--- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "mauk_mcamuk" <mauk2@...> wrote:
>
>
> A listing?  ....no.
>
> However, aside from your candidates below, there's a few others
> that might be good, especially if you're willing to accept
> isotopic seperation.

Unwilling.

> The classic is Fe56.  Takes three neutrons to Fe59 which beta's
> to Co59.

Takes too long.

>
> Ni is also nice, as it can soak up several neutrons before
> activation, and then most of the activation products are pretty
> benign/stable.
>
> Mo, Ti, and Sn also possess many stable isotopes, so if you
> seperate out the lighter ones you have a considerable "cushion"
> where neutron absorptions do not lead to activation.
> In addition, since they're 'in the middle' they tend to have
> lots of places they can transmute and still be benign.
>
> C has a realllly tiny cross section, so it might count?

Well it's no vanadium, but it's pretty good.

The same three elements that caught my eye -- Ti, V, Cr --
in my beta-ray rocket thing are mentioned
as low-activation first wall materials for fusion
reactors, always subject to the minor, minor detail
of getting them to stay lit. And if they go out,
well, the wall activation is all the less!

But Ti disappoints, or anyway disappoints me,
because 46-Ti, hit by fast neutrons, gives
significant amounts of 46-Sc.

--- G.R.L. Cowan ('How fire can be domesticated')
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/

A listing?  ....no.

However, aside from your candidates below, there's a few others that might be
good, especially if you're willing to accept isotopic seperation.

The classic is Fe56.  Takes three neutrons to Fe59 which beta's to Co59.

Ni is also nice, as it can soak up several neutrons before activation, and then
most of the activation products are pretty benign/stable.

Mo, Ti, and Sn also possess many stable isotopes, so if you seperate out the
lighter ones you have a considerable "cushion" where neutron absorptions do not
lead to activation. In addition, since they're 'in the middle' they tend to have
lots of places they can transmute and still be benign.

C has a realllly tiny cross section, so it might count?

Hope that helps! :D

--- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "csceadraham" <csceadraham@...> wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone know of a listing of chemical elements
> that excel in this respect?
>
> An element can score big by being helium,
> except air helium has 3-He in it, which becomes
> tritium ... except tritium is an exceedingly
> weak beta emitter and no gamma emitter at all.
>
> It can also score big by having only very short-lived
> activation products. Even if the cross-section for
> this activation is large, exponential decay over
> many half-lives makes the bystander's dose small.
>
> Vanadium is the exemplar here: 51-V becomes 52-V,
> a powerful enough radioisotope that I liked it as
> the energy source for an RTG rocket, and one of
> this rocket's strong points, from a bystander's
> point of view, was that if it broke up, an hour later
> the power is 0.99998 gone. If the debris takes an hour
> or more to reach the ground, there is no potential
> to irradiate anyone.
>
> So far I've got O, F, Ne, Mg, Si, V. Maybe iodine,
> although iodine-128's half-life of 25.00 minutes
> is a little long.
>
> Have I missed any? (I didn't miss Al. When one
> neutron hits it and two come away, you get 26-Al,
> a million-year gamma emitter.)
>
>
> --- G.R.L. Cowan ('How fire can be domesticated')
> http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/
>

Does anyone know of a listing of chemical elements
that excel in this respect?

An element can score big by being helium,
except air helium has 3-He in it, which becomes
tritium ... except tritium is an exceedingly
weak beta emitter and no gamma emitter at all.

It can also score big by having only very short-lived
activation products. Even if the cross-section for
this activation is large, exponential decay over
many half-lives makes the bystander's dose small.

Vanadium is the exemplar here: 51-V becomes 52-V,
a powerful enough radioisotope that I liked it as
the energy source for an RTG rocket, and one of
this rocket's strong points, from a bystander's
point of view, was that if it broke up, an hour later
the power is 0.99998 gone. If the debris takes an hour
or more to reach the ground, there is no potential
to irradiate anyone.

So far I've got O, F, Ne, Mg, Si, V. Maybe iodine,
although iodine-128's half-life of 25.00 minutes
is a little long.

Have I missed any? (I didn't miss Al. When one
neutron hits it and two come away, you get 26-Al,
a million-year gamma emitter.)


--- G.R.L. Cowan ('How fire can be domesticated')
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/

--- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "whatdoesthatmakeus" <reese@...> wrote:
>
> Russia to provide nuclear reactors to India. I thought Obama was doing that,
and that Bush's GNEP initiative was just a bunch of hot air. Weird that Russia
would sneak their foot in the door now, of all times. Huh.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/89c98624-e352-11de-8d36-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check\
=1

Because of the U.S.' rediculous nuclear 'boycott/embargo' of India for decades,
the Russians stepped in and started building nukes for India shortly thereafter.
What the US is doing is to free up technology, as it has, for India to use. The
Indians are now interested in at least one nuplex of several US reactors,
wanting to have their feet in as many different LWR technologies as possible.
This is not because 'it feels good' but because the waste from LWRs is going to
be the feed stock for their phase two of their nuclear development, which is an
evolution toward fast reactors. India is looking at the AP1000, they couldn't do
without "Obama's approval".

Russia to provide nuclear reactors to India. I thought Obama was doing that, and
that Bush's GNEP initiative was just a bunch of hot air. Weird that Russia would
sneak their foot in the door now, of all times. Huh.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/89c98624-e352-11de-8d36-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check\
=1

Tehran is claiming that one of their missing nuclear scientists was given to the
U.S. by the Saudis. Could cause some interesting news in the near future, if
true. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B72IB20091208

The NRC has published an interactive map showing the locations of all new
nuclear power plant COL applications. It's fun to click on places where hippies
will soon be marching. Makes you feel... significant. Like, we're changing the
World, man! http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/new-reactor-map.html

And, in the 'only related to nuclear news because soon this whackjob will have
nuclear weapons' front, Ahmadinejad is now telling Iranians that America is
keeping the savior (the Mahdi, for all you 'Dune' fans) from returning. I'm sure
this rabid fanaticism won't, in any way, affect how he would use a nuclear
weapon, though.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579640,00.html?test=latestnews

http://www.popsci.com/science/gallery/2009-12/gallery-years-most-amazing-scienti\
fic-images

See image # 7 of 62

Karl Johanson

I don't disagree. But this process of de-nuclearization has been going on rather
steadily since SALT I. Clinton signed into law the "Megatons to Megawatts"
program. I actually give Bush credit for NOT making nuclear a partisan issue and
just allowing the DofE to go ahead and develop programs, for congress to grant
loan guarantees, etc etc.

The problem I have is that the results will not be that much different than
Obama's non-policy since he is continuing, save Yucca Mt., the Bush policies.

I say this because I never considered the only really partisan pro-nuclear
group, the Republicans, or some of them, really understood what the issues are.
It was rote for them: nuclear is big business; big business is good, capitalism
is good, profits are good, go nuke.

The differences between the Know-nothing Republicans and Do-nothing Democrats
are far less compared to, say, how the Chinese *nation* or the S. Korean
*nation*, India, Russia etc are "pro-nuclear" compared to even the most avid
pro-nuclear Republican, say Alexander, today. There simply is no understanding
what it will take to get America to go nuclear which *at a minimum* is a return
to the *passion*, and the rather mild one at that, of the 1950s/1960s which saw
2000 nuclear plants on the horizon. THAT is the difference between the
half-backed Republicans and the centrifugally-head-in-the-sands Democrats on ONE
side and what it will take to get nuclear underway seriously in the U.S.

David

--- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "schedule80" <schedule80@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> David- There is one nuclear area where George W. Bush was quite successful -
that being in the area of nuclear weapons disarmament. When Bush entered office
in 2001, the US had over 8870 operational, deployed nuclear weapons.
>
> When he left office in the beginning of 2009, the US had just over 2700 active
weapons. That is a reduction of over 6000 weapons, around 70%. Of course, the
Main Stream Media will never give Bush credit for this, they hate him so. It is
rather ironic. Obama is going to get the Nobel Peace Prize partially for his
nuclear disarmament policies. But it was Bush who actually accomplished major
reductions in the nuclear arsenal.
>
> See pdfs at the following links.
>
> 2001:
>
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/n32g60v4172q3862/?p=94515071294746c28b6\
bf92388be939a&pi=47
>
> 2009:
>
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/f64x2k3716wq9613/?p=d49c39920bbb4ff784e\
6aa40a5851a65&pi=55
>
> - Pete
>
>
> --- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "David" <dave.walters@> wrote:
> >
>

David- There is one nuclear area where George W. Bush was quite successful -
that being in the area of nuclear weapons disarmament. When Bush entered office
in 2001, the US had over 8870 operational, deployed nuclear weapons.

When he left office in the beginning of 2009, the US had just over 2700 active
weapons. That is a reduction of over 6000 weapons, around 70%. Of course, the
Main Stream Media will never give Bush credit for this, they hate him so. It is
rather ironic. Obama is going to get the Nobel Peace Prize partially for his
nuclear disarmament policies. But it was Bush who actually accomplished major
reductions in the nuclear arsenal.

See pdfs at the following links.

2001:
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/n32g60v4172q3862/?p=94515071294746c28b6\
bf92388be939a&pi=47

2009:
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/f64x2k3716wq9613/?p=d49c39920bbb4ff784e\
6aa40a5851a65&pi=55

- Pete


--- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "David" <dave.walters@...> wrote:
>

The 123 India agreement, essentially is coming fruition now. Obama supports
this.

The UAE agreement. Parsed and pushed through congress with DofE (Obama) support.

Jordanian phospate uranium mining. DofE has given 100% support through reps to.
IAEA.

The problem is that Obama, as Prez, is doing ONE thing internationally, and
basically zero, except for the reprocessing bit, here at home. He has no policy,
as I previously noted 1000 times. This is a bad thing, not a good thing.

Secondly, you think Alexander is an "energy expert". You are crazy. He's
incompetent at articulating his own position, reflecting "The Industry" more
than a real energy policy. He did ONE thing that was good: he hired William
Tucker to write his stuff on energy since he, himself, was incapable of this.
There is really only ONE person in Congress who knows this shit and it's Lisa
Murklowski (R) from Alaska (the running mate McCain *should* of chosen since
she's intellectually way and above Pallin and even Biden).

I don't give a shit about drilling. It's not going to solve our lust for
gasoline. It's a drive by the oil companies to make more money which is what the
politicos are in the pay of anyway (see health care debate). I'm not opposed to
it, however. What I oppose is that the ISSUE is not energy "security" which is
an f*ing joke it's about developing nuclear energy. By greedily tying nuclear to
drilling...which are simply unrelated at so many levels, they added a stupid
poison pill. This is STUPID and done so by STUPID politicians.

An approach to energy should at least be parsed between generation and
transportation fuels. At least you can then have a real debate. But
Lieberman/Alexander ruined this. They are as bad as Obama's head-in-the-sand
approach.

--- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "mauk_mcamuk" <mauk2@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> >--- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "David" <dave.walters@> wrote:
> >
> > There have been far more nuclear agreements under Obama than under >Bush.
>
> Links, please!
>
>
> >Bush 'talked' but did nothing internationally.
>
> Dude.  President Bush is not in office any more.  President Obama has been in
play for a year now.
>
> I no longer care what Bush did or did not do.
>
> I care what Obama is doing, or not doing.
>
> Mainly not doing, from the evidence of my eyes.
>
>
> >
> > I don't see Obama as having *any* strategy for the US outside what >comes
out of Congress. I do expect more funding, already in the >works, for
reprocessing R&D to continue.
> >
>
> Screw R&D!  There comes a time when you STOP TINKERING and START DOING.
>
> When is that time going to be?
>
>
> > I don't believe Obama will come out 'for' anything and that is a >problem.
>
>
> Imagine that.  The phrase 'empty suit' springs to mind.
>
>
> >It's sort of like Bush's supposed "pro-nuclear" position >and...doesn't do
anything either.
> >
>
>
> Dude.   I DON'T CARE.  Quit bringing up President Bush as some kind of defense
for President Obama's duplicity/apathy on nuclear energy.  Nobody except the
hard-core koolaid chuggers are still buying that line.
>
>
> > The problem, generally, is that the issue of nuclear energy, or >expanding
it in the US, is being politicized, such as attaching oil >drilling to funding
for nuclear. WTF?
> >
>
> (sigh)  So oil drilling is bad now?  Sell your car.  Start chopping wood.  Go
off the grid.
>
> >These politicians are *suicidal* even when they mean well. And they >are
dumb.
>
> No they're not dumb.  They're experts in politics, who should have competent
advisors who are experts on energy.  The problem is, there's been 40+ years of
lies about nuclear that are so deep that the advisors are telling their bosses
the mythology as fact.  So we get guys saying the concept of baseload is
obsolete.
>
> This is the victory of the anti's.  I tried to warn people, it's not the
President, it's the Cabinet.  Or in Obama's case, the vast cloud of
highly-suspect 'czars'.
>
> Elections matter.
>
>
> >There is no *passion* about moving ahead like there is S. Korea, >China and
India. Until there is even a small passionate scientific >community for nuclear,
the politicians will continue to mess up the >possibilties by diffusing the
issue over 'energy security' and multi->issue nonsense.
>
>
> Oh, you mean a passionate group like the global warming 'scientists' who just
got their dirty laundry hacked?
>
> Or a passionate group like the mob's of the anti's?
>
>
> >It needs to stand on it's own and NO ONE is pushing this. Your scorn >of
Obama is simply missing the forest of a tree.
> >
>
> Uh huh.
>
> Obama is the man with the big desk, now.  What's he doing with it?
>

>--- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "David" <dave.walters@...> wrote:
>
> There have been far more nuclear agreements under Obama than under >Bush.

Links, please!


>Bush 'talked' but did nothing internationally.

Dude.  President Bush is not in office any more.  President Obama has been in
play for a year now.

I no longer care what Bush did or did not do.

I care what Obama is doing, or not doing.

Mainly not doing, from the evidence of my eyes.


>
> I don't see Obama as having *any* strategy for the US outside what >comes out
of Congress. I do expect more funding, already in the >works, for reprocessing
R&D to continue.
>

Screw R&D!  There comes a time when you STOP TINKERING and START DOING.

When is that time going to be?


> I don't believe Obama will come out 'for' anything and that is a >problem.


Imagine that.  The phrase 'empty suit' springs to mind.


>It's sort of like Bush's supposed "pro-nuclear" position >and...doesn't do
anything either.
>


Dude.   I DON'T CARE.  Quit bringing up President Bush as some kind of defense
for President Obama's duplicity/apathy on nuclear energy.  Nobody except the
hard-core koolaid chuggers are still buying that line.


> The problem, generally, is that the issue of nuclear energy, or >expanding it
in the US, is being politicized, such as attaching oil >drilling to funding for
nuclear. WTF?
>

(sigh)  So oil drilling is bad now?  Sell your car.  Start chopping wood.  Go
off the grid.

>These politicians are *suicidal* even when they mean well. And they >are dumb.

No they're not dumb.  They're experts in politics, who should have competent
advisors who are experts on energy.  The problem is, there's been 40+ years of
lies about nuclear that are so deep that the advisors are telling their bosses
the mythology as fact.  So we get guys saying the concept of baseload is
obsolete.

This is the victory of the anti's.  I tried to warn people, it's not the
President, it's the Cabinet.  Or in Obama's case, the vast cloud of
highly-suspect 'czars'.

Elections matter.


>There is no *passion* about moving ahead like there is S. Korea, >China and
India. Until there is even a small passionate scientific >community for nuclear,
the politicians will continue to mess up the >possibilties by diffusing the
issue over 'energy security' and multi->issue nonsense.


Oh, you mean a passionate group like the global warming 'scientists' who just
got their dirty laundry hacked?

Or a passionate group like the mob's of the anti's?


>It needs to stand on it's own and NO ONE is pushing this. Your scorn >of Obama
is simply missing the forest of a tree.
>

Uh huh.

Obama is the man with the big desk, now.  What's he doing with it?

Blech.....

I have had a few beers in my time, and the strongest beer I've tried is Sam
Adams Imperial White, at a bit over ten percent alcohol.

Even at that level, it stops tasting like 'beer'.  (Note, it's good, but not at
all like beer.)

This nuclear penguin stuff does not even deserve the name beer any more, in my
humble opinion. :D

Heh, nuclear penguin....



--- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "impartial2k01" <impartial2k01@...> wrote:
>
>
> Brewery launches Tactical Nuclear Penguin, 'world's strongest' beer
>
> A Scottish brewery, with a history of controversy, claims to have made the
world's strongest beer.
>
> By John Bingham
> Published: 12:04PM GMT 27 Nov 2009
>
>  BrewDog Managing Director with bottle of Tactical Nuclear Penguin, the worlds
strongest beer  Photo: Central Scotland News Agency
>
> The drink, named "Tactical Nuclear Penguin" is so strong that it should be
served in small measures usually reserved for spirits.
>
> Its maker, BrewDog brewers of Fraserburgh described the 32 per cent proof
tipple as its "most audacious and ambitious project to date".
>
> But its launch comes amid a high profile debate in Scotland about an epidemic
of alcoholism in the country. The devolved SNP administration is considering
introducing minimum pricing in an attempt to curb problem drinking.
>
> BrewDog, which describes itself as making "progressive, craft beers" was
previously responsible for an 18.2pc drink called Tokyo which it claimed had
been "banned" by the Portman Group, the industry body which runs a voluntary
code of conduct.
>
> It also made a low alcohol brew which it mockingly name "Nanny State".
>
> Only 500 bottles of its latest beer have been produced, with half going on
sale for £30 each and remainder offered for £250 with a share in the company
also on offer.
>
> In a posting on the company's website, James Watt, the managing director said:
"This beer is bold, irreverent and uncompromising, a beer with a soul and a
purpose, a statement of intent."
>
> He added: "Beer has a terrible reputation in Britain, it's ignorant to assume
that a beer can't be enjoyed responsibly like a nice dram or a glass of fine
wine.
>
> "A beer like Tactical Nuclear Penguin should be enjoyed in spirit sized
measures.
>
> "It pairs fantastically with vanilla bean white chocolate it really brings out
the complexity of the beer and complements the powerful, smoky and cocoa
flavours."
>
> A warning on the label advises drinkers to take it in small servings: "and
with an air of aristocratic nonchalance.
>
> "In exactly the same manner that you would enjoy a fine whisky, a Frank Zappa
album or a visit from a friendly yet anxious ghost."
>
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/6669532/Brewery-launche\
s-Tactical-Nuclear-Penguin-worlds-strongest-beer.html
>

There have been far more nuclear agreements under Obama than under Bush. Bush
'talked' but did nothing internationally. In fact you are wrong about Korea. S.
Korea's nuclear program is one of the most aggressive in the world, and with US
support. China's program of massive expansion is being supported by the US via
Westinghouse and encouraged by the US DofE. (since we stand to benefit from the
learning curve as the Chinese absorb all the costs).

I don't see Obama as having *any* strategy for the US outside what comes out of
Congress. I do expect more funding, already in the works, for reprocessing R&D
to continue.

I don't believe Obama will come out 'for' anything and that is a problem. It's
sort of like Bush's supposed "pro-nuclear" position and...doesn't do anything
either.

The problem, generally, is that the issue of nuclear energy, or expanding it in
the US, is being politicized, such as attaching oil drilling to funding for
nuclear. WTF? These politicians are *suicidal* even when they mean well. And
they are dumb. There is no *passion* about moving ahead like there is S. Korea,
China and India. Until there is even a small passionate scientific community for
nuclear, the politicians will continue to mess up the possibilties by diffusing
the issue over 'energy security' and multi-issue nonsense. It needs to stand on
it's own and NO ONE is pushing this. Your scorn of Obama is simply missing the
forest of a tree.

David

--- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Harris" <harriswillys@...> wrote:
>
> Um, yeah.  Ask India about that, as the current administration backs away from
any Bush era nuclear technology sharing trade agreements as quickly as it
possibly can.  Oh, wait, they're just "under review."  Obama (or his staff, at
least) seems to believe that one can placate one's enemies most effectively by
alienating one's friends.
>
> And I'll agree with you about Obama's helping Korea develop its nuclear
infrastructure.  What a shame that it seems to be North Korea benefiting the
most.
>
> I'd honestly like to see the man succeed, to step up to the plate.  I have to
believe that he has the ability, no one survives Chicago politics without being
a pretty tough cookie, but instead we get Hopey McChange.  I'm embarrassed by
and ashamed of Obama's behavior over the past year and dismayed at his
anti-nuclear stance.
>
> Mike Harris
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: David
>   To: Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 9:05 AM
>   Subject: [Know_Nukes] Re: Nuclear soars worldwide, but not in the US.
>
>   Thirdly, Obama seems... *seems* have actually increased US support for
nuclear energy *outside* the U.S. Thus, his actions are actually helping India,
Korea, China, U.A.E and other countries establish or expand their already
existing nuclear infrastructure.
>

The "More coal, less nuclear" coalition speaks again.

David

--- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, ncohen12@... wrote:
>
>
>
> Coalition for Peace and Justice,609-335-8176 phone;
www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: ncohen12@...
> To: SalemEIS@...
> Cc: "unplugsalem yahoogroups.com" <unplugsalem@yahoogroups.com>,
"unplugsalem-announce yahoogroups" <unplugsalem-announce@yahoogroups.com>,
savethefish@yahoogroups.com, "relicensewatch-steering"
<relicensewatch-steering@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 8:44:08 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: [relicensewatch-steering] salem nuclear plants; environmental scoping
letter
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Below in text and attached as a Word file is Unplug Salem's letter to NRC on
the environemntal scoping for Salem UNits 1 and 2:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The UNPLUG SALEM Campaign
>
> 321 Barr Ave. , Linwood NJ 08221
>
> ncohen12@...
>
> www.unplugsalem.org
>
> 609-335-8176
>
>
>
> 11/30/2009
>
>
>
> To: Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
>
>
>
> Comments for the environmental review of the relicensing of   Salem Unit 1,
Docket No. 50-272, License No. DPR-70, and   Salem Unit 2, Docket No. 50-311,
License No. DPR-75.
>
>  
>
>     The UNPLUG Salem Campaign is a network of organizations and individuals
that acts as a public health and nuclear safety watchdog focusing on PSEG's
three nuclear power plants.
>
>     This letter concerns the proposed relicensing of Salem Units 1 and 2.
>
> We oppose extending the license of these two nuclear plants. We also oppose
the process by which decisions on relicensing are made. This process makes it
virtually impossible for most individuals and many organizations to participate.
In addition, because only certain issues are deemed acceptable by the NRC for
submission as contentions, many issues of safety and health are not even looked
at by NRC in making its decision.
>
>     If NRC can give Oyster Creek a 20 year extension, even though that
nuclear plant could not be built under today's standards, and is a meltdown
waiting to happen, it is clear that the relicensing process for Salem and Hope
Creek will be nothing more than massive amounts of paperwork and an end result
of PSEG being rubber stamped as "safe" for another 20 years.
>
>    However, it is important to put our concerns on the record, even though
we do not expect NRC to act on any of them.
>
>    Here are some of the many areas that NRC should look at before they deny
Salem Units 1 and 2 a 20 year extension:
>
>   (1) Salem Units 1 and 2 slaughter billions of fish and other marine life
every year because of their once-through cooling system, in violation of the
Clean Water Act, section 316(b).
>
>
>
> (2)   Salem Units 1 and 2 have leaked hydrazine into the Delaware Bay,
tritium into the ground water and continue to leak low levels of radionuclides
into the air.
>
>
>
> (3) The electrical system that connects Salem Units 1 and 2 to the regional
grid is
>
> old and has had a number of failures, including transformer failures.
>
>
>
> (4) PSEG has at best a spotty record when it comes to keeping diesel
generators working. This is a concern because both of the Salem plants rely on
diesel generators to actually work in the case of offsite power being
interrupted.
>
>
>
> (5) PSEG has a serious Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE)
>
>   and Safety Culture problem. This has been a chronic problem at all 3 of
PSEG's plants, and continues to show up in NRC inspections under "cross-cutting
issues of human performance".   One key example was the tritium leak, which
should have been prevented if PSEG managers and employees were doing their job.
>
>
>
> (6) Steam Generators at Salem Units 1 and 2 have steam tubes made of alloy 600
instead of the more robust and safer alloy 660, thus forcing PSEG to have to
replace steam generators more often or face the chance of a cascading rupture
leading to a LOCA (Loss of Cooling Accident).
>
>
>
> (7)   PSEG does not use the most effective water chemistry methods, as
discussed in writing to NRC in the late 1990s by a former PSEG employee, and
thus PSEG adds additional pollution to the groundwater around Artificial Island.
>
>
>
> (8)   Salem Units 1 and 2 are vulnerable to a severe earthquake because
Artificial Island is built on compacted mud, and its pilings do not reach
bedrock.
>
>
>
> (9) It is not clear that Salem Units 1 and 2 have solved all of their firewrap
problems or if they still have fire watches posted in certain areas.
>
>
>
> (10) Because Yucca Mountain, the national depository for spent nuclear fuel,
will not be operative, Lower Alloways Creek will become, and actually is now, a
long term nuclear waste dump, which violates the zoning board agreement between
PSEG and Lower Alloways.
>
>
>
> (11) Salem Units 1 and 2 have buried pipes and electrical conduits that have
not been inspected and, based on findings at other nuclear plants, may be
leaking tritium or in danger of electrical short circuit accidents.
>
>
>
> (12) The Evacuation Plan for Salem/Hope Creek is based on faulty assumptions
and would not work under many scenarios, including a fast acting radiation
release and multiple releases. Under worst case scenarios, thousands of people
within the 10 and 50 mile zones would die from radiation exposure.
>
>
>
> (13) Salem Units 1 and 2 emit continual amounts of low level radiation and
radionuclides, which contribute to the cancer cases and immune system disorders
in the 50 mile zone around Artificial Island.
>
>
>
> (14) Salem Units 1 and 2 remain prime terrorist targets, and there are many
ways terrorists could prevail, none of which will I list here.
>
>
>
> (15) If NRC approves the relicensing of Salem Units 1 and 2, the people of
South Jersey and Delaware will become unwitting guinea pigs in NRC's grand
experiment to find out if aging nuclear plants actually can last another 20
years or not.
>
>
>
>
>
> What should be done:
>
>
>
>       Salem Units 1 and 2 should be decommissioned at the end of their 40
year licenses. Affected employees should be relocated and retrained by PSEG.
Artificial Island should be turned into a wind power and solar power "park" to
produce some of the electrical energy formerly produced by the nuclear plants.
>
>    
>
>
                                        \
                 
>
>
>
>
                                        \
                           Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
                                        \
                           Norm Cohen
>
>
                                        \
                           Coordinator, The UNPLUG
Salem Campaign
>
>
>
> Sent by email to NRC 11/29/09
>
> Coalition for Peace and Justice,609-335-8176 phone;
www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org
>

From: "Ralph" <ralph.bagwell@...>

> Well said but please consider that large quantities of CO2 can come from
> "natural" sources

Can you point to a single climatologist who isn't well aware of that?

And again, human contributions to 'greenhouse gases' also include methane
(released natural gas, and some agriculture practices), Nitrogen oxides
(primarily from fossil fuel use) and CFCs. Albedo changes have an effect as
well.

> - with the hand of man not involved. I also believe that it is not a given
> that higher CO2 levels are all bad for our planet .

Can you point to a single climatologist who claims it will be bad for all
the planet? Most of the life on Earth may actually be bacterial living in
cracks in the crust. They'll be just fine, even if there's significant sea
level rise & other effects.

Karl Johanson

Well said but please consider that large quantities of CO2 can come from
"natural" sources - with the hand of man not involved. I also believe that it is
not a given that higher CO2 levels are all bad for our planet .


> Have you ever wondered why medical research is done with double-blind studies?
Suppose a researcher wants to test the effectiveness of some new drug for
treatment of a disease. The researcher sets up a testing program where some
patients get the real drug and some patients get a placebo. But neither the
patients nor the doctors know which patients are getting the active drugs.
>
> Why is it important to keep this information from the doctors administering
the drug? Because such knowledge tends to introduce a bias, even with honest and
caring medical professionals. If the doctors knew which patients were getting
the real drug, perhaps the patients would get more bed-side attention. Whatever
the reason; biases, even inadvertent biases, need to be avoided.
>
> What does this have to do with the data manipulation carried out by the
well-intentioned climatologists in New Zealand? Sure, they manipulated the data
based on what they think are good reasons, but in the end they are changing the
temperatures, which coincidentally give them just the results they are looking
for.
>
> Something else I've wondered about. To which standards were the thermometers
calibrated to in, say, the 19th century? If you work at a power plant, you know
how important it is to keep the instrumentation in calibration. Even today, are
all of the instruments calibrated to some reference standard?
>
> I am not a climate change denier. I know that the burning of fossil fuels is
increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. How much that CO2 affects
global temperature, though, is something that still needs to be determined with
greater accuracy. The insights gleaned from the hacked e-mails, as well as other
information, give me less confidence in the methods used by the supposed leading
climate researchers.
>
> The 'We're scientists, you're not, so shut up.' argument isn't going to be
good enough if the East Anglia CRU scandal continues to grow.
>
> - Pete

Have you ever wondered why medical research is done with double-blind studies?
Suppose a researcher wants to test the effectiveness of some new drug for
treatment of a disease. The researcher sets up a testing program where some
patients get the real drug and some patients get a placebo. But neither the
patients nor the doctors know which patients are getting the active drugs.

Why is it important to keep this information from the doctors administering the
drug? Because such knowledge tends to introduce a bias, even with honest and
caring medical professionals. If the doctors knew which patients were getting
the real drug, perhaps the patients would get more bed-side attention. Whatever
the reason; biases, even inadvertent biases, need to be avoided.

What does this have to do with the data manipulation carried out by the
well-intentioned climatologists in New Zealand? Sure, they manipulated the data
based on what they think are good reasons, but in the end they are changing the
temperatures, which coincidentally give them just the results they are looking
for.

Something else I've wondered about. To which standards were the thermometers
calibrated to in, say, the 19th century? If you work at a power plant, you know
how important it is to keep the instrumentation in calibration. Even today, are
all of the instruments calibrated to some reference standard?

I am not a climate change denier. I know that the burning of fossil fuels is
increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. How much that CO2 affects
global temperature, though, is something that still needs to be determined with
greater accuracy. The insights gleaned from the hacked e-mails, as well as other
information, give me less confidence in the methods used by the supposed leading
climate researchers.

The 'We're scientists, you're not, so shut up.' argument isn't going to be good
enough if the East Anglia CRU scandal continues to grow.

- Pete

--- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "csceadraham" <csceadraham@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes/message/23778
> "schedule80" <schedule80@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Now the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric
> > Research (NIWA) has been accused of fudging the temperature
> > record, just like the East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU)
> > in Britain.
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php
>
>
> --- G.R.L. Cowan ('How fire can be domesticated')
> http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/
>

Brewery launches Tactical Nuclear Penguin, 'world's strongest' beer

A Scottish brewery, with a history of controversy, claims to have made the
world's strongest beer.

By John Bingham
Published: 12:04PM GMT 27 Nov 2009

  BrewDog Managing Director with bottle of Tactical Nuclear Penguin, the worlds
strongest beer  Photo: Central Scotland News Agency

The drink, named "Tactical Nuclear Penguin" is so strong that it should be
served in small measures usually reserved for spirits.

Its maker, BrewDog brewers of Fraserburgh described the 32 per cent proof tipple
as its "most audacious and ambitious project to date".

But its launch comes amid a high profile debate in Scotland about an epidemic of
alcoholism in the country. The devolved SNP administration is considering
introducing minimum pricing in an attempt to curb problem drinking.

BrewDog, which describes itself as making "progressive, craft beers" was
previously responsible for an 18.2pc drink called Tokyo which it claimed had
been "banned" by the Portman Group, the industry body which runs a voluntary
code of conduct.

It also made a low alcohol brew which it mockingly name "Nanny State".

Only 500 bottles of its latest beer have been produced, with half going on sale
for £30 each and remainder offered for £250 with a share in the company also on
offer.

In a posting on the company's website, James Watt, the managing director said:
"This beer is bold, irreverent and uncompromising, a beer with a soul and a
purpose, a statement of intent."

He added: "Beer has a terrible reputation in Britain, it's ignorant to assume
that a beer can't be enjoyed responsibly like a nice dram or a glass of fine
wine.

"A beer like Tactical Nuclear Penguin should be enjoyed in spirit sized
measures.

"It pairs fantastically with vanilla bean white chocolate it really brings out
the complexity of the beer and complements the powerful, smoky and cocoa
flavours."

A warning on the label advises drinkers to take it in small servings: "and with
an air of aristocratic nonchalance.

"In exactly the same manner that you would enjoy a fine whisky, a Frank Zappa
album or a visit from a friendly yet anxious ghost."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/6669532/Brewery-launche\
s-Tactical-Nuclear-Penguin-worlds-strongest-beer.html

----- Original Message -----

From: David

To: Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 9:05 AM

Subject: [Know_Nukes] Re: Nuclear soars worldwide, but not in the US.

 

Thirdly, Obama seems... *seems* have actually increased US support for nuclear energy *outside* the U.S. Thus, his actions are actually helping India, Korea, China, U.A.E and other countries establish or expand their already existing nuclear infrastructure.

First, you, not me, are hungup about Obama. What I generally stated what that
Obama, with no real energy plan, but not a energy sock puppet like McCain
revealed himself to be in hearings on Yucca Mountain, would continue along the
Bush lines, which he has, minus the rhetorical nonsense of the Bush people.

Secondly, Obama IS pro-science and doesn't let his own ignorance of science make
him a captive of the anti-Science industry folks or anti-science wingnut right
wing in the U.S.

Thirdly, Obama seems... *seems* have actually increased US support for nuclear
energy *outside* the U.S. Thus, his actions are actually helping India, Korea,
China, U.A.E and other countries establish or expand their already existing
nuclear infrastructure.

He's a little bit like Woody Allen who refused to do commercials in the US as it
would appear to denigrate his 'non-commercial' image but gladly did them in
places they didn't speak English.

I didn't vote for Obama, but I can view his record, or lack there of, far more
objectively than you can, it seems.

--- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "mauk_mcamuk" <mauk2@...> wrote:
>
> <blink>
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>
> Hee, hee!
>
> Whew....
>
> Yeah, okay.  :D  You are certainly entitled to your opinions!
>
> You said:
>
> "...shortsited capitalist interests and bureaucratic incompetency."
>
> Weren't YOU the guy who assured us all that Our Messiah was going to be
solidly, nay, ardently, pro-nuclear?
>
> Instead we get the World Apology Tour, totalitarian power-grabs, and NRC
stone-walling.
>
> Right.  Way to tap-dance around that donkey crapping in the kitchen!
>
> Nothing like being "dragged" along by foreign progress to make every
Democrat's heart glow with genuine American pride, right?  After all,
Europeans/Asians/Africans/etc. are all smarter, cooler, and better than we are,
any day of the week....
>
>
>
> --- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "David" <dave.walters@> wrote:
> >
> > It's basically what' I've been writing about at >davidwalters.dailykos.com 
it's going fine everywhere else BUT the >US. I suspect we'll be *dragged* upward
as the Indians and South >Koreans and Chinese kick our sorry asses.
> >
> > D.
> >
>

--- In http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes/message/23778
"schedule80" <schedule80@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Now the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric
> Research (NIWA) has been accused of fudging the temperature
> record, just like the East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU)
> in Britain.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php


--- G.R.L. Cowan ('How fire can be domesticated')
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/

Now the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)
has been accused of fudging the temperature record, just like the East Anglia
Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Britain.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017977/climategate-the-scan\
dal-spreads-the-plot-thickens-the-shame-deepens/

Two graphs are shown. One, with massaged and corrected data, shows a warming
trend. The other, with just the raw data, shows more or less random noise, or at
most a shallow uptrend.

More information here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-diff\
erent-story-than-the-official-one/
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The conspiracy to suppress information is documented in the leaked CRU e-mails.
In one message, Phil Jones says he would rather delete some key data rather than
turn it over for independent review.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2009/11/hacked_climate_emails_and_foi.htm\
l
------------------------------------------------------------------

Then there is this blog entry from Steve McIntyre, a leading climate change
skeptic.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6789

The CRU deleted/lost/destroyed temperature data that McIntyre was trying to
obtain. (You mean just like Phil Jones threatened he was going to do in his
e-mail? Yes, just like that.)

From the link above, the CRU responds to McIntyre:
"We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e.
quality controlled and homogenized) data."
------------------------------------------------------------------

We can see in the New Zealand experience in the first link that "value-added"
and "homogenized" data tend to show what the researcher wants to show.

For those of you in the nuclear power industry, would this kind of record
keeping be acceptable at any of our power plants? I no longer work in the
nuclear industry, but when I did, I think I remember just about every piece of
paper kept as an official record was copied onto microfiche at least three
times. The original was kept in a fire-proof and protected vault. Copy 1 was
kept on-site for easy retrieval and viewing by plant personnel. Copies 2 and 3
were sent to separate storage locations in separate cities.

- Pete

<blink>

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Hee, hee!

Whew....

Yeah, okay.  :D  You are certainly entitled to your opinions!

You said:

"...shortsited capitalist interests and bureaucratic incompetency."

Weren't YOU the guy who assured us all that Our Messiah was going to be solidly,
nay, ardently, pro-nuclear?

Instead we get the World Apology Tour, totalitarian power-grabs, and NRC
stone-walling.

Right.  Way to tap-dance around that donkey crapping in the kitchen!

Nothing like being "dragged" along by foreign progress to make every Democrat's
heart glow with genuine American pride, right?  After all,
Europeans/Asians/Africans/etc. are all smarter, cooler, and better than we are,
any day of the week....



--- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "David" <dave.walters@...> wrote:
>
> It's basically what' I've been writing about at >davidwalters.dailykos.com 
it's going fine everywhere else BUT the >US. I suspect we'll be *dragged* upward
as the Indians and South >Koreans and Chinese kick our sorry asses.
>
> D.
>

It's basically what' I've been writing about at davidwalters.dailykos.com  it's
going fine everywhere else BUT the US. I suspect we'll be *dragged* upward as
the Indians and South Koreans and Chinese kick our sorry asses.

D.

--- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "mauk_mcamuk" <mauk2@...> wrote:
>
>
> Here's a good blog post I wandered across:
>
>
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/025020.php
>
>
> So, you think things may improve after 2010?
>
> Maaaaybe....
>

Well, look at this:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9C7C6VG0&show_article=1

You know it has to be simply TERRIBLE if even the UN is unhappy with Iran over
their peaceful nuclear program.

Of course, the UN isn't going to actually DO anything about it.  Isn't this fun!

But it's probably a case where the Iranian's were just mis-translated
again....somehow.

Here's a good blog post I wandered across:


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/025020.php


So, you think things may improve after 2010?

Maaaaybe....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/11/22/2009-11-22_three_mile_island\
.html

----- Original Message -----

From: mauk_mcamuk

To: Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 9:19 AM

Subject: [Know_Nukes] India sharpens it's sword.

 

Well, I have posted on the implications of Iranian nuclear ascendancy. I argue that the entirety of the Middle East, South Asia, the Far East, Asia, etc, will be inflamed by such.

The latest:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091123/wl_nm/us_india_missile

Ah, nothing like naming your missile after the god of fire to really point out what it's used for. :)

Anybody care to estimate what/who is in range of India's arsenal?

Well, I have posted on the implications of Iranian nuclear ascendancy.  I argue
that the entirety of the Middle East, South Asia, the Far East, Asia, etc, will
be inflamed by such.

The latest:

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091123/wl_nm/us_india_missile


Ah, nothing like naming your missile after the god of fire to really point out
what it's used for.  :)

Anybody care to estimate what/who is in range of India's arsenal?