material is unlikely. COMARE's opinion is that "the excesses around Sellafield and Dounreay are unlikely to be due to chance, although there is not at present a convincing explanation for them".^[59][60]

You can for example send a communication to Westinghouse and the countries assessing its reactor design, for information and to make a comment on the reactor. https://www.ukap1000application.com/ap1000_documentation.aspx

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15624306 Analysis of the mortality experience amongst U.S. nuclear power industry workers after chronic low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/04/11/nuclear_power.html

A first-of-its-kind study of more than 53,000 nuclear power workers in the United States has found that employees in the commercial nuclear industry are less likely than the general population to die from cancer or non-cancer diseases due, in large measure, to the so-called "healthy worker effect."

The study by Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health tracked workers from 15 nuclear utilities in the United States for periods of up to 18 years between 1979 and 1997. Mortality rates of these workers showed that they were 60 percent lower than cause-specific U.S. mortality rates for a population similar in terms of gender, age and calendar year. In order to work in the nuclear industry, workers have to be healthy and are usually required to have annual medical check-ups.

The most important results of this study were findings with respect to radiation-related leukemia and radiation-related other cancers. According to the records, which were maintained by the facilities themselves and by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy, positive, although non-statistically-significant, associations with radiation were seen for mortality from some forms of leukemia and other cancers as a whole. The magnitude of these associations is very similar to those from other radiation studies on which current radiation safety standards are based, indicating that the standards are appropriate.

The researchers did report, however, a strong positive and statistically significant association between radiation dose and death from arteriosclerotic heart disease, including coronary heart disease.

Geoffrey Howe, professor of epidemiology at the Mailman School and principal investigator of the study, noted, "While associations with heart disease have been reported by some other occupational studies, the magnitude of the present association is not consistent with them, and, therefore, needs cautious interpretation and merits further attention."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18319298 The non-cancer mortality experience of male workers at British Nuclear Fuels plc, 1946-2005.

Both find no cancer(even a depressed incidence of it). However both found a slight increase in heart disease. I wonder if they controlled for exercise or BMI. As these workers probably don't have to do much physical activity when on the job and therefore that might explain the higher heart disease incidence. Either way no cancer increase, and that's the main thing.

Oil producing countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, have pursued Nuclear Power as a cost effective way of maximizing limited sell-able natural resources over time.^[61][62]

In some nations there may be no viable alternatives. In the words of the French, "We have no coal, we have no oil, we have no gas, we have no choice." France has no Uranium either though, and thus has to import it from Canada and Niger which has amongst the lowest HdI in the world. Critics of a phase-out everywhere argue that nuclear power stations could not be compensated for and predict an energy crisis or argue that only coal could possibly compensate for nuclear power and CO₂ emissions will increase tremendously or an increase in energy imports either of nuclear power or of natural oil. Nuclear power has been relatively unaffected by embargoes, as uranium is mined in reliable countries such as Australia and Canada unlike, for example, some large natural gas suppliers, which include states of the former Soviet Union.^[63][64]

In march(early to mid) 2013, on the externality page and talk page, I researched the history of the concept and wrote the following that another editor decided did not deserve to be in the lede, and so they pushed it down the article. Respectively, Henry Sidgwick and Arthur C. Pigou are credited with first articulating, and in the latter case, formalizing, the concept of externality/spillover.^[65] The same editor that moved this material, is pushing their particular definition of the concept, when there are actually two schools of thought on the definition of this economic concept. One from each major school of economics. The other editor has removed material from the economist, and duke university, dubiously for not meeting reliability standards. They prefer a reference from 1962 to be the only 'reliable' definition of the word externality which I find to be pretty odd to be relying on a definition from decades ago. In one of the modern schools of economic thought, an externality is a cost or benefit which results from an activity or transaction and which affects an otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. ^[66]

According to the other major school of economic thought, Neoclassical economics, the term is defined subtly differently - an externality, or transaction spillover, is a cost or benefit that is not transmitted through prices.^[67] The Economist notes, in that it is incurred by a party who was not involved as either a buyer or seller of the goods or services causing the cost or benefit.^[68]

Here's the best definition. - http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/externality http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/courses/ECON/Externality/index.html An external benefit is a benefit that someone gains because of someone else's action, outside of any market transaction between them. Immunizations give external benefits. When you get a vaccine for a certain disease, you make it less likely that you will contract the disease. That is the internal benefit. What you also do is make is less likely that other people will get the disease, because they probably will not catch it from you. That is the external benefit Secondly they also do not regard education to be a positive externality, which they wrote on the article's talk page. Moreover they are also removing the following OECD referenced statement that co-generation of medical radio-isotopes at a nuclear power reactor(not a dedicated research reactor) is an example of a positive externality.

Some nuclear power and research reactor 'waste' byproducts are of high value and used in many radiopharmaceuticals, this is classified as a positive externality of nuclear power.^[69] Fission products such as Yttrium-90 and Technetium 99m have a wide and valuable use in Oncology and diagnostic medicine.^[70][71] For example at Clinton Nuclear Generating Station, Cobalt-60 is produced, with plans to expand into producing Molybdenum-99 which is required for Technetium 99m.^[72]

Nuclear power has one of the lowest external costs, i.e. cost to the environment and people.^[73] These are not factored into price but are paid by society and will only partly be included by the Kyoto protocol. Across the 27 nation European Union for example nuclear external costs are ~ 0.25 euro cents per kWh. That is a bit more than for wind which is rated at ~ 0.15 euro cents per kWh, but considerably less than for coal which is at ~ 4 to 7 euro cents per kWh, oil which is ~ 3 to 5 euro cents per kWh, gas which is 1 to 2 euro cents per kWh and biomass which is at ~ 1 euro cents per kWh.^[74] With importantly, these figures for carbonaceous fuels reported by the ExternE project, not including the cost to the environment and people from there contribution to global warming.

The quoted cost of many renewable generation sources would be increased if it included the provision of necessary back-up power sources to cover periods when wind, sun, waves, etc. are weak and not producing power. It has been calculated that wind power, one of the major hopes for anti-nuclear advocates, costs three times as much as the average electricity generation cost in Germany.^[75]

(The following was removed because it is a paper that seemingly never went for peer review publication) However it seems rational to me - There is evidence that crime in a neighborhood increases after the opening of a liquor store.^[76] Liquor stores may draw an undesirable class of citizens into the neighborhood to shop and hang out. They may also cause more people in the area to drink; such people may then proceed to commit acts in the neighborhood that they would not normally do, or else these drunk people may become easy targets for the crimes of others. Even if the crimes start out small, they may eventually become much worse if not effectively addressed (broken windows theory). Liquor stores are more likely to be open late into the night than other stores, and may result in increased noise levels which harm property values in the community.

Your writing above is replete with error and misrepresentation. Where is it written that there are two schools of economic thought? Where is it written that the Buchanan paper is the only WP:RS on externality? I am truly delighted that you cherish your original research and personal opinions but please do not insert them in WP articles unless they happen to coincide with appropriate WP source material. I've asked you to review various WP policies. If you decide to do so, it could save you much pointless effort broadcasting extraneous material here and elsewhere on this site. Please study up on WP policies. SPECIFICO talk 20:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO I see you are dodging the Externality talk page, and instead prefer to devolve into ad Hominem attacks here on my talk page. I'll assume good faith, in case you didn't see them -

Where in WP:RS does it say that open-courseware supplied, for example, by Samuel L. Baker, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, University of South Carolina is inadmissible? He's number 5 on the list of open courseware. - http://oedb.org/library/features/top-100-open-courseware-projects#econ

Medical care in general is obviously a positive externality. - He states - An external benefit is a benefit that someone gains because of someone else's action, outside of any market transaction between them. Immunizations give external benefits. When you get a vaccine for a certain disease, you make it less likely that you will contract the disease. That is the internal benefit. What you also do is make is less likely that other people will get the disease, because they probably will not catch it from you. That is the external benefit. http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/courses/ECON/Externality/index.html

As for the definition of the word - Externalities have been defined by marketers as the uncalculated costs and/or benefits of exchange, where uncalculated refers to costs and benefits that have not been accurately included in the exchange valuation (Mundt 1993). http://jmk.sagepub.com/content/16/1/73.abstract Journal of Macromarketing Spring 1996 vol. 16 no. 1 73-88

This is far more in line with Pigou's terminology. - http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/725216?uid=3738232&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102039738887 The Problem of Externality Carl J. Dahlman Journal of Law and Economics Vol. 22, No. 1 (Apr., 1979), pp. 141-162

Another source supporting medical care as a positive externality - Externalities arising from health care provision: Health services are normally assumed to be merit goods providing a private benefit for people who consume them and additional external benefits for society as a whole. http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-health-care.html QED radiopharmaceuticals are a positive externality.

Boundarylayer (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I discuss article content on the article talk page and address comments to you concerning your behavior on your talk page. Because I believe that your interactions are not civil and responsive, I will no longer be responding to you here. I may continue to edit articles in which you also participate, and I expect you to learn and adhere to WP site standards and norms. SPECIFICO talk 03:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But, the fact of the matter is, you haven't responded on the externality talk page. I am also now very curious how you have concluded I have attacked you? If anything declaring as you do that - I believe that your interactions are not civil and responsive is a personal attack.

Boundarylayer (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]