4 ms·

Honestly, whether the fuel is UOX or MOX is not particularly relevant at this point, since the primary differences between those fuels are neutronic, not therma

Honestly, whether the fuel is UOX or MOX is not particularly relevant at this point, since the primary differences between those fuels are neutronic, not thermal, and even there they are qualitatively very similar. I'm pretty sure the author is not an 'expert', exactly, because he seems unfamiliar with some of the nuances of BWR operation, but his summary is generally correct.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
lispm 16y ago
Sure it is relevant. It means that the level of Plutonium could be higher in reactor 3 of plant Fukushima 1. This could have relevance in case of a full meltdown. It is said that then there is a possibility that there is a different reaction.
- ubernostrum 16y ago
  You're rattling around various fora, throwing out really bad red herrings (e.g., on reddit you tried to link Niger's average life expectancy to uranium mining when that likely isn't even a blip on the radar compared to poverty, malnutrition and lack of health infrastructure). So the onus is on you to provide strong citations for the claims you're making, rather than just tossing out BIG SCARY CAPS in a comment and then hand-waving "could have relevance" and "it is said" when people engage with you.
  - lispm 16y ago
    Yeah, it seems to be surprising to you that there are people who did not drink the nuclear Kool-Aid. Why is that? Has your 2-party system, the influence of corporations and your declining media made you unable of critical thinking?
    - juiceandjuice 16y ago
      I can't speak for the previous poster, but I started 'sipping the nuclear kool-aid' once I took a nuclear physics class. Of course, the class was taught over cable TV by fox news anchors funded by both GE, the DNC and the RNC. That's pretty much how the US got to be a superpower and stuff.
      - lispm 16y ago
        Did not work out too well, given the history of nuclear power plants in the US. When was the last one built? The list of cancelled nuclear power plants is impressive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canceled_nuclear_plants_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canceled_nuclear_plants...
        CamperBob 16y ago
        Meanwhile, hundreds of coal-fired plants were built in their stead, and those are currently spewing radioactive waste into the air in normal operation.
        lispm 16y ago
        Coal-fired plants were not mentioned by me as an alternative or as desirable. Please stop that. I see that you are confused when somebody has not the view of the nuclear industry. You are brainwashed by the corporations. Even thinking that there are alternatives that are not coal seems to be not possible.
        evgen 16y ago
        It does not matter what you happen to think are good alternatives or are desirable, because those of us who live in the real world have to deal with "what is", not "what could/should be." For base electric load in the US you really have three options: nuclear, coal, gas. One produces a lot of radioactive toxic waste over the course of normal operations, one produces lots of CO2, and the other is nuclear.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

lispm 16y ago

Sure it is relevant. It means that the level of Plutonium could be higher in reactor 3 of plant Fukushima 1. This could have relevance in case of a full meltdown. It is said that then there is a possibility that there is a different reaction.

ubernostrum 16y ago
You're rattling around various fora, throwing out really bad red herrings (e.g., on reddit you tried to link Niger's average life expectancy to uranium mining when that likely isn't even a blip on the radar compared to poverty, malnutrition and lack of health infrastructure). So the onus is on you to provide strong citations for the claims you're making, rather than just tossing out BIG SCARY CAPS in a comment and then hand-waving "could have relevance" and "it is said" when people engage with you.
- lispm 16y ago
  Yeah, it seems to be surprising to you that there are people who did not drink the nuclear Kool-Aid. Why is that? Has your 2-party system, the influence of corporations and your declining media made you unable of critical thinking?
  - juiceandjuice 16y ago
    I can't speak for the previous poster, but I started 'sipping the nuclear kool-aid' once I took a nuclear physics class. Of course, the class was taught over cable TV by fox news anchors funded by both GE, the DNC and the RNC. That's pretty much how the US got to be a superpower and stuff.
    - lispm 16y ago
      Did not work out too well, given the history of nuclear power plants in the US. When was the last one built? The list of cancelled nuclear power plants is impressive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canceled_nuclear_plants_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canceled_nuclear_plants...
      - CamperBob 16y ago
        Meanwhile, hundreds of coal-fired plants were built in their stead, and those are currently spewing radioactive waste into the air in normal operation.
        lispm 16y ago
        Coal-fired plants were not mentioned by me as an alternative or as desirable. Please stop that. I see that you are confused when somebody has not the view of the nuclear industry. You are brainwashed by the corporations. Even thinking that there are alternatives that are not coal seems to be not possible.
        evgen 16y ago
        It does not matter what you happen to think are good alternatives or are desirable, because those of us who live in the real world have to deal with "what is", not "what could/should be." For base electric load in the US you really have three options: nuclear, coal, gas. One produces a lot of radioactive toxic waste over the course of normal operations, one produces lots of CO2, and the other is nuclear.