Re: OT: Nuclear Waste (Was Re-Marketing Ada)

[dmytrylavrov@fsmail.net (Dmytry Lavrov)]

"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<e4GdncAXgaq9hyGiRVn-hg@comcast.com>...
> Dmytry Lavrov wrote:
> 
> > As with antigravitation:for loong time peoples want it to solve some
> > problems,it's useful.Time-mashine:for far longer time peoples want
> > it,where that time mashine????Show me antigravity!!
> > Teleportation?,hehe.
> 
> Dmyytry, Dmytry, you really need to catch up on your technical reading:
> 
> Teleportation: http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/html/teleport.htm
> 
> Time travel: http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/4_11_98/fob3.htm
> 
> Superluminal communication: 
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?1999quant.ph..6113S

Don't want to discuss more with someone who don't think that it's
cheating _by_ _default_  . There was too many teleportations and
superluminal communications and  time travel reports all over
20th,19th,18th and even 17th century,
to many years BC.In next 10 years you will foget about links you're
providing,and will use links to other sci-fi.

You're fooled so simple by officially-looking things,exactly like my
aunt(don't sure in word)("(the) mother's sister").She founds something
in news,talking about it,then nothing happening,no more info about
that experiment.She founds other discovery in the news. Same for
radioactivity - you're fooled by official point of view that there's
some great discoveries now or that radioactivity isn't dangerous.

> 
> The importance of the third paper is that teleportation requires a 
> communication channel, so if you want to go some long distance and not 
> spend a long time doing so, you need a superluminal (faster than light) 
> communciation path.  This paper shows that superluminal communication 
> does not involve causal loops, i.e. time travel.
> 
> The first (impractical) demonstration of superluminal communication was 
> by Nimtz: Nimtz, G. "Superluminal Signal Velocity." Ann. Phys. 7, 61-68, 
> 1998.
> 
> Notice that all these results are so last century. ;-)
> 
> > Too wishful thinking about nuclear reactors using deiterium and
> > tritium.Quite unlikely(but possible) that in next 50 years we will
> > have  it.
> > If our childs will be able to use that waste in next 50 years,we
> > should have so simple thing as H-reactors NOW.
> 
> Practical tokamaks however, may be a fairy tale.

Don't see something useful.Even that tokamak is russian word ;-).


Okay,let's assume that you're right that radioactivity is not so
dangerous.But you at least should agree that we all alive now(no
ww3,no ww4) only because radioactivity is known as dangerous
thing.ONLY.And you would like to inform all word that "it's wrong"....

Govs also want to do that,to start using nukes in wars,to make safety
standards lower ,etc.Many officials "benefits" from under-estimating
level of danger.There's big money spent on that propagation.All that
awards to someone showing that it's isn't dangerous..on writing
fooling papers about safety,or about tank armour,etc. And another
side:how many money specially spent on "fooling" peoples that it's
dangerous? Show me any personal Bill Gates spending money on that as
many as govs spend for opposite direction.Of course you can talk about
mass-media,about doing money,but again show me organisation that
spends money from other sources on "fooling peoples" that it's
dangerous.


About m1 armour:official idiotic point of view.Of course danger that
someone will fire that tank by shot from T72 is highter than danger
from radioactivity,but you're fooled by official point that there's
less radioactivity in tank than normal background.


When i'm in moscow metro(underground) in tonnel without granite on the
walls,there's 0.1 or less of normal background(myself measured).When
i'm on station,there's equal or highter than normal background.And now
explain _how_ trick uranium armour is less radioactive than thin
plates of granite(they contain really small precent of uranium,and
even smaller precent of chains)?


Paint,radium light wathes,etc:Old official point of view.Not used
anymore.It now found really dangerous,and now it's in well-known
safety standards.Radiation on hand from 'em is 10..50 times more
radioactive than background(i have compass from aircraft,there's more
than 50 times bigger radioactivity than background,myself
measured).Also radium turns fluorescencing paint into non-luminous
scrap,that's sign of high enought radioactivity to turn all your DNA
into scrap too.
Even normal background sometimes causes some changes in DNA leads to
cancer.Having that watches only increases probablity.

Americium in smoke detectors:What idiot and from what hell got idea
about putting radioactive and dangerous as toxic because hardly
detectable because it's alfa-particles source,and not-so-cheap
material into smoke detector ??? There's no need for something
radioactive.Just led and photodiode,as used in other countries.


My IMO that long time after doing Chirosima ,Americans need fooling
himself,that thing they do is not so bad."Raskolnikov's sindrom".


To burrow waste we really need time mashine,to predict future,that
nothing will happen with that waste. Or there's chances our childs
will have to un-burrow that waste,it will cost orders of magnitude
more than burrowing,and it will be quite dangerous.


Also,your point of view is the same as USSR Stalin's time point of
view,do you know?  "Not so dangerous", "burrow and foget" , "cheapest
way" , "First time in the world nuclear power civilly used in
USSR,while USA imperialistic capitalists only using that for war" .
Translate your messages into russian,and voila,ready for "Pravda"
(search ~Heinlein Pravda means Truth~  in  google for information)

Now we have to remember/find and unburrow because that wastes going
into underground rivers.