disp1

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by disp1 9y ago

   "It could have generated electricity and put it on the grid" I don't think so. It may be approaching net positive energy production, but ITER was not designed to have that energy converted to electricity, it is lost. There is
2. 2.▲
   by disp1 9y ago

   I recall that L3 was shaking down netflix in that that time period. This is what I was able to find quickly... https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-t... Sorry for the paywall. there are many sites
3. 3.▲
   by disp1 9y ago

   I take issue to the generalization that short half lives = more danger. That is just not true. Tc-99m is used in diagnostic medicine, it has a half-life of 6 hrs. It does not have more risk than Sr-90 that has a half-life of 29 years.
4. 4.▲
   by disp1 9y ago

   I am not going to argue with you about this. I am a radiological scientist, not a someone that has read up on Wikipedia. No one measures radioactivity in moles. The FGR11 limit on I-129 is 5 uCi and I-131 is 30 uCi, I know it is not the lat
5. 5.▲
   by disp1 9y ago

   I am curious about this "Rule of thumb." Where is this a rule of thumb. Its by no way supported by science, nor is it implemented in the regulation of radionuclides. When it comes to biological uptakes, shorter half-life usually m
6. 6.▲
   by disp1 9y ago

   I think that you may have gotten the basics wrong here. 1 Bq of I-129 is exactly same radioactivity as 1 Bq of I-131. Its definition is 1 decay per second. The half-life tells how long you have to wait for a given atom to decay, on averag