@cjoll4 Yes, I am sure. The Nagasaki bomb had 6.2 kg of Pu-239. A third of that is about 2 kg.
The (untampered, spherical) critical mass of Pu-239 is about 11 kg. The Nagasaki bomb was just big enough to work using tampers, implosion geometry etc. You cannot make a nuclear bomb from 2 kg.
“Dirty bomb” means just spreading the material, probably as a powder. This is not nice if it happens in a crowded pub, but it's emphatically not “poisoning India”. Coal plants routinely do much worse.
@PugJesus Put into perspective — no, I'm not concerned about that. This thing will not harm any human ever.
How can I say that? Because it is tiny. Even if it should somehow (how?) spontaneously and completely dissolve and be washed into some river (to be clear: this doesn't happen), we just get a temporary slightly elevated heavy metal concentration, hard to even detect.
This thing will not “poison India”. That's bullshit.
@cstross@YourNetworkIsHaunted@fullsquare OK, but I don't see the automatism in that direction either. And just letting them simmer in their own little cosmos doesn't seem very sustainable when they organize and support e. g. Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi.
Starting a war now is not the answer, I'm pretty sure, but the question remains.
@YourNetworkIsHaunted@fullsquare Yes, absolutely, civilization (or whatever word you like better here) will not happen automatically or magically.
And I'm not finding an answer: How do you /properly/ remove an oppressive theocracy, in such a way that the country has good starting conditions to prosper?
Two things seems clear to me: the theocrats will not go by themselves, and the country will not prosper under them.
Yes, stupid and harmful propaganda campaigns are a reality a democracy has to deal with.
But the problem is not that a majority is for this destruction. That is not the case. The problem is that a vocal minority has established itself in a position of power and are openly just doing it.
That's not a conspiracy, and I am not forbidden to complain about it. It is even my duty as a democrat to at least make my voice heard, as one little force in the democratic process.
@cstross@sumek@dgerard Yes, purely political reasons. We are suffering in Germany from a systematic anti-nuclear propaganda campaign even through our schoolbooks.
There are still parts that could be salvaged for a comparatively quick restart (compared to starting from scratch), but the people deciding these things currently are determined to make it harder every day.
It will be hilarious when they realize in 15 years that even Poland decarbonizes faster than we do.
@KnitWit@Emil Oh wait, you mean transporting reactor parts per ship? If they are new, they're not even hazardous.
And nuclear fuel gets shipped all the time. If it's new, it's not a problem—very low activity, and water is a good shield—and spent fuel is just kept on site for decades.
A nuclear powered ship probably wouldn't be under ship regulation and supervision, but under nuclear regulation and supervision. Nuclear supervision is much easier to do and harder to circumvent than that of oil. Compliance would be enforced at ports. A ship that cannot dock is useless.
Also, the worst case with a nuclear powered ship is less bad than normal operation of an oil powered ship, and sufficiently improbable.
@planet@clojure I am a bit miffed that #CommonLisp is not mentioned at all. It would fit into the article on the measure of both market share and support for functional programming.
@cjoll4 In short, any nefarious use of this material is a LOT of effort for a comparatively minor effect.
And the risk of an accident with it is low-probability × low-damage = low.
@cjoll4 Yes, I am sure. The Nagasaki bomb had 6.2 kg of Pu-239. A third of that is about 2 kg.
The (untampered, spherical) critical mass of Pu-239 is about 11 kg. The Nagasaki bomb was just big enough to work using tampers, implosion geometry etc. You cannot make a nuclear bomb from 2 kg.
“Dirty bomb” means just spreading the material, probably as a powder. This is not nice if it happens in a crowded pub, but it's emphatically not “poisoning India”. Coal plants routinely do much worse.
@PugJesus Put into perspective — no, I'm not concerned about that. This thing will not harm any human ever.
How can I say that? Because it is tiny. Even if it should somehow (how?) spontaneously and completely dissolve and be washed into some river (to be clear: this doesn't happen), we just get a temporary slightly elevated heavy metal concentration, hard to even detect.
This thing will not “poison India”. That's bullshit.
@cstross @YourNetworkIsHaunted @fullsquare OK, but I don't see the automatism in that direction either. And just letting them simmer in their own little cosmos doesn't seem very sustainable when they organize and support e. g. Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi.
Starting a war now is not the answer, I'm pretty sure, but the question remains.
@YourNetworkIsHaunted @fullsquare Yes, absolutely, civilization (or whatever word you like better here) will not happen automatically or magically.
And I'm not finding an answer: How do you /properly/ remove an oppressive theocracy, in such a way that the country has good starting conditions to prosper?
Two things seems clear to me: the theocrats will not go by themselves, and the country will not prosper under them.
@o7___o7
Yes, stupid and harmful propaganda campaigns are a reality a democracy has to deal with.
But the problem is not that a majority is for this destruction. That is not the case. The problem is that a vocal minority has established itself in a position of power and are openly just doing it.
That's not a conspiracy, and I am not forbidden to complain about it. It is even my duty as a democrat to at least make my voice heard, as one little force in the democratic process.
@cstross @sumek @dgerard Yes, purely political reasons. We are suffering in Germany from a systematic anti-nuclear propaganda campaign even through our schoolbooks.
There are still parts that could be salvaged for a comparatively quick restart (compared to starting from scratch), but the people deciding these things currently are determined to make it harder every day.
It will be hilarious when they realize in 15 years that even Poland decarbonizes faster than we do.
@planet @clojure Ugh. Another company that fell from »might be interesting to work with« to »don't touch«.
@planet @clojure I know this is just a link post, but content matters.
So, allow me some interjections:
- NO, not all syntax is a list in Lisp
- Clojure's [], {}, #{} are not literals but syntactic constructors
- Common Lisp's #() is a vector literal
@planet @clojure Uh. You don't need to write anything new, you can just use
core.match. Orcasewithselect-keys. Or destructuring. 🤷@db0 @pedroapero We already have nuclear batteries. What do you think powers Voyager 1 and 2?
(Here is an unofficial account of the latter: https://techhub.social/@NSFVoyager2)
@Emil Funny thing, the onboard reactor probably produces more power than the gas it carries could.
But anyway, yes, again, nuclear propulsion for ships is quite obviously a very good match.
@Emil The reactor wouldn't be filled, right? And not under pressure? It would just be a big lump of metal?
@KnitWit @Emil Oh wait, you mean transporting reactor parts per ship? If they are new, they're not even hazardous.
And nuclear fuel gets shipped all the time. If it's new, it's not a problem—very low activity, and water is a good shield—and spent fuel is just kept on site for decades.
@Emil Great, but the AP1000 isn't the only Generation III+ reactor currently in operation, there is also at least the EPR.
@KnitWit @Emil I guess you're not alone, sadly.
However…
A nuclear powered ship probably wouldn't be under ship regulation and supervision, but under nuclear regulation and supervision. Nuclear supervision is much easier to do and harder to circumvent than that of oil. Compliance would be enforced at ports. A ship that cannot dock is useless.
Also, the worst case with a nuclear powered ship is less bad than normal operation of an oil powered ship, and sufficiently improbable.
@tomtrottel @Emil @Tylerdurdon
Well, there we are at the divide between facts and opinion, and that between a civil discussion and ad hominem attacks.
Fact: nobody was ever harmed by spent nuclear fuel. Really. Look it up wherever you like.
Fact: that is not by chance, but by engineering.
Fact: the total amount of all the world's spent nuclear fuel ever, in the shape of a cube, would have a side length of about 35 m (before recycling).
Fact: I have no money invested in nuclear energy.
@tomtrottel @Emil @Tylerdurdon No, it is a classification.
It's like saying »human feces is a huge problem« — well, yes, but that's why we have toilets and sewage plants and so on — it's solved.
As is nuclear waste.
@planet @clojure I am a bit miffed that #CommonLisp is not mentioned at all. It would fit into the article on the measure of both market share and support for functional programming.
@Brownboy13 @Emil Not perfect, but definitely better in every way than oil.