Re: for the close of all fission nuclear reactor in the world


"Terence" <tbwright@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e2724495-d1f1-4547-a7fe-2c11fad1891f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Some answers:
If K-40 is the source of random genetic changes, how does one explain
that
quite a few species, e.g., beetles, have existed for millions of years
with
very few genetic changes?

K-40 affects every cell that uses Potassium, in proportion to its
concentration. The use of potassium varies immensly among life forms.
If the "creature" benefits by a change its genetic structure it will
change and produce a new variant, if not, the current version
continues to dominate. Beetles and flies are relatively simple, with
little redundancy that allows permanent improvement, which is why we
experiment on fruit flies; they change easily, but the changes are not
usually profitable to the gene line

Yes, I agree that random genetic changes, i.e., from radiation etc., "are
not usually profitable to the gene line." Therefore, why believe random
changes were beneficial or contributory in the case of humans? Isn't it
clear that it's the non-random, specialized, and/or forced evolutionary
genetic changes which created genetic benefit for humans?

Then, you also believe this is the primary energy source for Earth's
geodynamo? What about lightning?

Sorry, but that is free for the taking.

Sorry, that status is unknown.

Lightning is just another
energy redistribution method in a conservative system.

"...in a closed system." ? True. But, the point was that it's unknown
whether some other Earthly process, e.g., geodynamo, lifeforms, requires
that energy in that form and/or location. It was a bit like your comment
we'd lose the moon by using too much tidal energy or Frank's comment on
denying sunlight which warms the earth by covering the Earth in solar cells.
Currently, for all we know, all of the "free for the taking" energy source
might be what "winds up" the Earth's geodynamo. We know that wind and solar
affect ocean currents. If we tap them on a grand scale, we're going to have
serious problems. So, why would you assume it's safe to tap into an energy
source, like lightning, whose effects on the Earth are essentially unknown?

Given "safe transport", what's the energy cost to haul this *** up out
of Earth's gravity well?

Actually about $32 per kilo.

Do you honestly believe a railgun is going to be cheaper that solidifying it
in glass inside a steel container and dropping it into a hole that's already
paid for?

$32 per kilo * 70 megatons = $2.24 Trillion (USD)

AHhhh! 209bpm, 173bpm, whoosy... Gee, are you trying to bankrupt America?
Good choice... NOT!

Not the way NASA does it, but by
electrical rail gun (not suitable for humans but fine for solid
materials).

The technology on the scale you'd need doesn't even work yet. The waste is
here now. The hole is dug. The hole is basically paid for.

First get really high up a mountainous area (using same
electical method, but very small acceleration initailly); then use
high acceleration to escape velocity though very thin air.
On the moon this would be the easiest and cheapest method by far.

So, repeated bombardment of the moon with upto 70 megatons of heavy steel
containers with glassified nuclear waste won't disturb the moon's orbit or
modify it's inertia? Just how to you intend to prevent transfer of kinetic
energy from the impact? They're likely to collide with enough force you'd
have to dig them out... more workers, more missions, more money... sigh.
Are you going to reduce the energy to the point that it takes a year for the
container to get to the moon? Light as a feather... Why not create another
asteriod belt. Although not as cheap as a hole, it be cheaper to create
another one with nuclear waste containers. If you place it close enough to
Earth that's it's visible, but not so close to be a hazard, we could call it
the Shiny Ring of Man. ;-) Heck, it could even act as an asteroid shield.
Kinda like space bowling with asteriods and nuclear waste pins... (ROFL).


Rod Pemberton

.