Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

Back on topic, since discussions on how terrible Lucas is/was is about as riveting as watching someone (who isn't Michael J Fox) eat. :p

As bad as TMI was, Chernobyl was not possible in any Western reactor. There are too many passive safeties that one would have to destroy in order to even get close to potentially starting it, and the reactor would simply shut down anyway.

Basically, you would have to repeal Archimedes' Law and gravity to get a Western reactor to Chernobyl. Even blowing it up or ramming something into it won't make it run away like the Russian designs. They just shut down.
This. The RBMK reactor is a prime example of how not to build a reactor. As such, we don't do it anymore. Not only that, it was built in the 50's... so it was hardly the prime example of nuclear technology. Saying "another Chernobyl could happen!" is like saying another Titanic could happen; it just can't anymore.

And I'm still curious about this. I mean the eco whackos are still fighting about whether wind, solar, coal, etc. are better... but they all agree that nuclear is bad? How does that logic work out?
 
Back on topic, since discussions on how terrible Lucas is/was is about as riveting as watching someone (who isn't Michael J Fox) eat. :p


This. The RBMK reactor is a prime example of how not to build a reactor. As such, we don't do it anymore. Not only that, it was built in the 50's... so it was hardly the prime example of nuclear technology. Saying "another Chernobyl could happen!" is like saying another Titanic could happen; it just can't anymore.

And I'm still curious about this. I mean the eco whackos are still fighting about whether wind, solar, coal, etc. are better... but they all agree that nuclear is bad? How does that logic work out?

Mostly it doesn't, and some of the older ecomentalists who started the whole anti-nuclear concept have come around to admit that they were TOTAL FUCKING IDIOTS about it and that nuclear, as much as they hate to admit it, is the only tech that's going to work. Such as one of the founders of Greenpeace, for example.

But then, ecomentalism is not based on logic and thought but feelings and beliefs instead. It is a goddamn religion and it needs to be treated as such.
 
Last edited:
Mostly it doesn't, and some of the older ecomentalists who started the whole anti-nuclear concept have come around to admit that they were TOTAL FUCKING IDIOTS about it and that nuclear, as much as they hate to admit it, is the only tech that's going to work. Such as one of the founders of Greenpeace, for example.

Greenpeace is just anti-corporation, and that's really all it is. Just another political party. And that's really, really fucking depressing.

On the reactor front, yeah, it sounds kinda scary at first, but has anyone ever seen a map showing all the reactors in the US?

http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/united_states.html

That's a whole heck of a lot of reactors, and they aren't exactly popping like popcorn, are they?
 
Greenpeace is a corporate organisation. They had an office in Moscow back in the day, but since the number of members decide how much power the local offices get, and the cost of becomming a member of Greenpace in Russia was far lower than in the United States, and the Russians got power for little profit, they closed it.

Why is Greenpeace against whaling? Cause it's something that helps them recruit members in the US.

But I will pose one question, if ecomentalism is just a religion based on feelings and beliefs, not facts, what then is the idea that humans aren't influencing the environment? Eh, it's exactly the same.

As in most cases, the truth probably lies somewhere inbetween the extreme poles of the debate.
 
And I'm still curious about this. I mean the eco whackos are still fighting about whether wind, solar, coal, etc. are better... but they all agree that nuclear is bad? How does that logic work out?
Very simple; The word 'nuclear' appears in it. It's therefore evil and must be abolished. :rolleyes:

Actually a few ex-Greenpeace members have started advocating nuclear power lately. I remember watching a programme about nuclear power a few years back, when the Thorium debate was running here...
 
Very simple; The word 'nuclear' appears in it. It's therefore evil and must be abolished. :rolleyes:

Actually a few ex-Greenpeace members have started advocating nuclear power lately. I remember watching a programme about nuclear power a few years back, when the Thorium debate was running here...
Yes, yes they have - they are still wrong.

It could never happen here. ...

Try this 2002 -
Contractor incompetence in cleaning boric acid deposits from the reactor pressure vessel head led to extreme corrosion by leaving only a thin layer of Inconel standing between the 2400 psi pressure of the primary cooling system and the 14 psi atmospheric pressure containment. The possibility of a loss of pressure control or a LOCA was greatly elevated while this fault remained undiscovered. The reactor pressure vessel head consequently had to be replaced in toto.

The reactor was shut down from 2002 until early 2004 for safety repairs and upgrades, so recent operational statistics are not yet available for the unit.

So let me see CONTRACTOR INCOMPETENCE - cut costs. ... See my point about cutting costs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Besse_Nuclear_Power_Station

The NRC and Ohio EPA were notified of a tritium leak discovered during an unrelated fire inspection on October 22, 2008.

Uneddifying reading - glad I do not live near that thing.
 
Last edited:
Greenpeace is a corporate organisation. They had an office in Moscow back in the day, but since the number of members decide how much power the local offices get, and the cost of becomming a member of Greenpace in Russia was far lower than in the United States, and the Russians got power for little profit, they closed it.

Why is Greenpeace against whaling? Cause it's something that helps them recruit members in the US.

But I will pose one question, if ecomentalism is just a religion based on feelings and beliefs, not facts, what then is the idea that humans aren't influencing the environment? Eh, it's exactly the same.

As in most cases, the truth probably lies somewhere inbetween the extreme poles of the debate.

There is a difference between environmentalism and ecomentalism. Environmentalism is being concerned about preserving the Earth, a worthy goal. Ecomentalism is "EARTH UBER ALLES, OMG GLOBAL WARMING WTF !!!!11111ELEVENTY!!!!!!".

Also, nobody is saying that humans are not affecting the environment - this can in fact be scientifically proven. However, it cannot be proven (unless you lie, cheat, massage or just plain pull data out of your ass) that humans are causing global warming/climate change/climate destabilization. The evidence just isn't there and unbiased science does not support that conclusion at all.

What do you call it when someone holds a belief that either cannot be proven by science or worse is actually disproven by impartial science? It's a R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N.

In fact, it's not even as enlightened a religion as the-much-derided-in-Europe Catholic Church. The Catholics believe (currently and for some time) that if science and scripture contradict each other that the fault is not of science but of their understanding of their scripture. They don't attempt to deny science. Meanwhile, over in the ecomentalist camp, when presented with scientific evidence that their religion is wrong, they get very defensive, claim that the presenter is a 'denier' (in the same tones formerly used in the middle ages for 'heretic' and currently used in the Middle East for 'infidel') and when sorely pressed will further state that 'well, the science may say otherwise, but I still have faith that humans are causing global warming!"

If you ignore the science in favor of faith, guess what? Its. A. Fucking. RELIGION.
 
I just had a briliant idea, why don't we nuke the damn ozono layer, then all the sunreflection can go back to where it came form:idea:
 
Well, according to the ecomentalists, CFCs were busy doing just that, destroying the ozone layer. Remember all the fuss about the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica?

So instead of using 'the ozone destroying' R-12 refrigerants we switched to 'ozone safe' R-134. Which, as it turns out, is a carcinogen. And then we found out that CFCs weren't destroying the ozone layer after all. But we left the worldwide ban in place. And for a lack of CFCs, seven astronauts died in a very visible explosion over Texas among other casualties of ecomentalism.

Joke's on us, people.
 
And for a lack of CFCs, seven astronauts died in a very visible explosion over Texas among other casualties of ecomentalism.

You what?

Have you any clue whatsoever how the Columbia accident happened?
 
You what?

Have you any clue whatsoever how the Columbia accident happened?

Yup. Insulating foam fell off the tank and bipod ramps upon liftoff and shattered the heat tiles on the leading edge of the wings. While the bipod ramps were still made with the older foam that used Freon, the tank coatings were the new-as-of-1997 'eco-friendly' foam which didn't use it. While crap falling off the tank and ramps is relatively normal, the new eco-friendly insulation sheds a lot more than the stuff made using Freon. The snowstorm of crap coming off the tank made it harder to spot the critical strike on the leading edge and lead to management ignoring it.

Surprise.
 
Last edited:
Yup. Insulating foam fell off the tank and bipod ramps upon liftoff and shattered the heat tiles on the leading edge of the wings. While the bipod ramps were still made with the older foam that used Freon, the tank coatings were the new-as-of-1997 'eco-friendly' foam which didn't use it. While crap falling off the tank and ramps is relatively normal, the new eco-friendly insulation sheds a lot more than the stuff made using Freon. The snowstorm of crap coming off the tank made it harder to spot the critical strike on the leading edge and lead to management ignoring it.

Surprise.

Not trying to contradict you or anything, but if you have the time could you please either post or PM me some corroborating sites or such that would back you up?

Just interested in this, honestly.
 
Not trying to contradict you or anything, but if you have the time could you please either post or PM me some corroborating sites or such that would back you up?

Just interested in this, honestly.

Wikipedia covers it in part (Emphasis mine):
Approximately 82 seconds after launch from Kennedy Space Center's LC-39, a suitcase-size piece of thermal insulation foam broke off the External Tank (ET), striking Columbia's left wing Reinforced Carbon-Carbon (RCC) panels. As demonstrated by ground experiments conducted by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, this likely created a 6-to-10-inch (15 to 25 cm) diameter hole, allowing hot gases to enter the wing when Columbia later reentered the atmosphere. At the time of the foam strike, the orbiter was at an altitude of about 66,000 feet (20 km; 12.5 mi), traveling at Mach 2.46 (1,870 miles per hour or 840 metres per second). The foam fragment was about 1.2 pounds (0.54 kg) in mass and impacted the wing at roughly 800 feet per second (240 m/s).[citation needed]

The Left Bipod Foam Ramp is an approximately three-foot (one-meter) aerodynamic component made entirely of foam, as opposed to being a metal structure coated with foam. As such, the foam, not normally considered to be a structural material, is required to bear some aerodynamic loads. Because of these special requirements, the casting-in-place and curing of the ramps may be performed only by a senior technician.[4] The shuttle's main fuel tank is covered in foam as an insulator, to avoid ice forming on it when full of liquid hydrogen and oxygen, which itself could damage the shuttle when shed during lift-off. The bipod ramp (having left and right sides) was originally designed to reduce aerodynamic stresses around the bipod attachment points at the external tank, but it was proven unnecessary in the wake of the accident and was removed from the external tank design for tanks flown after STS-107. (Another foam ramp along the liquid oxygen line was also later removed from the tank design to eliminate it as a foam debris source, after complex analysis and tests proved this change safe.)

Bipod Ramp insulation had been observed falling off, in whole or in part, on many previous flights- STS-7 (1983), STS-27 (1988), STS-32 (1990), STS-50 (1992), plus subsequent flights (STS-52 and -62) showing partial losses. In addition, Protuberance Air Load (PAL) ramp foam has also shed pieces, plus spot losses from large-area foams. At least one previous strike caused no serious damage. NASA management came to refer to this phenomenon as "foam shedding." As with the O-ring erosions that ultimately doomed the Challenger, NASA management became accustomed to these phenomena when no serious consequences resulted from these earlier episodes. This phenomenon was termed "normalization of deviance" by sociologist Diane Vaughan in her book on the Challenger launch decision process.[5]

Video taken during lift-off of STS-107 was routinely reviewed two hours later and revealed nothing unusual. The following day, higher-resolution film that had been processed overnight revealed the foam debris striking the left wing, potentially damaging the thermal protection on the Space Shuttle. At the time, the exact location where the foam struck the wing could not be determined due to the low resolution of the tracking camera footage.
[edit]

(Note: The PAL foams are still CFC-11s, the 'large area foams' are the non-CFC type and what I'm talking about.)

Foam shed has been a problem since day one, and I'm not saying that the CFC-free foam punched a hole in the orbiter's airfoils (because clearly it didn't) - but foam shed has gotten worse since the CFC-free foams have been introduced and despite several reformulations has not gotten better. Again, a Wikipedia cite:

In 1995, chlorofluorocarbon-11 (CFC-11) began to be withdrawn from large-area, machine-sprayed foams in compliance with an Environmental Protection Agency ban on CFCs under section 610 of the Clean Air Act. In its place, a hydrochlorofluorocarbon known as HCFC 141b was certified for use and phased into the shuttle program. Remaining foams, particularly detail pieces sprayed by hand, continue to use CFC-11 to this day. These areas include the problematic bipod and PAL ramps, as well as some fittings and interfaces. For the bipod ramp in particular, "the process of applying foam to that part of the tank had not changed since 1993."[6] The "new" foam containing HCFC 141b was first used on the aft dome portion of ET-82 during the flight of STS-79 in 1996. Use of HCFC 141b was expanded to the ETs area, or larger portions of the tank, starting with ET-88, which flew on STS-86 in 1997.

During the lift-off of STS-107, a piece of foam insulation detached from one of the tank's bipod ramps and struck the leading edge of Space Shuttle Columbia's wing at a few hundred miles per hour. The impact is believed to have damaged several reinforced carbon-carbon thermal tiles on the leading edge of the wing, which allowed super-heated gas to enter the wing superstructure several days later during re-entry. This resulted in the destruction of Columbia and the loss of its crew. The report determined that the external fuel tank, ET-93, "had been constructed with BX-250", a closeout foam whose blowing agent was CFC-11 and not the newer HCFC 141b.[7]

In 2005, the problem of foam shed had not been fully cured; on STS-114, additional cameras mounted on the tank recorded a piece of foam separated from one of its Protuberance Air Load (PAL) ramps, which are designed to prevent unsteady air flow underneath the tank?s cable trays and pressurization lines during ascent. The PAL ramps consist of manually sprayed layers of foam, and are more likely to become a source of debris. That piece of foam did not impact the orbiter.

Reports published concurrent with the STS-114 mission suggest that excessive handling of the ET during modification and upgrade may have contributed to the foam loss on Discovery's Return to Flight mission. However, three shuttle missions (STS-121,STS-115, and STS-116) have since been conducted, all with "acceptable" levels of foam loss. However on STS-118 a piece of foam (and/or ice) about 10 cm in diameter separated from a feedline attachment bracket on the tank, ricocheted off one of the aft struts and struck the underside of the wing, damaging two tiles. The damage was not considered dangerous.

Here's a comment from someone who has verifiably been involved with the program and whose identity can be verified (note the guy's email address at the original link). I cite him because I CBA to go dredge through years of dry NASA statistical reports and he sums it up nicely:

I saw the non-CFC foam in action in missile defense tests at White Sands in 1998, just after the switch on the External Fuel Tank too.

Our ballistic missiles were encapsulated in half-cylinder foam pieces while they are sitting to be launched (commonly overnight or a few days). When the missile rises during lift-off, cables pull of the foam. The foam whole -- they are just tugged by the cables on the ground, so they fall off. This is how we have done it for 40 years.

On the very next launch in 1998 with the new CFC-less foam, instead of the cables pulling off the foam, some of the foam pieces broke, and portions remained on the missile as it rose. The negative for us was that the foam introduced unforseen aerodynamic effects as the missile accelerated, and instigated attitude changes. I.e., had it not been for our roll and attitude thrusters compensating, it could have started a some serious roll or even a tumble. Eventually the pieces flew off as the missile achived higher speeds (and a sigh of relieve was heard in the room).

As an engineer, I have NO PROBLEM designing solutions for CFC-free materials. But that is for NEW DESIGNS! But we are talking about an EXISTING DESIGN -- purposely created and tested with a material to a specific set of mitigated risks. Simple engineering principles -- you NEVER, EVER introduce a material or other UNKNOWN QUANTITY mid-production that could greatly and adversely reduce the mititgated risks in a design.

Simply put, testing shows that not only is the reduced tensile strength of the CFC-less materials causing 11x as many breaks -- but more importantly -- prior to their use, there had NEVER been a cut anywhere close to 75% deep in a tile! And with the CFC-less materials, there were DOZENS!

With the CFC foam, Orbiter tile replacement averaged 40/flight, pretty much all due to heat. After replacement, over 110/flight, many very deep, many clearly due to impacts.


Now I never worked on any physical component of the Shuttle Transport System (STS) while I was out at NASA a few years ago. I worked on the system no one likes to talk about (i.e., I worked on the "FTS" for the USAF 45th Space Wing Eastern Range Safety). But many engineers who had been around NASA a long time said they would not fly on the STS themselves.

And one of the overriding reasons was mid-design changes without evaluating impact.
Posted by Bryan J. Smith at July 29, 2005 09:54 PM

Official citations to back this up:

From just after the CFC/no-CFC switch, from NASA itself, before they'd flown many no-CFC tanks:
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Nexgen_Downloads/Jones_on_TPS.ppt

Average tiles damaged from flight requiring replacement: ~20

From 2003, after the Columbia incident:
http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=244193&

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration estimates that 100 shuttle tiles on average must be repaired or replaced after every mission. In 1997, Columbia came back with damage to 308 tiles -- with 132 showing scars longer than an inch. Some were as long as 15 inches and 11/2 inches deep.

Ergo, more crap falling off with the new ecomentalist coatings. This was considered the 'new normal' by NASA managers after 1999 or so and was why they were completely unconcerned about it. (See the report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.) The increase in crap falling off the tank assembly with no apparent major ill effects caused them to get complacent and not pay any attention to the chief engineer of the system who was screaming that no, this piece of foam out of the foam snowstorm could have caused damage and they really needed to look at the problem.

If they'd had the CFC-11 coated tanks, there would have been less debris coming off the tank and everyone would have been far more concerned when something large did fall off. It would also have been significantly easier to spot in such a higher signal-to-noise ratio environment.

Ecomentalism was not the direct cause of the accident... but all the same it was responsible for the deaths of seven astronauts - and unlike ecomentalism, this is not an article of faith but a matter of science and fact.
 
Last edited:
Yup. Insulating foam fell off the tank and bipod ramps upon liftoff and shattered the heat tiles on the leading edge of the wings. While the bipod ramps were still made with the older foam that used Freon, the tank coatings were the new-as-of-1997 'eco-friendly' foam which didn't use it. While crap falling off the tank and ramps is relatively normal, the new eco-friendly insulation sheds a lot more than the stuff made using Freon. The snowstorm of crap coming off the tank made it harder to spot the critical strike on the leading edge and lead to management ignoring it.

Surprise.

Wrong. I'm amazed you didn't try to blame the UAW.

If you read "Riding Rockets" by Mike Mullane, he mentions several incidents where tiles were shed and damaged the Shuttle. In one flight he took, a Columbia type accident was averted by millimetres, as the tiles had come off around an area of fuselage that was slightly thicker than normal.

He last flew a Shuttle in 1990. After several such incidents had been taken for granted (I forget the phrase - "variance of normalcy" I think) then it was deemed just another thing that happens. This acceptance of what shouldn't have been accepted happened in the 80s and was precisely the same thing that led to Challenger - O-ring blowby had happened on several flights before Challenger exploded - again Mullane describes it happening on his flight in 1984.

The switch in 1997 had the square root of sod all to do with it. They were firing bullets at themselves every time they took off. It didn't matter if those bullets where made of lead, nuclear tipped uranium, Freon or fluffy kittens, sooner or later it was going to kill them. The fact that it happen post-foam material change had nothing to do with it. If I spray 600 bullets and miss every time, but then throw a single fluffy kitten and hit the bullseye, then you can't turn round and say the fault is because I'm using fluffy kittens.

It only takes one ticket to win the lottery.
 
Last edited:
Published: 9 Dec 09 08:09 CET
Police received a call about an aggressive elk shortly after 3pm, the local L?nstidningen S?dert?lje (LT) newspaper reports.

A drunken elk reportedly attacked a pedestrian in the H?l? district of S?dert?lje south of Stockholm on Tuesday, prompting a response from police.

The elk was reportedly hiding behind a bakery when it suddenly attacked a passerby, according to police, who asked from assistance from a game warden in dealing with the hostile animal.

?The game warden recognized the elk. It usually walks around and eats apples, gets drunk, and then gets aggressive,? police spokesperson Bj?rn Engstr?m told the newspaper.

Following the incident, authorities decided to destroy the animal, which was thought to be injured.

The victim of the elk?s attack, however, reportedly survived the incident without serious injury.
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/23738/20091209/
 
Last edited:
^The elks are really stepping it up!!
 
One time I was showeling snow I turned around to see I'd showeled loads of snow onto a bloody elk. That was.. scary.
 
Wi n?t trei a h?liday in Sweden this yer?

See the l?veli lakes

The wonderful teleph?ne system

And mani interesting furry animals

Including the majestic m??se

A M??se once bit my sister ...
 
Top