|
User talk:BoundarylayerWhat are you doing here? Just playing, but if this is your first night at my talk-club, you have to talk...Also, rule 1 is : Don't talk about talk-club.
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place This talk page, a page of "crazy"?Most, if not all, of the content on this talk page is largely supportive of edits I've made and interesting documents I've found. It is essentially a digital scrap-book of notes taken during research and though it may appear odd, if you've ever researched a topic you'll know that, such lines of enquiry, often have a tendency to branch out very rapidly. Boundarylayer (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC) What makes something, or someone, likeable by the wider public?I'll start with a bold statement: What artistic or marketting strategy connects Noel Gallagher with Shakespeare? A preposterous comparison you might say, but would you like to bet on that? At the time of Shakespeare it was common to appreciate more the similarity with an admired classical work, and Shakespeare himself avoided "unnecessary invention".[1][2][3] Noel Gallagher is cut from the very same cloth, he is an honest artist when it comes to explaining where he gets his "inspiration". He openly acknowledges he writes songs that have concepts and structures "lifted" from previous work, mainly his favorite band, the Beatles, he has no trouble admitting this song writing approach and on the charge that this is just advanced plagarism, he unabashedly likes to shrug this off by saying, "you're just kicking yourself that you didn't think of doing it first". This is not to say that Shakespeare and Noel Gallagher are not talented polishers or improvers of art. That is of course a skill in-of-itself that doesn't exactly grow on trees. However it is undeniable that both Shakespeare & Gallagher honed in on, or followed, what 1930s marketting guru, Raymond Loewy, called his primary insight into why people like the things they do. It essentially boils down to the marketing philosophy of "more advanced yet acceptable". "Loewy believed that consumers are torn between two opposing forces: neophilia, a curiosity about new things; and neophobia, a fear of anything too new. "As a result, they gravitate to products that are bold, but instantly comprehensible. Loewy called his grand theory “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable”—maya. He said to sell something surprising, make it familiar; and to sell something familiar, make it surprising."[4] Many have re-discovered this truth, several years ago, "Paul Hekkert, a professor of industrial design and psychology at Delft University of Technology, in the Netherlands, received a grant to develop a theory of aesthetics and taste. On the one hand, Hekkert told me, humans seek familiarity, because it makes them feel safe. On the other hand, people are charged by the thrill of a challenge, powered by a pioneer lust. This battle between familiarity and discovery affects us “on every level,” Hekkert says—not just our preferences for pictures and songs, but also our preferences for ideas and even people. “When we started [our research], we didn’t even know about Raymond Loewy’s theory,” Hekkert told me. “It was only later that somebody told us that our conclusions had already been reached by a famous industrial designer, and it was called maya."[5] Many questions about popularity and why certain technologies fail to achieve acceptance, likewise can be explained by using this kind of sieve-like classification scheme, pioneered by Loewy. Questions like: Why did the gamecube fail, why is there such opposition to GMOs, or even why isn't my favorite band popular with everyone? Could it be that not everyone has been exposed to the songs you grew up listening to, so what may be semi-familiar to you, is not semi-familar to them? Quite distinctly, but with the same framework of thinking, could it be that the gamecube was a failure for that computer games-console company, as they misapplied the philosophy of; "to sell something familiar make it surprising"? I think this is definitely one way to explain the failure, as the gamecube was as, the name suggests, shaped like a bulky platonic cube, so people instinctively put it in the social pariah category, as it required customers to get over the mental hurdle of the practical realities of how exactly were they going to make the unwieldy shaped cube, fit into the slot where their previous games console resided - the ubitquitous rectangular shelf. For you young-ins reading this, Wall mounted flat-screen TVs were not yet commonplace at the time, so TVs had to sit on big wooden cabinets, cabinets that frequently were designed to store rectangular cuboids, not literal cubes.] Could this knowledge help us see how to fix the world?Now all that about consumer products and why band A is liked more than band B, is pretty much on the light-side of applications of this MAYA/familiarity concept. Taking it to a more serious matters: why are so many tribes against vaccination and what can be done about increasing acceptance rates? I wonder, could it be useful to take the persuasion that Loewy/Hekkert discovered, this "MAYA" technique to these misunderstanding tribes? By telling the tribe that: a vaccine is nothing different than an advanced and more permanent version of the protective measure of a snake-handler injecting("ingesting") miniscule amounts of venom, so as to build up a resistant "shield" that would save his life when he inevitably gets bitten by a man-killing snake. I do really wonder, could this be an effective tactic to employ, that would save lives? Similarly, could it be used to increase the acceptance and popularity of Genetically modified organism? As thru the MAYA lens, one begins to see why certain memes are effective at persuasing others. Such as - "man has been modifying organisms for generations, just look at the number of dog breeds, which trace their origins all the way back to the relatively homogenous looking wolf, GMOs are just a continuation of this human tradition, to manipulate organisms to better suit our society, now we're just making it a science and no longer do we have to wait around for generations of breeding to occur to see the traits we desire". This is, all well and good, and a nice thing to keep in mind, if you like to play-it-safe and don't want to fall into the trap of becoming the dredded "social-outcast". But if you want my take on it, I loathe similarity and the more "out-there" a new thing is, the better, because if you think about it, all the great things you see around you started off with people initially shaking their heads at it in disapproval, only for a small group of the smarter public-at-large to then stop, and to really see it thru and realize that in fact, it was a brilliant idea. It is only from really "out-there" things that a monumental revolution can spring, not merely the slow evolution of playing-it-safe that we see around us and we're all so jadedly bored by. T.rue G.enius undeniably comes from these "out-there" people. Yet our culture has increasingly shunned them, in favor of wanting to live on the slow death that is the self-reflecting, slow-improvement street the Western world now sits with its collective fat-ass. Despite it being obvious that what we desperately need to solve the world's problems is precisely these kind of out-there solutions. This cancer of being cautious in what you allow yourself to imagine, should be firmly picked up and kicked out the door, ejected into the fire, as this lack of imagination is the very problem we see in the economy, in the glacial advancement of science, etc. True Genius however is always strongly opposed by those with investments in the present system of culture, take the first person to invent fire, or take Einstein's general relativity for example. I don't know how familiar you are with the over-arching public and scientific reaction, but it would be an understatement to say that the latter was not widely accepted, and still has groups that refuse to entertain the possibility that; yes, the cosmos does appear to behave like a 4-dimensional fabric, in which gravitational waves propagate. So you should shudder to think what they did to the first person to reliably ignite a fire(though maybe they were scared to death of that wizard/witch, and made them their god...who knows, I've a hunch though that people didn't instantly accept it). As Henry Ford, the man primarily responsible for revolutionizing travel into something that is now quick and cheap, famously put it, "don't give people what they want, if I had given people what they wanted, I never would've mass produced the car, I would've been out there trying to sell faster, shinier, horses". Boundarylayer (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC) References
Range of Livens Large Gallery Flame ProjectorI have removed the range of Projector and the Spartacus ref. as I think we need more reliable sources. I hope it is OK with you. Perhaps we could restore our sensible specualtion after the DYK attempt. I have raised this on the talk page. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)) No problem, the reference is all we have to go on though, I continued this discussion with you on the talk page, unfortunately you never replied. Hope you're alright! Boundarylayer (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC) November 2011
My reference is now provided, please see pg 168, Cork was a centre of considerable industrial capacity in the early 20th century, much as Belfast was[1] Boundarylayer (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Chlorane Bar attackThis attack never received much publicity, although it took place in Belfast's city centre and the victims (5 in all) were both Catholic and Protestant. As soon as I find sources I shall create the article. Martin Dillon describes the attack in detail in his book on the Shankill Butchers (they helped carry it out), but only one chapter is currently available on Google Books. Another attack which did receive a lot of publicity when it happened but has since been forgotten was the Benny's Bar bombing by the UDA in Sailortown, Belfast. It took place on Halloween night 1972. Two little girls in costume playing outside near a bonfire were killed in the blast.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC). Conscription Crisis of 1918CopyrightYou added some text to Firestorm, but did not add the source from which you got it. Most of it was copied from:
Please see Wikipedia:Copyright violations which is a legal requirement. I have modified the edit so that it is now a quote and not a breach of copyright. On a slightly different note. I also cleaned up the citations that you gave. You might like to take a look at how I did it as it is always easier to follow edits to citations one has been involved in creating than just reading the help page Footnotes. Finally I removed the sentence "This is regardless of what initially..." because I could not find mention of thermal heat from an atomic blast causing a firestorm in the cited material, and even if I had, there is a question of if it would be a WP:SYN to couple it to the quote. -- PBS (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Firestorm citation requested and supplied
I wish I could Philip, I tried searching for the book online with no hits or leads towards what the books ISBN number is, or author. All I know about the book is that it seems to be called The Cold war: Who won? and that Chapter 18 is on scribd and it was published on the 18 Dec 2010. However all is not lost, The material within the book is well referenced, citing the firebombing reported in Horatio Bond’s famous book Fire in the Air War National Fire Protection Association,1946, p. 125 [Why didn’t Berlin suffer a mass fire?] The table on pg 88 of Cold War: Who Won? was sourced from the same 1946 book by Horatio Bond Fire in the Air War pg 87 and 598. Fire in the Air War is for sale from amazon, and on my wish list, included is it's ASIN number. http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Air-War-Horatio-Bond/dp/B000I30O32 ASIN: B000I30O32 I'm also wondering Philip, do you consider Modern cities likely to Firestorm in a Nuclear Warfare scenario? Personally, from what I've read, including Lynn Eden's 'Whole World on Fire', Mass fires would likely result but the vast majority of modern cities would not be expected to Firestorm, which is a whole different animal, sadly Eden appears to consider the two to be one and the same. An example being that she writes Nagasaki formed into a firestorm on pg 20 of her book, but supplies no reference for that, she really stands alone with that opinion, and if she considers the fire at Nagasaki to be a firestorm then the fires at Kassel in WWII/ the Bombing of Kassel in World War II and many other large mass fire conflagrations must then also be considered a firestorm under her definition. The fact that Nagasaki didn't form a firestorm is well referenced. Quotation from THE ATOMIC BOMBINGS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI by The Manhattan Engineer District, June 29, 1946. The conflagration in Hiroshima caused high winds to spring up as air was drawn in toward the center of the burning area, creating a "fire storm". The wind velocity in the city had been less than 5 miles per hour before the bombing, but the fire-wind attained a velocity of 30-40 miles per hour. These great winds restricted the perimeter of the fire but greatly added to the damage of the conflagration within the perimeter and caused the deaths of many persons who might otherwise have escaped. In Nagasaki, very severe damage was caused by fires, but no extensive "fire storm" engulfed the city. In both cities, some of the fires close to X were no doubt started by the ignition of highly combustible material such as paper, straw, and dry cloth, upon the instantaneous radiation of heat from the nuclear explosion. The presence of large amounts of unburnt combustible materials near X, however, indicated that even though the heat of the blast was very intense, its duration was insufficient to raise the temperature of many materials to the kindling point except in cases where conditions were ideal. The majority of the fires were of secondary origin starting from the usual electrical short-circuits, broken gas lines, overturned stoves, open fires, charcoal braziers, lamps, etc., following collapse or serious damage from the direct blast. http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/hiroshim/hiro_med.html Also in Exploratory analysis of Firestorms: pg 34 Nagasaki did not produce a fire storm. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0616638 Minor edits
July 2012
Sock?Given your strongly pro-nuclear POV and many false accusations about others, I am prompted to ask: Are you a sock of User:Grundle2600? Johnfos (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
August 2012
Hello John, I'm starting to notice a trend wereby the user Johnfos reports me to you simply because he disagrees with my referenced edits. I have attempted to ask for outside help with this matter, requesting the user Rama to moderate- User_talk:Rama#Request_for_assistance_with_Anti-nuclear_movement Please, take a look at the situation from our perspective for a moment, and you will see that my edits are well referenced, I understand from Johnfos's point of view they may appear distruptive as they do not follow his ideology, however I all I have tried to do is present the facts and level the bias in many of the articles here on wikipedia. Hope you understand, Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 12:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Boundarylayer (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC) It appears I am your sockpuppetIt appears I am your sock puppet. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boundarylayer PeterWesco (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Are they serious? how low will this anti-science zealot Johnfos go? Thankfully they realized we are seperate users, furthermore I object to the assertion that I'm anti environment. Just look at the edit history of Bromomethane, I recently added the alternatives sections. MTMCan you please move your agreement down to the move section: Talk:Mountaintop_removal_mining#Requested_move — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWesco (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Boundarylayer (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
SourcingWe cannot use YouTube and the like as sources. See WP:RS regarding policy on what can be used. --John (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
During a 2010 lecture at the Univserity of Missouri, which was broadcast by C-Span, Dr. Mueller has also argued that the threat from nuclear weapons, including that from terrorists, has been exceedingly overexaggerated, both in the popular media, and by officials.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lbbZ3oF-xA Book TV: John Mueller, "Atomic Obsession"
Boundarylayer (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Your editsThis is a collaborative project and edits like the one you made here are not acceptable. Here is why. I had laboriously corrected errors you made in your previous edit and your edit highlighted restored these. These errors include, but are probably not limited to:
I have tried to engage with you and to help you to understand our norms; by trashing my work you hve indicated that you do not value my efforts. This makes me sad. I will therefore take no further part in working with you; in the interests of openness though, I will tell you that I will continue to monitor your edits. The next time I see you editing tendentiously or combatively, I will inform another administrator and ask for a block to be placed on your editing privilege. I know it is a steep learning curve to understand how we work here, but even a new user like you has to show a willingness to learn. I suggest that if you wish to avoid some sort of negative consequences, you will wish to alter the whole way you are editing. The next step is entirely up to you. Best regards, --John (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not qualified to determine the balance in nuclear articles, I'm just an admin that looks to preserve the peace. From my own experience as an editor, let me offer you this. When I'm trying to add info to give an article balance, and it gets reversed due to bias (yes, it has happened to me, more than once) I take it to the talk page, in the spirit of WP:BRD. If you just keep reverting, you shoot yourself in the foot and people will think you are being a POV warrior. If you politely address the edits on the talk page, and do so in a calm manner, then you have the chance to inform or educate others as to why the addition is needed. What you will find is often they will have ideas, perhaps taking part of your addition, rewording it or putting it in a different place, which will solve the problem. Or maybe they have a good reason why it shouldn't be there and you learn something. In general, the calmest people seem the most rational, and are the most persuasive here, just like in the real world. This isn't the fastest way to build an encyclopedia or fix problems, but our goal isn't speed, it is accuracy, and sometimes that means discussing, teaching each other, compromising. It should be done in a collegiate manner, which means a little deliberation and discussion if there is any controversy in the edits. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but WP:BRD is the most effective way to fix articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Boundarylayer (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Mojo-chanI saw your comments on Mojo-chan editing. What you saw is consistent with what I've seen on a different article. In another series of edits, on a completely different topic, he/she heavily changed material, without being knowledgeable about it. He/she even came up with rationale about some of the comments, that turned out to be unscientific at best. I think he/she means well, but his attempts are misguided. He/she thinks he knows, but in reality doesn't know about the subject.--Gciriani (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It was Electrical muscle stimulation. You can see that in the talk page there was quite a heated discussion beteween him/her and me, at one time. Eventually more knowledgeable editor started contributing. So do not be discouraged, and persist :-) --Gciriani (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 I reverted your edit saying that the CND symbol was previously used by the 3rd Panzer Division of the Bundeswehr.The source you give does not refer to the Bundeswehr but to the Wehrmacht. If you trace back the claim that the CND symbol was used by the Wehrmacht, you will find that it comes from Theodor Hartmann's Wehrmacht Divisional Signs (London: Almark Publishing Co., 1970). Hartmann includes a drawing of what he says is a sign of the 3rd Panzer Division but no photo and no source. Hartmann is unknown apart from this book. For all these reasons he is an unreliable source. All other sources depend on Hartmann. There is a photo showing the vehicle marking on the right, posted on Axis History Forum. The poster says it belonged to the 3rd Panzer Division; another poster says it was the 4th Panzer Division. Either way, it is easy to see how in 1970 it might have reminded Hartmann of the CND symbol and how he might have altered it for his book, either intentionally or unintentionally. Marshall46 (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 11Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nuclear power, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fukushima disaster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC) October 2012 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. --John (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 Boundarylayer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: What legal threats are you referring to John? Could you please point out where I made these alledged legal threats?Boundarylayer (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: I'm declining because you are sockpuppeting elsewhere, see the link below. Normally, that would get you 2 to 4 weeks for for socking first time offense with me at the switch, so if someone does decide to unblock you, they might keep that in mind. It is unfortunate that you didn't just ask your question here and stay off your soapbox, and it would have been very easy and quick to unblock you for the original issue, with no more than a single acknowledgement. Instead, you have jumped out of the frying pan, and into the fire. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boundarylayer for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Pelarmian (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
UnblockingI'm unblocking you because it's obvious you understand now that calling good-faith edits libellous can make other editors believe you intend on suing them for libel, the blocking admin has become inactive, you understand that Wikipedia does not allow the use of sockpuppets, and the block is (was) currently set to never expire. Good luck editing, and my talk page is available if you have questions! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Accusation of slanderYou seem to be unaware that slander is actionable in law, and therefore to accuse somebody of slander, as you do on my talk page, is to make a legal threat. You have been blocked for this before and I suggest that in future you consider more carefully what you write. Pelarmian (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Allow me......to offer you a tip. You seem to bump up against the "no legal threats" issue a lot. Any language that is designed to "chill" the conversation, ie: make people feel like there is a legal consideration so they should not talk or edit, that is going to be considered a legal threat. You will do better to focus on the merits of edits, on the policy issues, and less on your interpretation of what is slander/libel/illegal. If you find yourself wanting to comment on the legal status of an edit or comment, in any way, don't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Boundarylayer (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
RfC Talk:Nuclear_power#Chapter_on_reservesHi B, thx for your collaboration. Cf. your "By the why your google document is not available to be viewed, I was prompted with a message to request approval." I fell asleep right before I could press the public to all button :) It's open now. Thx for pointing it to me. So you can delete the remark now. Another line that gets deleted is always welcome I assume. Lots of your lines that need to be taken up in the article ... good luck ! :) --SvenAERTS (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
cf. Nuclear_power and MojoHi B, just got an email from this wikibot that notifies me when something/somebody wrote something on my talk page. All these possibilities still amaze me. But coming to the point. I just clicked on the versions button of the page on nuclear power. It's been edited a lot since my edits. Otherwhise try to catch me on skype:svenaerts and let's use it's share screen functionality. That will make things go a lot faster. I've noticed your clashes with this Mojo person.--SvenAERTS (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC) just received a message notifying me of your edit in my user page regarding skype. I'm still learning how developing a discussion works using these talk buttons. Shit now that topic below this one is not showing, just this topic is showing when editing/typing this paragraph. It referred to a request to solve a conflict. Don't know how the wikipedia bot detected and signalled it to you. Isn't that the way to go forward? --SvenAERTS (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
And regarding Mojo, if that's true wat you're writing, well the only thing is if you have references to the claims in what you're writing ... then it's ok. This is a "boring" encyclopedia. Just gathering facts and explanations based on facts will do too I guess. You can count upon me if you need a judge. PS I'm a judge at the Environmental Court of Brussels :) --SvenAERTS (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Really? Great, how's Ireland doing? :) or do I want that answer considering we are over 80% dependent on fossil fuel imports. I digress, could you judge this for me- I initially added the following Berkeley paper. http://pb-ahtr.nuc.berkeley.edu/papers/05-001-A_Material_input.pdf that compares 1990 Wind and 1970 Nuclear plants on a steel and concrete usage basis, per unit of energy delivered. This was ridiculed as irrelevent, however Wind power(including modern/ next generation 2030 turbines) will still use more concrete and steel than Nuclear power. The reference below USGS augments and supports the argument of the earlier 1990 Wind turbine & nuclear plant Berkeley study. According to the United States Geological Survey modern wind turbine towers - contain large quantities of steel and concrete, with current and next generation, that is Circa -2030- wind turbines not appreciably changing this fact, with 139.9 metric tons of steel and Iron required per MW(of nameplate) wind power installed in 2011 turbines, and 123 metric tons of steel and Iron in next generation, 2030 turbines.
With this 120+ metric tons of steel and Iron per MW being nameplate 2030 wind turbines, and therefore not actual power generation, one must apply the correcting calculation for the low capacity factor of the power source being used, as was corrected for in the prior University of California Berkeley study that cites 460 metric tons/MWe(ave) of steel being required for a 1990 Wind system when corrected for capacity factor. Use the formula on the page below(as the Berkeley professor used) and you arrive at almost the same figures for even the 2030 wind turbines. If you'd like to double check for your own piece of mind. I did not include that corrected value in the article for the very reason as that would be considered Original research.
Nevertheless even without correcting for capacity factor, in comparison the quantity of steel for nuclear is 40 metric tons (MT) per MWe(ave) being required for a 1970’s vintage nuclear power plant, and this is to say nothing of modern Generation III reactor and future Generation IV reactor designs which are following a trend of using less concrete and steel than older generation reactors. This wind agency further backs up the USGS data. A wind turbine with a tower of 50-120 meters in height requires 100-200 metric tons of steel, with the hub and nacelle requiring 7-20 metric tons of Iron, and the drivetrain 15-25 metric tons of steel Boundarylayer (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Notice of Dispute resolution discussion Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution.
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! ~~Ebe123~~ → report 15:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Kilns
I'll check out ebay so. Have you done much pottery glazing? I was looking for an electrical or forced air wood heated kiln/furnace but all the electrical kilns I've encountered appear to all max out at 1287 C, I'll really need ~1700 C at the minimum. I have up to now just being making do with rigged up David Gingery charcoal furnaces for metal casting and copper smelting. However I wish to transistion up and out to Iron, & Platinum smelting and glass and pottery work. Have you worked with Kaolinite/Mullite crucibles before? As they sound like a nice cheap alternative to Silicon carbide and other expensive refractories. For example most of what is on email are the following kilns that are limited to ~1287 C. http://www.paragonweb.com/ These don't even have a maximume tolerated temperature listing- http://aimkiln.com/aimcrucible1411c.htm and these aren't suitable, and gas fired. http://www.wesman.com/products/combustion-systems/wesman-burners.html Boundarylayer (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Discussion on CND articleIt's a good idea to keep one discussion in one place. Please put your comments in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Talk page on not on my Talk page. And please sign your contributions. Pelarmian (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Judge at the Environmental Court of Brussels, is it enjoyable work?Yes, because you get very quickly an overview of what's going on in the region/city. You meet for sure all the rich and powerful and their projects that all get either objections from the neighbors, either they want some derogation, either they want to ditch a fine from the environmental police in my case. And it runs like a little fire one has been appointed and all of a sudden people that despised you have to change their attitudes. Finally, one can also explain things in ones own words and mine are known to be in very plain language and e.g. lastly I've been able to transfer a lot of my technical knowledge on gsm's and radiation. Here in Brussels we have recently imposed a max of 1,5 V/m per gsm operator and since there's 4 operating in Brussels, the max total is 3 V/m. With that I think we've got the most stringent legislation in Europe and possibly in the world. This results in potential spots with no cover, which leads to unrest with the mobile phone operators as they have a legal obligation to cover the whole territory. The operators find them between a rock and a hard place: a population that wants service and nimby. I suggested an opening in that nobody obliged complaining users that can't use their mobile phone to buy mobile phones without an external antenna. Remarkable how there was no knowledge on the relation of antenna's and gain. That's nice to see one can help both technically and legally. I think it will be picked up: smart judge there, he even understands the technical side. What is frustrating is how the legal texts are published and that the legal dpt's from the universities don't enter into an endeavor to make things more readable, searchable, understandable with schemes and all. I think it possible to make it into flow-charts. Wikipedia and collaborative working is unknown apparently in these ivory towers. The pay is however small compared to what I'm used, so as soon as there's another large project ... they'll miss me. --SvenAERTS (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC) cf your What got you interested in nuclear power?I did my thesis at the VITO-SCK•CEN - Study Centre for Nuclear Energy. I got the privilege to meet some of the retired / independent consultants of the first hour of nuclear technology. At these days they lived days of euphoria, really believing they were working on giving a great gift to humanity: unlimited near to free of charge energy. Many annex research projects were part of one and the same big research, e.g. what to do with all that energy ... heating of greenhouses e.g. etc. Really "green" people... until the nuclear missile part came in, one couldn't be sure if what was said was the truth of part of a spionage-counter-spionage plan. Many of the nowaday greens should remember this. It's not fair demonizing a priori someone or a group. I'm all in favor of clear speech and collaboration in getting facts on the table and use scientific facts and debate to get closer to the best solutions.--SvenAERTS (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
biofuelshttp://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24434&#.URTV_GdhpZw It is a crime against humanity to convert agricultural productive soil into soil which produces food stuff that will be burned into biofuel.” Mr. Ziegler argued that biofuels will only lead to further hunger in a world where an estimated 854 million people – 1 out of 6 – already suffer from the scourge; 100,000 people die from hunger or its immediate consequences every day; and every five seconds, a child dies from hunger. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7065061.stm Boundarylayer (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Renewable energy edits, and watch renewable energy in Germany march 26th 2013According to the OECD factbook 2011-2012, worldwide, Iceland(85.6%) and Brazil(45.8%) exploit the greatest proportion of renewable energy to supply their total energy requirements(including electricity and other energy needs) with the world average percentage at 13.1%. Other countries in the OECD with a high total energy supply from renewable sources are - New Zealand(38.6%), Norway(37.3%), Sweden(32.7%),Austria(26%) Portugal(24%), Finland(24.9%), Chile(22.7%), Switzerland(18.8%), Denmark(18.8%), Canada(16.5%) and Estonia(14.4%).[1] Worldwide, other non-OECD nations with a higher percentage of renewable energy representing their total energy needs, than in comparison to the average from OECD countries(7.6%), are - Brazil(45.8%), Indonesia(34.4%), India(26.1%) and China(11.9%).[2][3] For all OECD countries taken as a whole, the contribution of renewables to total energy supply increased from 4.8% in 1971 to 7.6% in 2010,* In general the contribution of renewables to the energy supply in non-OECD countries is higher than in OECD countries.[4] With the world average percentage of total energy supplied from renewable energy at 13.1%(including OECD countries and non-OECD countries) in 2010. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/deliver/fulltext/3011041ec051.pdf OECD Factbook 2011-2012: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics. PDF indicator.
The United Nations classifies a particular subset of presently operating nuclear fission technologies as renewable. Reactors that produce more fissile fuel than they consume - breeder reactors and, eventually, nuclear fusion, are classified within the same category as conventional renewable energy sources, such as solar and falling water.[5] Information on nuclear power should be in this article. It should include the fact most reactors aren't sustainable beyond a few hundred years right now, but fast reactors are. Presently only 1 major reactor technology operating can be consider sustainable, essentially forever, the BN-600, but Phénix also demonstrated a greater than one breeding ratio and operated for ~30 years. Therefore Nuclear power can be sustainable, as sustainable as Geothermal energy. Geothermal energy is classified as a conventional renewable energy source here, however it consumes radioactive decay heat in the ground, with the geothermal electricity page confirming that all geothermal power plants have reduced their output after their peak. Therefore it is illogical for it to be classified as renewable whereas man made breeder reactor nuclear power is classified as non renewable(by some sources). Indeed that is one of the many reasons why pages such as Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy exists. As Stanford Professor Navid Chowdhury pointed out - The IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency), decision that it will not support nuclear energy programs because its a long, complicated process, it produces waste and is relatively risky, proves that their decision has nothing to do with having a sustainable supply of fuel. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/chowdhury2/ Both the Phénix reactor of the 1970s and the presently operating BN-600 are successful breeder reactors. Nuclear power has been demonstrated to be sustainable, and there is enough U-238 to run in breeder reactors for hundreds of thousands of years according to the OECD (references on the Nuclear power page). So nuclear power is just as 'renewable' as geothermal energy which as that article points out, also runs on nuclear processes - nuclear decay and is technically also 'finite' on astronomical timescales so to is breeder reactor technology. Renewable fuels , taken from the talk page of renewable energy.The problem is 'synthetic fuel' is too broad a term, as it predominately means the manufacturing of liquid fuels from coal and fossil gas. As renewable fuels should mean that they are carbon neutral fuels, this completely excludes classifying geothermal power plant produced synthetic fuel as renewable fuel*. Now of course, the basic chemistry behind making synthetic fuel(e.g the Sabatier reaction) is indifferent to where the carbon and hydrogen building blocks of the fuel come from, the synthetic liquid fuel producing Fischer-Tropsch process can be piped up to any hydrogen and carbon dioxide source to run on. Such as piped up to a landfill gas/'biogas' plant and the synthetic fuel produced would naturally be classified as a renewable fuel source. Another renewable source of synthetic fuel can be found when the chemical process is piped up to many other sources of carbon and hydrogen, such as sea water which contains both carbon dioxide and hydrogen, and just like the biogas to synthetic fuel route, it too needs to be coupled with a power source to provides the heat and electricity to do the chemistry magic to manufacture renewable synthetic fuels. Clearly therefore, only these two scenarios should be regarded as cases of 'renewable fuel'. This difference should be clearly explained to readers, otherwise unscrupulous fossil fuel(e.g coal) to liquid, and non-renewable CO2 to liquid advocates will start pulling the wool over peoples eyes. For example the CO2 produced by the geothermal plant at Carbon Recycling International comes from CO2 that is not renewable*, and it results in a net increase in the CO2 in the biosphere*, it is CO2 that, (like a less extreme case of coal to liquid,) would otherwise be sent up an exhaust chimney. Sure, this is therefore CO2 that gets recycled before eventually finding its way into the atmosphere, but it is by no means 'renewable' as it results in a net increase in the CO2 inventory of the biosphere. So Renewable_energy#Carbon_neutral_and_negative_fuels should be changed to reflect this fact. Only synthetic fuels produced with carbon sourced from the carbon dioxide inventory already in the biosphere should be classified as renewable synthetic fuel, that includes Carbon from wood, landfill gas, and Carbon extracted from sea water, all of which are truly renewable CO2 sources. For example, Dimethyl ether is presently being produced from wood byproducts derived from paper manufacture, and the US navy are preparing to start manufacturing synthetic fuel derived from sea water via the Fischer-Tropsch Process by using their ubiquitous heat source on their supercarriers - nuclear reactors.
Personally, we should strive to get away from carbonaceous fuels altogether, that is, including a move away from biomass for human health and environmental reasons e.g particulate matter inhalation, and instead for economic reasons, wherever feasible we should move towards electric cars,(reluctantly hybrids) and a reliance on more electric trains(e.g the TGV) and for heating homes - district heating and heat pumps are systems already in operation, and therefore already environmentally friendly and economical. The use of biomass, and renewable synthetic fuel should be only for supplying people and devices in remote areas, such as heating isolated homes and fueling aircraft respectively. nuclear wasteIn the US the goal to increase the percentage of U.S. solid waste that is recycled from 52 percent in 2008 to 62 percent by 2012 was achieved. The US's nuclear plants also had a goal to reduce by 25 percent the amount of low-level radioactive waste (Class B and C) they generated by 2012, compared to the 2002 through 2006 average of 1,552 cubic feet. In 2011, the US power plant fleet exceeded both of these goals. http://www.duke-energy.com/environment/reports/environmental-health-and-safety-metrics.asp - a power generation company 903 cubic feet of nuclear waste in 2011 is equal to ~25,000 liters, which is the volume of an Olympic sized swimming pool, divided by 100. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/JeffreyGilbert.shtml breeding and the Integral Fast ReactorTechnical options for the advanced liquid metal reactor. By United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Worth a read. available online. breeding and the Integral Fast Reactorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chemistry Technical options for the advanced liquid metal reactor. the - IFR By United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. available online. page 15. http://goneri.nuc.berkeley.edu/tokyo/2008-12-11_Peterson.pdf liquid salt advanced high temp reactor design. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash: Abundance, Forms, and Environmental Significance http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/SciAm-Dec05.pdf http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf [6] Fast neutron reactor refs.http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf98.html Any fast reactors with low enrichment fuel running on lead coolant? Future of the industry- http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2059252 http://e360.yale.edu/feature/are_fast-breeder_reactors_a_nuclear_power_panacea/2557/ Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia: Science, Technology, and Applications, Volume 1 stats on fast reacors. http://books.google.ie/books?id=rVe9y4JKecsC&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=breeding+ratio+of+lwr&source=bl&ots=hsxRz-qDHs&sig=Ay7CxZyZ8HbG3w6hJoJr7UTBZqY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GPcUUfSrHouKhQeXkoGYCw&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=breeding%20ratio%20of%20lwr&f=false typical pwr brreding ration 0.72. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fasbre.html#c4 Such a fbr reactor can produce about 20% more fuel than it consumes by the breeding reaction. Enough excess fuel is produced over about 20 years to fuel another such reactor. Optimum breeding allows about 75% of the energy of the natural uranium to be used compared to 1% in the standard light water reactor . http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html For comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. Dirty bomb or radiological dispersal devices would not be fatal.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/reports/1986/3445605662565.pdf properties of spent fuel. http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/library/power_line/detail/06/ http://www.cns-snc.ca/publications Donald R. Wiles, The Chemistry of Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal, Polytechnic International Press, 2002 In The Chemistry of Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Nuclear_Plant h2 production. http://httr.jaea.go.jp/eng/index.html high temp reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATd6MbiPtCI Hydrogen fuel production -https://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2005/preliminaryprogram/session_1591.htm JET FUEL on carriers nuclear - http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/U.S.-Navy-Investigates-Making-Jet-Fuel-from-Seawater.html http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/18/1180151/-Seawater-electricity-jet-fuel http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/#more-6020 Nuclear Tanker Producing Liquid Fuels From Air and Water: Applicable Technology for Land-Based Future Production of Commercial Liquid Fuel - http://canes.mit.edu/node/196 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_West_Reactor_%28OWR%29 look at that cherenkov! Spacecraft parts - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_wheel LNT and cosmic silence low background chamber for testing mice 2012 WIPP. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjp%2Fi2012-12037-7 All of the fission products produced by thorium molten salt Reactors will decay to benign levels of the radioactive natural background within 350 years. The majority (83%) of fission products of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors decay to the benign levels of the radioactive natural background in 10 years. All of the remaining 17% of fission products decay to natural background levels in 350 years[Le Brun, C., “Impact of the MSBR concept technology on long-lived radio-toxicity and proliferation resistance”, Technical Meeting on Fissile Material Management Strategies for Sustainable Nuclear Energy, Vienna 2005 .]- probably IAEA symposium THORIUM proliferation. https://www.fas.org/blogs/sciencewonk/2012/08/back-to-thorium-the-thorium-cycle-and-non-proliferation/ http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/pdf/9_1kang.pdf U-233 bred from common thorium ore mostly Th-232 is more hazardous to personnel than reactor bred Pu-239 from U-238. Therefore thermal neutron thorium reactors are more proliferation resistant than U-238 based breeders. The U-233 generated is contaminated with U-232 page 10 U-232 can also be produced by two successive single neutron captures starting with naturally-occurring Th-230. Thorium-230 is a decay product of U-234, which is in turn a decay product ofU-238, is in secular equilibrium at a concentration of about 17 ppm in natural uranium. Minimizing U-232 production therefore requires naturally thorium that is minimally contaminated with Th-230 from intermixed or nearby natural uranium. In the calculations described below, we have assumed zero Th-230 contamination and have tested the sensitivity of the results to a contamination level of 1 ppm. page 14 and see page 11 for thorium 230 to U-232 decay path Recently, there has also been a revival of interest in thorium in the U.S. and Western Europe because it can be used to increase the achievable burnups in light-water-reactors operating on a once-through fuel cycle and also reduce the quantity of weapons-usable transuranic elements in radioactive waste.14 Five successive neutron captures are required before Np-237 is produced from Th-232 whereas a single neutron capture on U-238 produces Pu- 239 (see Figure 6).15 Proposals have therefore been brought forward for lightwater- reactor designs in which thorium largely replaces U-238. For LWRs with feasible target replacement schedules (on the order of ten times the frequency for maximum driver-fuel burnup) the concentration of U- 232 will be above 100 ppm. At such contamination levels, remote production operations would be required to produce fuel or weapons on a large scale without incurring large occupational doses. However, it could still be feasible for a highly motivated group to make a few nuclear weapons with this material without remote processing facilities. The U-232 contamination level in U-233 would reach about 2000 ppm in thorium LMFBR core fuel in equilibrium recycle. pg 20-21 On the one hand, gamma radiation from U-232 makes the U-233 from high burnup U-233-thorium fuel cycles more of a radiation hazard than plutonium. On the other hand, because of its low rate of spontaneous-neutron emission, U-233 can, unlike plutonium, be used in simple “gun-type” fission-weapon designs without significant danger of the yield being reduced by premature initiation of the fission chain reaction. page 23 In the case of the molten-salt U-233 breeder reactor, it was proposed to have continual chemical processing of a stream of liquid fuel. Such an arrangement also offers a way to completely bypass the U-232 contamination problem because 27-day half-life Pa- 233 could be separated out before it decays into U-233. [29] The designers of the molten-salt breeder reactor planned to do this so as not to lose Pa-233 to neutron capture before it decays into fissile U-233. In any case, no fuel cycle involving the separation and recycle of U-233 would approach the proliferation resistance of unreprocessed spent fuel from which the radiation dose rate is on the order of one thousand rem per hour at one meter for decades after discharge. ORIGEN2 (ORIGEN 2.1: “Isotope Generation and Depletion Code Matrix Exponential Method,” [Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Radiation Safety Information Computational Center, August 1996]). MCNP is a monte carlo nuclear power code that follows each neutron emitting until it hits a nucleus. 6. International Atomic Energy Agency, “The Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities,” INFCIRC/225/Rev.4 (http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/program/ protection/index.html). Vomiting would begin within a few hours and a short-term dose of ionizing radiation could be lethal at a whole-body dose of 200 rems. Lethality within 10 days would be virtually certain above 1000 rems (The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, 3rd edition, Samuel Glasstone and Philip J. Dolan, eds [US Departments of Defense and Energy, 1977], Table 12.108). 24. Examples of average neutron-flux levels in the different reactors (in units of 1014 neutrons cm-2 sec-1 ) are: CANDU: 2.35, PWR: 3.25, and LMFBR core ((Th,U)O2): 40.1 and radial blanket (ThO2): 5.1. (A.G. Croff and M.A. Bjerke, “Once-Through CANDU Reactor Models for the ORIGEN2 Computer Code” 25. The U-232 and U-233 concentrations include respectively the U-232 precursor, Pa- 232 (1.3 day half-life), and the U-233 precursor, Pa-233 (27 day half-life). Adding 1 ppm Th-230 to pure Th-232 increases the U-232/U-233 ratios compared to those without Th-230 by 0.04%, 3.5%, 3.3%, and 0.00% respectively, for thorium mixed with HWR natural-uranium fuel, a thorium target in a HWR core, thorium mixed with LEU fuel in a PWR, and thorium in the radial blanket of an LMFBR. In the case of the thorium target and blanket elements, we have assumed residence times in the reactor equal to those of the driver fuels. 31. A Study on the Direct Use of Spent PWR Fuel in CANDU Reactors: Fuel Management and Safety Analysis,” (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, KAERI/RR- 1345/93, 1994). DUPIC http://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?00796025.pdf safeguards with the use of DUPIC.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ubMg0-uvR9wJ:www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41032.pdf+&hl=en&gl=ie&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiCp_w-GFgRWydo_YwTX09OipGV8UuCEd_CfjgJluqQBGvHysGpylsvVpcvPE1Oky7V7wNjYwq9kwHZKuTgsu5-OBwvaHEVcdeGlT7GrKTUvwvWJe-8xHxicPWPo1HWS5maEy8L&sig=AHIEtbRVUiOMyJ4nZM5fch5jrM90lV_mJg Price of the korean reactors in UAE and their own costs for their opr-1000 and APR-1400 - U.S. and South Korean Cooperation in the World Nuclear.
Best reactors and power plants currently operatingBeznau Nuclear Power Plant - Connected to a district heating system which supplies hot water to industries and households. It also contains the oldest operating nuclear power plant in the world, built in 1969. It's defense in depth- 'notstand' system is above and beyond what the safety regulation requires, but the plant operators built it anyway. Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant - survived the largest earthquake and tsunami humanity has ever experienced, safely shutting down without incident. 'notstand' systems are therefore unnecessary for reactors designed in the 70-80s. CANDU's for being able to burn up LWR 'nuclear waste'/spent nuclear fuel and being able to run on natural uranium rather than enriched uranium. A major non-proliferation goal, as no enrichment facilities are needed. Although the 'waste' burning capability really is what makes it worthy of addition. BN-600 Russian Fast breeder reactor. Breeds more fuel than it consumes and its diminutive descendant the BN-350 provided a desalination system producing fresh water. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station - 3 reactors, the only reactors not near a large body of water, instead the installation's cooling is provided by evaporating water from a sewage treatment plant. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant In February 2009, Calvert Cliffs set a world record for pressurized water reactors (PWRs) by operating for almost two years, 692 days, non-stop.[8] In addition, Unit 2's capacity factor in 2008 was a world-record high of 101.37 percent.[9] HTTR Japanese High temperature test reactor that reached criticality in 1999, it is helium cooled and its outlet temperature loop reaches 850 C and is thus being used to produce Hydrogen via the Sulfur-iodine cycle. Closed reactors that have served as test beds to future proposed designs. Experimental Breeder Reactor I - Dec 20th 1951: 1.4 MWth first electricity-generating nuclear power plant when it produced sufficient electricity to illuminate four 200-watt light bulbs, it also proved the Breeder concept. Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant -(not at all one of the best, but one of the first) June 26th 1954, 5MWe, forerunner to the poorly designed RBMK, the first 'civil' nuclear reactor to supply electricity to a power grid. Calder Hall -(not at all one of the best, but one of the first) 27th August 1956, 50MWe x 4 Magnox reactors, the first nuclear power station to deliver power in commercial quantities. Fort St. Vrain Generating Station The design of which serves as the basis for the DOE's Next Generation Nuclear Plant(NGNP), a High temperature gas reactor, with the GT-MHR aka the EM-2 and finally the 'Antares reactor' chosen by the DOE, being its direct successor- to be built for the NGNP by ~2020. Antares - http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Areva_modular_reactor_selected_for_NGNP_development-1502124.html Aircraft Reactor Experiment - Pioneered molten salt cooling, was BeO moderated. Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment - Serves the basis for the LFTR thorium reactor to be built by 2030 in the US and the Chinese racing ahead with building a LFTR by no later than 2025 due to their higher dedication to the technology. Experimental Breeder Reactor II - serves as the basis for the Integral Fast Reactor and the descendant S-PRISM What are the best reactors designs currently being built and under consideration?Criteria: http://www.skirsch.com/politics/ifr/DOEnuclearstudy.pdf The Integral Fast Reactor, termed the Na metal pyro in the paper is number 1 over all, this is probably going to be built soon with the S-PRISM being its closest descendant. I'm also partial to the LFTR which I don't see as being all that competitive unless it has a high temperature output in the form of a Very high temperature reactor. In terms of the current crop of reactors, the AP1000 and Korean standardized designs( OPR-1000 and APR-1400) are probably thy most economical of designs being built as of 2013. The APR-1400 almost finished in Shin Kori S.Korea derives part of its heritage from the System 80+. This IAEA document outlines its RCS and other safety critical parts & this congressional document from pg 5 onwards, also deals with S.Korea's ambitious NPP build goals(similar to France's in the 1980s) S. Korea also has expressed a desire to reprocess, but the USA has denied them that right due to proliferation concerns pg 10+. READ In the congressional document above it describes how the The APR1400 was sold to the United Arab Emirates for $5 Billion per reactor in a 4 reactor deal. This works out as $3,571/MW, whereas in S.Korea it is reported the price per reactor is $3.15 Billion. With the cost difference between the two countries primarily due to the the lack of indigenous experience with nuclear engineering and construction in the UAE, in comparison to the mature experience in S.Korea. Economics- issues with the under construction EPR is that it has so many active safety features(4 redundant systems) it is no wonder it is having cost over runs. To be fair though it is only beginning to be rolled out, and its economies may improve with mass production. The passive safe AP1000 and the many S.Korean designs being built in the United Arab Emirates have much better economics. The above paper concluded the Next gen CANDU design had the best economics in $/kWe. Of note, is that the EPR will use 17% less uranium than current operating LWR's in a quantity per unit of electricity delivered, kg/kWe metric.
page 126 - 3 Rs of Nuclear Power: Reading, Recycling, and Reprocessing Making a Better ... Moreover. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf116_processheat.html The economics of NPPs will be substantially increased once Nuclear Process Heat for Industry becomes more mainstream**, fresh water producing desalination nuclear power plants(such as the already operating BN-600, and especially hydrogen production via the economical high temperature electrolysis process and the even more economical high temperature thermochemical(sulfur-iodine cycle). H2 production is needed in ammonia synthesis, hydrogenation of crude oils, and (attractive from an energy independence and climate change point of view) - synthetic fuel synthesis-(which will probably be fielded by the US carrier fleet first). Reactor output temperatures need to be a minimum of 750C with 900 C being the most economical, rivaling natural gas produced Hydrogen according to the sources in the world-nuclear page. As for existing plants, the Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program is making existing reactors in the USA more economical than initially suggested on a $/kWe metric. Capital and operating costs per unit energy, which can be reduced by enabling power uprates and lifetime extension for existing NPPs and by increasing the rated powers and lifetimes of new Generation III+ NPPs; http://energy.gov/articles/modeling-and-simulation-nuclear-reactors-hub This is important as all the ~5000$/kWe figures you see thrown around for new NPPs are assuming a 40-60 year life span. When really the new crop of reactors will have a ~80 year life span. As older Gen II reactors in the USA are being extended to a 60 year life span as we speak, it is not a stretch to suggest that new Gen III reactors will live for 80 years. Safety, - Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant showed that 1980 reactor tech is pretty much safe enough even under assault by nature's most destructive earthquakes, mag 9. However small modular reactors due to there small reactor size are much easier to cool passively and much less prone to accidents in a LOCA due to the radius of the core being smaller, and therefore more coolant likely to be in contact with it. http://www.idrc.info/userfiles/image/presentations2008/Burgherr_Peter_Comparative_Risk_Assessment_of_Severe_Accidents_in_the_Energy_Sector.pdf Paul scherrer institute Nuclear power is already the safest form of power- page 16, & 17 - note curiously that the graph that includes latent deaths of nuclear does likewise not include Coal, Oil, gas or hydro latent deaths.- if it did have a graph of all latent, and a combine acute and latents deaths/GWe graph nuclear power would be shown in an even more favorable light. Waste- The closest to construction mass waste burning/spent fuel burning design is the Gas turbine modular helium reactor (now known as the Energy Multiplier Module) with the S-PRISM probably a close second, many other designs will achieve this too, called closing the nuclear fuel cycle. The advanced CANDU reactors already do an ok job of waste burning. There will always be fission products that need storing, but the technology is available to store these and in some cases trans-mutate these into lesser hazards. The real waste concern isn't the radioactivity of the waste, but the unnecessarily high volume wastage of 95% of the initial fuel. After reducing the volume with this, the waste concerns lie with the transuranics Pu-239 etc., which could possibly be a target for nefarious persons after the Cs-137 in the spent fuel has decayed away (~300-600 years) etc. Some geological disposal of wastes (e.g Cs-137) will not only be economical but responsible. Efforts should be made to trans-mutate waste as much as possible, such as Tc-99. As for I-129 it's not even proper dangerous in my book, half life of millions of years, low energy beta particle emitted etc. Sustainability - long term (centuries plus) waste burners(getting energy out of the ~97% of the uranium not burnt in once through Gen II LWRs. Breeders fast and thermal, and once through LWR thorium reactors. Proliferation resistance(in situ reprocessing or preferably, eliminating reprocessing altogether). The Proliferation risk really lies largely in waste disposal and off site reprocessing plants, and not in hypothetical Hollywood scenarios were terrorists must seize control of a reactor for the required days-months timescales to extract enough Pu-239 or U-233, and then successfully fly off with weapons usable material. They would fail within hours, as their element of surprise would be totally lost. So no, proliferation concerns are over hyped. What is not over hyped is the need to burn the present spent fuel/waste down to eliminate the transuranics(potentially weapons usable), after that the waste issue is over-hyped too as the volumes of waste is manageable. Moreover the gas industry inject their NORM waste [(naturally occurring radioactive material) brought up from the ground during gas extraction] right back into the ground and no one(rightly) bats an eye.
Page 114 onwards discusses safety and waste burning designs, including their historic lineage.
As for the acronyms in the original paper above. the IPSR/ Integral primary system reactor is NOT the IFR. the IRSR is pretty much an integral PWR, which is a cost and safety design improvement in the IRIS International Reactor Innovative and Secure, and the B&W mPower babcock and wilcox small modular reactor recently approved in Tennessee as a competitor to gas fired power stations*, all of these designs have the whole cooling loop inside the pressure vessel, and not in a separate building.- Although personally I can see any issues with the turbine being much more maintenance intensive to fix than they currently are, as issues with turbines would necessitate opening the entire pressure vessel itself to fix a turbine issue- lets hope they have low maintenance turbines as standard. As for the PMR(prismatic modular reactor) I believe this most closely related to the DoE's Next Generation Nuclear Plant which upon searching leads me back to two reactors the GT-MHR(which has prismatic elements) but more likely it is reference to the DoE's chosen 2012 NGNP the prismatic steam-cycle high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (SC-HTGR). http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Areva_modular_reactor_selected_for_NGNP_development-1502124.html. As for PBR pebble bed reactors, favorably reviewed in the first above link, in the world nuclear news link - Capital costs for a plant with an installed capacity of 2400-3000 MWt would be some 30% less using 625 MWt prismatic reactor modules than with 250 MWt pebble bed modules. As a side note, worth a read - Behavior of nuclear fuel during a reactor accident insert these see also's everywhere. - http://www.sciencemag.org/content/288/5469/1177 A Nuclear Solution to Climate Change? http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/energy/Readings/nuclear_solution_climate.pdf William C. Sailor*, David Bodansky, Chaim Braun, Steve Fetter, Bob van der Zwaan W. C. Sailor, D. Bodansky, C. Braun, S. Fetter, B. van der Zwaan, Science 288 , 1177 (2000). As of 2011, the share of renewables in electricity generation is around 19%, with 16% of global electricity being produced by hydro power and 3% from new renewables.[10] Much of the global economical hydro power potential was, as of 2012, already exploited,[11] This is including the 27 nation European Union, were most of the favorable hydro power sites have already been exploited, and due to environmental concerns, it is unlikely that the EU-27 could see more expansion.</ref>http://setis.ec.europa.eu/newsroom-items-folder/hydropower-generation Much of the activity in this sector in Europe will focus on the refurbishment of an overall ageing hydro power park, while a modest exploitation of unused potential, mainly in Austria, Romania, the Iberian Peninsula and France can be expected.Table 4.2 gives the estimated values of hydropower generation in GWhand in terms of the share in the gross electricity generation for theEU Member States for 2010 and indicates the expected evolution for 2020and 2030 [European Commission, 2009]. Hydropower generation in theEU-27 was 323 TWh in 2010, accounting for 9.8 % of gross electricity generation and around 60 % of electricity generation from renewables.The economic potential is estimated to be around 470 TWh/y. Annual generation is expected to increase modestly up to 341 TWh/y in 2020 andup to 358 TWh/y in 2030. Nevertheless, in terms of the share in thegross electricity generation, and due to increasing electricity demand,a share decrease to 9.2 % in 2020 and further down to 8.8 % in 2030 is expected. This estimation is based on the fact that the most favourable sites are already being exploited across the EU-27, while due to environmental restrictions, it’s unlikely that Europe could see much more expansion. New hydro projects have continued to cause the displacement of populations, for example on the scale of the 1.3 to 1.5 million people were displaced to make way for the Three Gorges Dam.[12][13] In 2009, climate scientist Mark Z. Jacobson and colleagues published a plan to power 100% of the world's energy with wind, hydroelectric, and solar power by the year 2030, in the plan they suggested that the plan depends more on politics and social acceptance rather than on cost or other technical issues.[14][15] The authors estimate the cost of the system, over twenty years, might be on the order of USD 100 trillion(not including transmission wire costs),[16] with wind farms occupying 1 percent of the earth's land, and the non-rooftop photovoltaics and concentrated solar power plants occupying about 0.33 percent of the earth's land.[17] In 2013, author and environmental scientist Vaclav Smil has also expressed skepticism of the proposals to depend primarily on wind and solar generated energy, and in his analysis he has instead determined that only with the use of all low carbon power sources might there be a realistic ability to mitigate climate change. In his analysis of the Wind and Solar dominated world energy plan he identified intermittent supply, relatively low efficiency, the cost and complexity of conversion and growing community opposition to the industrialized footprint of solar installations and Wind farms as all the negative factors preventing the plan from being considered probable.[18][19] Presently some countries, with favorable geography, geology and weather well suited to an economical exploitation of renewable energy sources, get most of their electricity from renewables, including from geothermal energy in Iceland (100 percent), and Hydroelectric power in Brazil (85 percent), Austria (62 percent), New Zealand (65 percent), and Sweden (54 percent).[20] With Sweden's energy and climate policies being determined to be the second most sustainable in the world, in a 2011 report by the World Energy Council, entitled Policies for the future: 2011 Assessment of country energy and climate policies, which ranked country performance according to an energy sustainability index.[21] The best performing nations were Switzerland, Sweden and France. Renewable power generators are spread across many countries, with wind power providing a significant share of electricity in some regional areas: for example, 14 percent in the U.S. state of Iowa, 40 percent in the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein, and 25 to 30 percent in Denmark. Increased use of biofuels (such as ethanol fuel and biodiesel that can be used in today's diesel and gasoline engines) could also reduce emissions if produced environmentally efficiently, especially in conjunction with regular hybrids and plug-in hybrids. For electric vehicles, the reduction of carbon emissions will improve further if the way the required electricity is generated is from low-carbon power. France, which produces approximately 80% of its electricity from nuclear power has been called "a success story" that has put the nation "ahead of the world" in providing cheap, CO2-'free' energy.[22] In terms of large industrialized nations, mainland France has the lowest carbon dioxide production per unit of GDP in the world.[23] (include references I have below) As all electricity generating thermal power plants produce 'waste heat', including nuclear power plants, NPP's also have the potential to use this waste energy to supply steam and hot water to industries and households, and therefore offset the use of carbonaceous fuels which otherwise, are usually burnt to heat water. Electricity generating nuclear power plants have, as of 2013, routinely supplied industrial and residential buildings with hot water, via heat exchangers, in what is termed a district heating system,[24] although due to the fact that electricity is also being generated at the power plants, it is more accurately termed a nuclear Combined Heat and Power(CHP) system. Presently in Switzerland, about 2,400 users (20,000 persons) in general housing, apartment houses, factories, and farms utilize the electricity and district heating generated by the Beznau Nuclear Power Plant. In the steam supply to factories using the Swiss Gösgen Nuclear Power Plant, the saving of 15,000 tons/year of fossil fuel oil has been realized with the power plant supplying steam to local industries, including one paper factory.[25] Both of these Swiss district heating projects started based on experiences in the oil crisis in the 1970's.[26] A plan for utilizing a Nuclear CHP Cogeneration system in Finland, in place of the currently operating fossil fuel system, was estimated to have the potential to reduce the country of Finland’s annual carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 6%, or by up to 4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.[27] Heat was recycled and used in CHP systems in six nuclear power stations in five countries during 2003: Switzerland (Beznau and Gösgen), Bulgaria (Kozloduy VVERs), Lithuania(Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant), Slovak republic (Bohunice VVER-440s), and Hungary (Paks Nuclear Power Plant).[28] Nuclear power plants can also use the waste heat, generated in the process of making electricity, to Desalinate water. Although presently shut down, the BN-350 fast reactor on the Caspian sea produced 120,000 m³ fresh water/day from sea water over a period of twenty years, 1973 to 1993.[29] Interest in nuclear desalination is driven by the expanding global demand for fresh water and by concern about GHG emissions and pollutions from fossil fuels.[30][31] electric cars recharged by low carbon power plantsDue to France's low greenhouse gas emitting nuclear power dominated electricity grid, the total carbon dioxide emissions from a plug-in electric car recharged by the French electricity grid is approximately 12g per kilometer travelled.[32] This compares more favorably than the emissions emitted from one of the most successful hybrid cars, the Toyota Prius, which produces carbon dioxide emissions at the higher rate of 105g per kilometer travelled.[33] What would a nuclear phase out look like Numerous studies and assessments (e.g., by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),[37] International Atomic Energy Agency,[38] and International Energy Agency[39] have stated that as part of the portfolio of low-carbon energy technologies, nuclear power will continue to play a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to the United States government, without nuclear power plants the United States would release nearly 700 million metric tons more carbon dioxide annually, with greenhouse gas emissions becoming 28 percent greater in the electricity industry. That's approximately the same amount of carbon dioxide now produced annually by all of the automobiles in the United States.[40][41]  During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama stated, "Nuclear power represents more than 70% of our noncarbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option." [42] Synthetic fuel from nuclear power, and renewable synthetic fuel.Whoever added this in good faith does not appear to be aware that just because you use the carbon in coal stack CO2 emissions twice doesn't mean you really help the environment much at all. Synthetic fuels only make sense from a climate point of view if you get the CO2 from seawater or (less efficiently) the air, in every other respect however that the editor was right on the money, I have resurrected what they wrote in this regard, all if it makes economical, sustainable and climatic sense. This is what they wrote.-
Commercial fuel synthesis companies suggest they can produce fuel for less than petroleum fuels when oil costs more than $55 per barrel.[48] The US Navy estimates that shipboard production of jet fuel from nuclear power would cost about $6 per gallon. While that was about twice the petroleum fuel cost in 2010, it is expected to be much less than the market price in less than five years if recent trends continue. Moreover, since the delivery of fuel to a carrier battle group costs about $8 per gallon, shipboard production is already much less expensive.[49] The Navy's estimate that 100 megawatts can produce 41,000 gallons of fuel per day indicates that terrestrial production from nuclear power would cost less than $1 per gallon.[50] Check that last ref, as it's slow to load. Also discuss the sulfur-iodine cycle, there is a fair bit on world nuclear's site IIRC. However you'll need stronger refs than those guys provide.
Wind power or Nuclear power?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc7rRPrA7rg&feature=youtu.be FusionLOCA accident on future fusion reactors, negligible release, include Co-60 and W-187 isotopes that dominate. ARIES-ST safety design and analysis. http://aries.ucsd.edu/LIB/REPORT/ARIES-ST/FINAL/ast-6-safety.pdf http://www.afs.enea.it/dipacel/Eudora%20Backup/copied%20from%20Mac%2015-7-2008/Spool%20Folder/481002814/ukaea-fus-539.pdf dose rates of 2-20 mSv/h, typical of plasma facing components after intermediate storage for up to 100 years. page 8. Consideration of strategies, industry experience, processes and time scales for the recycling of fusion irradiated material. http://dspace.cc.tut.fi/dpub/handle/123456789/20930 page 22. Development of Remote Handling Pipe Jointing Tools for ITER Fusion-Fission hybridhttp://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/ Fusion-Fission hybrid. Radiation LNT Linear no-threshold crumbling.http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/01/20/fear-of-radiation-its-all-in-the-noise/ Integrated Molecular Analysis Indicates Undetectable Change in DNA Damage in Mice after Continuous Irradiation at ~ 400-fold Natural Background Radiation - 5 week chronic low dose study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3440074/pdf/ehp.1104294.pdf http://www.science20.com/news_articles/radiation_effects_did_nobel_prize_winner_hermann_muller_lie-82835 Muller lied. Sievert data to add to listhttp://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/53939/radiation-exposure Nuclear insuranceThe Price-Anderson Act, the world's first comprehensive nuclear liability law, has been central to addressing the question of liability for nuclear accidents since 1957. It is renewed every ten years or so, with strong bipartisan support, and requires individual operators to be responsible for two layers of insurance cover: #The first layer is where each nuclear site is required to purchase US$ 300 million coverage from private insurers. #The second layer, if required, is jointly provided by all US reactor operators: this layer is funded through retrospective payments of up to US$ 96 million per reactor, collected in annual instalments of US$ 15 million and adjusted for inflation. Combined, the total provision comes to over US$ 10 billion paid for by the utilities (the United States Department of Energy provides US$ 9.5 billion for its own nuclear activities). Beyond this coverage, and irrespective of fault, the United States Congress, as insurer of last resort, must decide how compensation is provided in the event claims exceed the covered US$ 10 billion. In 2005, the Act was renewed again by the US Congress as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Include the fact that the hydroelectric sector is likewise insured by the government as a last resort, in case of a major accident. Design and construction of nuclear explosives based on normal reactor-grade plutonium is difficult and unreliable, but was demonstrated in 1962 from plutonium from Magnox reactors.[51] Much popular concern about possible weapons proliferation arises from considering the fissile materials themselves. For instance, in relation to the plutonium contained in spent fuel discharged each year from the world's commercial nuclear power reactors, it is correctly but misleadingly asserted that "only a few kilograms of plutonium are required to make a bomb". Furthermore, no nation is without enough indigenous uranium to construct a few weapons (however, that uranium would have to be enriched). Plutonium is a substance of varying properties depending on its source. It consists of several different isotopes, including Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-240, and Pu-241. All of these are plutonium but not all are fissile – only Pu-239 and Pu-241 can undergo fission in a normal reactor. Plutonium-239 by itself is an excellent nuclear fuel. It has also been used extensively for nuclear weapons because it has a relatively low spontaneous fission rate and a low critical mass. Consequently plutonium-239, with only a few percent of the other isotopes present, is often called "weapons-grade" plutonium. This was used in the Nagasaki bomb in 1945 and in many other nuclear weapons. On the other hand, "reactor-grade" plutonium as routinely produced in all commercial nuclear power reactors, and which may be separated by reprocessing the spent fuel from them, is not the same thing at all. It contains a large proportion – up to 40% – of the heavier plutonium isotopes, especially Pu-240, due to it having remained in the reactor for a relatively long time. This is not a particular problem for re-use of the plutonium in mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for reactors, but it seriously affects the suitability of the material for nuclear weapons. Due to spontaneous fission of Pu-240, only a very low level of it is tolerable in material for making weapons. Design and construction of nuclear explosives based on normal (i.e. routinely discharged) reactor-grade plutonium would be difficult and unreliable, and has not so far been done. A nuclear device has been made however from low-burned plutonium from a Magnox nuclear reactor. It was tested in 1962. Its composition was never officially released but was evidently around 90% of fissile Pu-239. This method of production was very expensive, unreliable and easily detectable (fuel has to stay in the reactor for relatively short period (few weeks) as opposed to normal use (few years)), and with a relatively small yield. All these factors contributed to the fact that apart from the test device used in 1962 no new ones were created.[52][53]
Transparent publications and health studiesAll nuclear operators are obliged to measure radiation on and around their sites as well as reporting all particles and radiation they emit. This has to be attested by an independent audit office. This practice is more or less the same in all countries that are members of IAEA. In a case where there is a significant release, i.e. above prescribed limits defined by NCRP and obligatory for all IAEA members, this has to be reported to IAEA and be given INES mark 5 or higher, which is very rare.[54] INES events in last 6 months can be reviewed here.[55] All equipment is regularly checked. In addition all operators are obliged to release full lists of measurements into the public domain.[56] An individual living near a nuclear plant will on average get from it around 1% of the natural radiation levels.[57][58] That is well within safety limits. In Britain, detailed studies carried out by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) in 2003 found no evidence of raised childhood cancer around nuclear power plants. They did find an excess of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) near other nuclear installations including AWE Burghfield, UKAEA Dounreay and BNFL's Sellafield plant although COMARE said that a link with nuclear material is unlikely. COMARE's opinion is that "the excesses around Sellafield and Dounreay are unlikely to be due to chance, although there is not at present a convincing explanation for them".[59][60] Transparent design safety, correspond with the designers and make a commentYou can for example send a communication to Westinghouse and the countries assessing its reactor design, for information and to make a comment on the reactor. https://www.ukap1000application.com/ap1000_documentation.aspx Nuclear industry worker health. No increase in cancer, in fact, a depression in cancer rates was found.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15624306 Analysis of the mortality experience amongst U.S. nuclear power industry workers after chronic low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/04/11/nuclear_power.html A first-of-its-kind study of more than 53,000 nuclear power workers in the United States has found that employees in the commercial nuclear industry are less likely than the general population to die from cancer or non-cancer diseases due, in large measure, to the so-called "healthy worker effect." The study by Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health tracked workers from 15 nuclear utilities in the United States for periods of up to 18 years between 1979 and 1997. Mortality rates of these workers showed that they were 60 percent lower than cause-specific U.S. mortality rates for a population similar in terms of gender, age and calendar year. In order to work in the nuclear industry, workers have to be healthy and are usually required to have annual medical check-ups. The most important results of this study were findings with respect to radiation-related leukemia and radiation-related other cancers. According to the records, which were maintained by the facilities themselves and by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy, positive, although non-statistically-significant, associations with radiation were seen for mortality from some forms of leukemia and other cancers as a whole. The magnitude of these associations is very similar to those from other radiation studies on which current radiation safety standards are based, indicating that the standards are appropriate. The researchers did report, however, a strong positive and statistically significant association between radiation dose and death from arteriosclerotic heart disease, including coronary heart disease. Geoffrey Howe, professor of epidemiology at the Mailman School and principal investigator of the study, noted, "While associations with heart disease have been reported by some other occupational studies, the magnitude of the present association is not consistent with them, and, therefore, needs cautious interpretation and merits further attention." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18319298 The non-cancer mortality experience of male workers at British Nuclear Fuels plc, 1946-2005. Both find no cancer(even a depressed incidence of it). However both found a slight increase in heart disease. I wonder if they controlled for exercise or BMI. As these workers probably don't have to do much physical activity when on the job and therefore that might explain the higher heart disease incidence. Either way no cancer increase, and that's the main thing. Energy independenceOil producing countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, have pursued Nuclear Power as a cost effective way of maximizing limited sell-able natural resources over time.[61][62] In some nations there may be no viable alternatives. In the words of the French, "We have no coal, we have no oil, we have no gas, we have no choice." France has no Uranium either though, and thus has to import it from Canada and Niger which has amongst the lowest HdI in the world. Critics of a phase-out everywhere argue that nuclear power stations could not be compensated for and predict an energy crisis or argue that only coal could possibly compensate for nuclear power and CO2 emissions will increase tremendously or an increase in energy imports either of nuclear power or of natural oil. Nuclear power has been relatively unaffected by embargoes, as uranium is mined in reliable countries such as Australia and Canada unlike, for example, some large natural gas suppliers, which include states of the former Soviet Union.[63][64] Negative Externality costs of energy sourcesIn march(early to mid) 2013, on the externality page and talk page, I researched the history of the concept and wrote the following that another editor decided did not deserve to be in the lede, and so they pushed it down the article. Respectively, Henry Sidgwick and Arthur C. Pigou are credited with first articulating, and in the latter case, formalizing, the concept of externality/spillover.[65] The same editor that moved this material, is pushing their particular definition of the concept, when there are actually two schools of thought on the definition of this economic concept. One from each major school of economics. The other editor has removed material from the economist, and duke university, dubiously for not meeting reliability standards. They prefer a reference from 1962 to be the only 'reliable' definition of the word externality which I find to be pretty odd to be relying on a definition from decades ago. In one of the modern schools of economic thought, an externality is a cost or benefit which results from an activity or transaction and which affects an otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. [66] According to the other major school of economic thought, Neoclassical economics, the term is defined subtly differently - an externality, or transaction spillover, is a cost or benefit that is not transmitted through prices.[67] The Economist notes, in that it is incurred by a party who was not involved as either a buyer or seller of the goods or services causing the cost or benefit.[68] Here's the best definition. - http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/externality http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/courses/ECON/Externality/index.html An external benefit is a benefit that someone gains because of someone else's action, outside of any market transaction between them. Immunizations give external benefits. When you get a vaccine for a certain disease, you make it less likely that you will contract the disease. That is the internal benefit. What you also do is make is less likely that other people will get the disease, because they probably will not catch it from you. That is the external benefit Secondly they also do not regard education to be a positive externality, which they wrote on the article's talk page. Moreover they are also removing the following OECD referenced statement that co-generation of medical radio-isotopes at a nuclear power reactor(not a dedicated research reactor) is an example of a positive externality. Some nuclear power and research reactor 'waste' byproducts are of high value and used in many radiopharmaceuticals, this is classified as a positive externality of nuclear power.[69] Fission products such as Yttrium-90 and Technetium 99m have a wide and valuable use in Oncology and diagnostic medicine.[70][71] For example at Clinton Nuclear Generating Station, Cobalt-60 is produced, with plans to expand into producing Molybdenum-99 which is required for Technetium 99m.[72] Nuclear power has one of the lowest external costs, i.e. cost to the environment and people.[73] These are not factored into price but are paid by society and will only partly be included by the Kyoto protocol. Across the 27 nation European Union for example nuclear external costs are ~ 0.25 euro cents per kWh. That is a bit more than for wind which is rated at ~ 0.15 euro cents per kWh, but considerably less than for coal which is at ~ 4 to 7 euro cents per kWh, oil which is ~ 3 to 5 euro cents per kWh, gas which is 1 to 2 euro cents per kWh and biomass which is at ~ 1 euro cents per kWh.[74] With importantly, these figures for carbonaceous fuels reported by the ExternE project, not including the cost to the environment and people from there contribution to global warming. The quoted cost of many renewable generation sources would be increased if it included the provision of necessary back-up power sources to cover periods when wind, sun, waves, etc. are weak and not producing power. It has been calculated that wind power, one of the major hopes for anti-nuclear advocates, costs three times as much as the average electricity generation cost in Germany.[75] (The following was removed because it is a paper that seemingly never went for peer review publication) However it seems rational to me - There is evidence that crime in a neighborhood increases after the opening of a liquor store.[76] Liquor stores may draw an undesirable class of citizens into the neighborhood to shop and hang out. They may also cause more people in the area to drink; such people may then proceed to commit acts in the neighborhood that they would not normally do, or else these drunk people may become easy targets for the crimes of others. Even if the crimes start out small, they may eventually become much worse if not effectively addressed (broken windows theory). Liquor stores are more likely to be open late into the night than other stores, and may result in increased noise levels which harm property values in the community.
References
Positive nuclear power externality costsThe definition of externality is as follows. An externality is a cost or benefit which results from an activity or transaction and which affects an otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. Some nuclear power and research reactor 'waste' byproducts are of high value and used in many radiopharmaceuticals, this is classified as a positive externality of nuclear power.[1] Fission products such as Yttrium-90 and Technetium 99m have a wide and valuable use in Oncology and diagnostic medicine.[2][3] For example at Clinton Nuclear Generating Station, Cobalt-60 is produced, with plans to expand into producing Molybdenum-99 which is required for Technetium 99m.[4] Those who buy electricity(a transaction), from Clinton Nuclear Geenerating Station are positively affecting an otherwise uninvolved party( medical patients), who did not choose to incur that cost of supporting a nuclear power plant. Also see my lede edits in externality, and take the next editors advice on fixing the citation References
Limits of government support for renewable energy investmentsResearch conducted by the World Pensions Council (WPC) suggests that the failure of Solyndra in August 2011 should be viewed within the broader context of unsustainable government spending on sustainable energy, and that the Solyndra bankruptcy was a harbinger of the collapse of the German solar cell industry in the first quarter of 2012- both events being "stark reminders of the risks that go with disproportionate levels of leveraging and the reliance on unsustainable government subsidies and unreasonable fiscal incentives to 'stimulate' demand. In many ways, real estate and solar energy assets were de facto owned by 'unnatural owners' such as banks, and, when the banks collapsed, by Western governments unable or unwilling to provide fresh capital" in a context of fiscal austerity and tighter credit limits.[1] Particulate matter emissions by energy sourceSee the table below the main image on this page. Note that winds emissions were reported as 5-35mg/kWh Particulate matter milligram/kWh, higher than hydro, nuclear, and even possibly worse than fossil gas/ 'natural gas' too. This is in line with the initial source that got me interested in this - Particulates range from 10.3 to 32.3 mg/kWh http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/environment/chapter-1-environmental-benefits/lca-in-wind-energy.html Boundarylayer (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Wind industry lobbying and government subsidies compared to all energy sourcesWind power, fossil fuels and all energy sources are subsidized by many governments. For example a 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[2] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies over the 2002–2008 period. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil-fuel based sources amounted to approximately $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totalled $29 billion. In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003. During this same time frame, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion. However these subsidy costs previously presented were displayed in absolute terms, in relative terms, presented in terms of value for money, subsidy dollars spent per million units of energy produced, by energy source, the subsidy costs are as follows - fossil fuels 64 cents, hydropower 82 cents, nuclear $3.14, wind $56.29 and solar $775.64 of subsidies per unit of energy delivered.[3] It has been suggested that a subsidy shift would help to level the playing field and support growing energy sectors, namely solar power, wind power, and biofuels.[4] History shows that no energy sector was developed without subsidies.[4] According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) (2011) energy subsidies artificially lower the price of energy paid by consumers, raise the price received by producers or lower the cost of production. "Fossil fuels subsidies costs generally outweigh the benefits. Subsidies to renewables and other low-carbon power energy technologies can bring long-term economic and environmental benefits".[5] In November 2011, an IEA report entitled Deploying Renewables 2011 said "subsidies in green energy technologies that were not yet competitive are justified in order to give an incentive to investing into technologies with clear environmental and energy security benefits". The IEA's report disagreed with claims that renewable energy technologies are only viable through costly subsidies and not able to produce energy reliably to meet demand. In the US, according to the Investigative Reporting Workshop, the wind power industry has recently increased its lobbying efforts considerably, spending about $5 million in 2009, after years of relative obscurity in Washington.[6] Similarly, according to the Investigative Reporting Workshop, the US nuclear industry has also increased its lobbying efforts, spending $80.2 million in 2008, in comparison to just over $30 million in 1999.[7][8][9][10] It has also been noted by the Coloradoan newspaper that, in consideration, due to wind power generating a relatively small quantity of the total electricity generated in the USA, the amount of money the US wind power industry is spending on lobbying is considerably high.[11] Moreover, again according to the Investigative Reporting Workshop, like most energy industries, it is tough to know where the US wind industry is getting its lobbying dollars from, with overseas, specifically German, companies funding the majority of the US lobbying.[12] Moreover, in contrast to the Investigative Reporting Workshop statistics on energy industry lobbying, the Environment & Energy Publishing's statistics from 2009 suggest that the US wind industry spent the second highest amount on lobbying in the USA, second after only the Petroleum industry, spending $808,997 in comparison to $2.2 million by the petroleum industry.[13] The Environment & Energy Publishing group have also noted that the wind industry, along with the petroleum and the solar industry, declare lobbying costs in such a manner that specifically excludes grass-roots activity, leaves out advertising spending and does not include money spent on lobbying at a state or local level.[14] Following the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, Germany's federal government is working on a new plan for increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy commercialization, with a particular focus on offshore wind farms. Under the plan large wind turbines will be erected far away from the coastlines, where the wind blows more consistently than it does on land, and where the enormous turbines won't bother the inhabitants. The plan aims to decrease Germany's dependence on energy derived from coal and nuclear power plants.[15] Commenting on the EU's 2020 renewable energy target, economist Professor Dieter Helm is critical of how the costs of wind power are cited by lobbyists. Helm also says that the problem of intermittent supply will probably lead to another dash for gas or dash for coal in Europe, possibly with a negative impact on energy security.[16] A House of Lords Select committee report (2008) on renewable energy in the UK reported a "concern over the prospective role of wind generated and other intermittent sources of electricity in the UK, in the absence of a break-through in electricity storage technology or the integration of the UK grid with that of continental Europe".[17]
People have a right to know how the low carbon power sources they are supporting with subsidies compare. That is, what exactly is the value for money people are receiving. This is an encyclopedia after all, and should not be a promotional advertisement for any particular energy sector. A 2010 study by Global Subsidies Initiative compared global relative subsidies of different energy sources. Results show that fossil fuels receive 0.8 US cents per kWh of energy they produce (although it should be noted that the estimate of fossil fuel subsidies applies only to consumer subsidies and only within non-OECD countries), nuclear energy receives 1.7 cents / kWh, renewable energy (excluding hydroelectricity) receives 5.0 cents / kWh and biofuels receive 5.1 cents / kWh in subsidies.http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/relative_energy_subsidies.pdf http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/ The EIA have also catalogued the massive amount of subsidies going to wind despite it producing a tiny amount of energy. See table ES3, ES4 & ES5. This second and third source now completely corroborates the Wall Street Journal's figures, and the order of the energy sources are exactly the same in all the sources, so despite your hotly expressed opinions against the WSJ as a source, (the units in the WSJ figures were expressed in cents/MWh and not kWh in case you were wondering). Wind is getting a disproportionate amount of subsidies for the energy it generates in comparison to other low carbon power sources - Hydro and Nuclear. When it comes to fossil fuels though, you should naturally add a section on the environmental and health costs of using each energy source, such as natural fossil gas and natural fossil coal particulate matter linked deaths and CO2 damages. Including externality costs of each energy sources, for sure is important, as these costs could also be considered something tax payers do pay for(an indirect subsidy). In comparison you should include the fact that the externality costs of Hydro, wind and nuclear power(in order of increasing externality costs) are all tiny in comparison to fossil fuels externality costs. Check out the ExternE project on each energy sources externality costs for exact figures, as they have calculated the the medical and social costs of dealing with millions of diseases and deaths yearly world-wide caused by energy sources that you brought up. They have assigned a cents/kWh figure to each energy source. Here's the EU document, look at page 35 to 37 for the cents/kWh externality cost of each energy source. http://www.externe.info/externe_2006/expoltec.pdf Yes that's right Coal and Gas cause 4-6 cent/kWh of damage(externality), and that is excluding the damage done by global warming from these sources. References
Nuclear power's immunity from cost inflation of fuel, NPP's Achilles heel is capital cost and not fuel or waste costs.For a typical 1,000 MWe BWR or PWR, the approximate cost of fuel for one reload (replacing one third of the core) is about $40 million, based on an 18-month refueling cycle. The average fuel cost at a nuclear power plant in 2011 was 0.68 cents / kWh. Because nuclear plants refuel every 18-24 months, they are not subject to fuel price volatility like natural gas and oil power plants.http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/costs rational law, the source of a rational based societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law My edits on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.Other pages that need attention: Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster casualties, Accident rating of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. & the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.  In May 2012, TEPCO reported that at least 900 PBq had been released "into the atmosphere in March last year [2011]" putting the radiation release from all the reactors taken together as equivalent to a "sixth"(17%) that of Chernobyl.[1][2] The severity of the nuclear accident is provisionally[3] rated 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES). This scale runs from 0, indicating an abnormal situation with no safety consequences, to 7, indicating an accident causing widespread contamination with serious health and environmental effects. Prior to Fukushima, the Chernobyl disaster was the only level 7 accident on record, while the Three Mile Island accident was a level 5 accident. The 2012 analysis of the amount of intermediate and long lived radioactivity released from all the Fukushima Daiichi reactors taken together, is about 10-20% of that released from the Chernobyl disaster, when comparing the two disasters together.[4][5] The total release from the entire Fukushima disaster, in terms of Cesium-137(which along with strontium-90 are the two primary substances preventing Chernobyl being inhabited,[6]) is ~1.5×10^16 becquerels (Bq) of Cesium-137 released,[7] in contrast the amount released from Chernobyl, was ~8.5x10^16 Bq of Cesium-137.[8] which is an activity produced by 24 kilograms of Cesium-137.[6] Another notable difference between the two accidents is that, unlike Chernobyl, all the Japanese reactors were situated within concrete containment vessels, which contributed to the Japanese accident releasing vastly less strontium-90, americium-241 and plutonium, which were amongst the radioisotopes released at Chernobyl.[4][8] In terms of the most biologically hazardous short lived radioisotope iodine-131, 5x10^17 Bq of Iodine 131 were released from the Fukushima disaster.[7] In comparison to the release at Chernobyl ~17.6x10^17 Bq of iodine-131 was released.[8] As this substances decays away to become a stable nuclei rapidly, due to its short half life of 8.02 days. There is only a short time available for human exposure to occur, after ten half lifes - 80.2 days for Iodine-131 - 99.9% of it has decayed to a stable state.http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/GJ/pdf/4604/46040327.pdf There were no casualties caused by radiation exposure, approximately 25,000 died due to the earthquake and tsunami. Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima are predicted to be extremely low to none.[9] In 2013, two years after the incident, the World Health Organization indicated that the residents of the area who were evacuated were exposed to so little radiation that radiation induced health impacts are likely to be below detectable levels.[10] The health risks in the WHO assessment attributable to the Fukushima radiation release were calculated by largely applying the conservative Linear no-threshold model of radiation exposure, a model that assumes even the smallest amount of radiation exposure will cause a negative health effect.[11] The WHO calculations using this model determined that the most at risk group, infants, who were in the most affected area, would experience an absolute increase in the risk of cancer(of all types) during their lifetime, of approximately 1% due to the accident. With the lifetime risk increase for thyroid cancer, due to the accident, for a female infant, in the most affected radiation location, being estimated to be one half of one percent[0.5%].[12][13] Cancer risks for the unborn child are considered to be similar to those in 1 year old infants.[14] The estimated risk of cancer to people who were children and adults during the Fukushima accident, in the most affected area, was determined to be lower again when compared to the most at risk group - infants.[15] A thyroid ultrasound screening programme is currently[2013] ongoing in the entire Fukushima prefecture, this screening programme is, due to the screening effect, likely to lead to an increase in the incidence of thyroid disease due to early detection of non-symptomatic disease cases.[16] About one third of people[33.3%] in industrialized nations are presently diagnosed with cancer during their lifetimes, radiation exposure can increase ones cancer risk, with the cancers that arise being indistinguishable from cancers resulting from other causes.[17] No increase is expected in the incidence of congenital or developmental abnormalities, including cognitive impairment attributable to within the womb radiation exposure.[18] As no radiation induced inherited effects/heritable effects, nor teratogenic effects, have ever been definitely demonstrated in humans, with studies on the health of children conceived by cancer survivors who received radiotherapy, and the children of the Hibakusha, not finding a definitive increase in inherited disease or congenital abnormalities.[19] No increase in these effects are therefore expected in or around the Fukushima power plants. References
My edits on Hibakusha and TeratologyThe survivors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who are known as the Hibakusha, were (and still are) victims of severe discrimination due to public ignorance about the consequences of radiation sickness, with much of the public believing it to be hereditary or even contagious.[1] This is despite the fact that no statistically demonstrable increase of birth defects/congenital malformations was found among the later conceived children born to survivors of the nuclear weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or found in the later conceived children of cancer survivors who had previously received radiotherapy.[2][3][4][5] The surviving women of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that could conceive, who were exposed to substantial amounts of radiation, went on and had children with no higher incidence of abnormalities/birth defects than the rate which is observed in the Japanese average.[6][7] Children in utero who were gestating in the wombs of mothers at the extremely close range of under 1 km from the hypocenter of Hiroshima- and survived! Were conceived with a higher prevalence of Microcephaly being observed. But there was only about 30 or so of these children born in the entire population of gestating children in the city, so it's not really important for the Hibakusha article.[4] Request for assistance from EarlysunnI want to develloppe on Nuclear Energy and the real cost of Nuclear including subventions since the 1950 ? any clues do yu know a specialist to work with me on this article, are you , and do you have time. --Earlysunn (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Effects of nuclear explosions on human healthSee talk page. Save these. http://nikealaska.org/nuke/fallout.html http://www.falloutradiation.com/johnwayne7 http://www3.nd.edu/~nsl/Lectures/phys205/pdf/Nuclear_Warfare_9.pdf www.tacda.org/docs/TACDA_Academy_CDBasics_6Radiation.pdf http://www.srp-uk.org/resources/rules-of-thumb-a-practical-hints
Chelyabinsk meteor ReferencesHaving spent several hours fixing the formatting for the references in the Russian Meteor article just a few days ago, I was surprised to have to go do it again quite so soon. When the same reference is used multiple times, it can be referred to by name rather than the whole entry repeated - it is then listed just once in the references with a link back to each individual usage. Additionally, the cite template provides a consistent way to present and format references. Please take some time to look at the syntax for it. It really does make the job easier. -- 212.139.104.161 (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Tunguska - what are the most convincing height and yield calculations?According to a critical analysis by V.V. Svettsov in 2007, Ben-Menahan(1975)* based their yield estimate of Tunguska(~12.5 Mt), on the Soviet nuclear test shot #123 - of yield 12.5 Mt, at an air burst height of 3.6 km, over Novaya Zemlya - that produced a similar earthquake magnitude and 'acoustogravitional' pressure ~0.3 mbar as Tunguska is said to have. See the passing mention to Soviet #123 air drop here. & the table in Stettsov's paper itself - http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS1069351307070075 Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth July 2007, Volume 43, Issue 7, pp 583-591 Estimates of the energy of surface waves from atmospheric explosions and the source parameters of the Tunguska event. V. V. Svettsov The table in the paper has, ground pressure, earthquake intensity, altitude, and yield data on test shot #123, and on higher yield air bursts, such as tsar bomba/ test #130. This paper, along with the nuclear weapons archive and the Johnston archive all corroborates the height and yield of test shot #123. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Sovatmtest.html http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/ As does page 37-38 here http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~richards/my_papers/khalturin_NZ_1-42%20.pdf A Review of Nuclear Testing by the Soviet Union at Novaya Zemlya, 1955--1990. However despite the discrepancies brought up by Svettsov, a number of sources seem to frequently reiterate Ben-Menahan's(1975) altitude estimates. With the estimated height at which the Tunguska explosion occurred oft being repeated as approximately 7.5-8.5 km, e.g 8 km, by many authoritative sources and attributed to Ben-Menahan(1975) -
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995Metic..30..634R Title: No iridium anomaly after the 1908 Tunguska impact: Evidence from a Greenland ice core
Celestial impacts & Diamond dave jhttp://archive.org/details/OperationHARDTACK_HighAltitudeTests1958 View from 14 minutes onwards to see the ground pressure measured from all the Operation Hardtack HANE tests. Hardtack Teak(3.8Mt) & shot Orange(3.8Mt). Shot Teak at a slant range of 252,000 feet (almost directly overhead) produced a ground pressure of 0.1 PSI. Orange at approximately a 45 degree angle from the ground station, with a slant range (hypotenuse value) of 196,000 feet, produced a ground pressure of 0.18 PSI. --- Hey man, I noticed you edited the Chelyabinsk meteor article and talk page too. Good job, however, something that I think you may have also been frustrated by is, (if you're anything like me), the method in which the energy and power emitted from these events is reported, is done so in a bit of a misleading manner, and subject to a lot of confusion. To clarify it, I think everyone would prefer something more clear cut and informative such as - The object had a kinetic energy before encountering the earth's atmosphere of X(in this case it is reported as ~ 1.8 peta Joules or much higher than this by others*)(E=1/2mv^2). The object emitted Y amount of radiant energy at peak brightness( perhaps 0.4 peta Joules)- determined by satellite radiometers/bhangmeters, The object produced a blast wave which would have been equivalent to placing a nuclear explosive device of Z yield(now expressed in units of kiloton) at the same altitude of the objects peak brightness/explosion(in this case ~23.3 km).
As for comparisons to nuclear explosions and units of explosive yield -kiloton, are not at all meaningful when expressing kinetic energy, as you don't express the kinetic energy of your car in terms of kilotons, and for good reason, so neither should objects impacting the earth be expressed like this. So unless the air burst created by the object is comparable to a nuclear explosion of Z yield at the same height - which can be derived from scaling laws from High Altitude Nuclear Explosion testing. Only then is it now valid to compare the two events in units of kiloton. Of course we, unfortunately, do not know the mass and velocity of the object before impacting the atmosphere. So naturally JPL had to work backwards basing their estimate on the total kinetic energy of the object from the satellite radiometers/bhangmeter data on fireball radiance. Moreover I also noticed you were a Triner alumni, we should meet up someday in the D.Hall or something. FusionDo you have a source for fusion power being viable commercially, let alone sustainable? Josh Joaquin (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
(ITER)Magnetic confinement Fusion Plasma facing material/wall radioactivitySome of my work on the Sievert page included all the information about the dose rate from the plasma facing wall after 100 and 300 years. = 90 MGy/a 10 kGy/h: Highest predicted immediate activation of Plasma facing material in possible future fusion reactors, no shielding, close proximity.[8] Due to tritiums short half life of ~12 years and non-penetrating beta particle emissions this absorbed dose rate would 1. not present a biological hazard unless the wall was inhaled or ingested and 2. be a dose rate that would drop rapidly with time, far faster than that observed from the spent fuel of fission power plants, due to a lack of long lived fission products being generated in the thin Plasma facing material. The thin fusion facing wall would produce a dose rate of 2-20 mSv/hr after 100 years of storage,[9] and the dose rate would continue to diminish to equivalent to the dose from background radiation after 300 years. This latter 300 years statement was removed as 'unsourced' by other editors, in early march 2013, but I've since got it reinserted in mid march. With the following reference. - After 100 years of decay, typical levels would be 2-20 mSv/h.[10] After approximately 300 years of decay the fusion waste would produce the same dose rate as exposure to coal ash, with the volume of fusion waste naturally being orders of magnitude less than from coal ash.[11] Nuclear WinterNo problem with the edits. It seems fine. I got that image from a Freedom of Information document posted on the CIA website. http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000284025/DOC_0000284025.pdf I believe it was from a presentation some Soviet scientists gave at a conference in the 1980's. That link seems to be dead. Try this one: http://www.foia.cia.gov/search-results?search_api_views_fulltext=nuclear+winter&field_collection= Enjoy! Oaktree b (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
How fast did France de-carbonize their electric grid, without even trying hardhttps://theenergycollective.com/charlesbarton/49358/jacobson-beyond-cherry-picking This guy rips into Jacobson. I find it bizarre as he does, why Jacobson, would include the greenhouse gas emissions from a nuclear war. Although not mentioned in his analysis, from how I see it, if one is concerned solely about CO2 climate change and uncaring towards humanity, then killing billions of people and annihilating modern civilization would be one sure path to 'save the climate'. The annual CO2 emission rate we currently experience, would be slashed to a tiny fraction of what it is now if a global nuclear war were to occur - As I can't imagine all too many SUV's being driven all that often after a nuclear war, for example, maybe Jacobson does? Therefore Jacobson's view is predicated on a fantasy scenario and did not even follow through with his fantasy scenario to the 'favorable'(from a climate only perspective) conclusion. In sum, he appears to be demonstrating a severe amount of ideologue driven suggestions, which I wouldn't mind all that much if the suggestions had an actual basis in reality. - Which they do not. The French decision to convert its electrical system too nuclear power was made in 1973. The whole project was completed by 1992 19 years after the decision was made. The French example is appropriate here because France was able to convert 3/4ths of its electrical industry to nuclear power very quickly. One group of 34 900 MW French reactors was completed between 1977 and 1988. A second group of 20 1300 MW reactors was completed between 1985 and 1992. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html EPR's around the worldTaishan 1 is on schedule and Taishan 2 is ahead, according to Lauvergeon. Progress at Taishan is being kept six months behind Flamanville deliberately in order to benefits from experience, the head of France’s nuclear safety watchdog Andre-Claude Lacoste said last week. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-24/china-builds-french-designed-nuclear-reactor-for-40-less-areva-ceo-says.html British electric grid, in real time interactivehttp://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~dcurtis/NETA.html http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10736700208436896 Illicit nuclear trafficking in the NIS: What's new? What's true? - Check with Library later. http://www.tmmm.tsk.tr/publications/datr4/01PeterZimmerman.pdf John Mueller, Christoph Wirz, Emmanuel Egger both of the Swiss government’s Spiez Laboratory & Robin Frost of Simon Fraser University, vs Zimmerman, Jeffrey Lewis and Matthew Bunn. The take away message is that they have never stolen much of anything and Mueller is right about the Alarmism. - even the highest amount temporarily stolen in this paper is ~5 kg of 20% enriched Uranium, i.e not even HEU grade. - Sure, safe guards are and should be in place, and we shouldn't be complacent, but the chances some idiot terror group succeeding is probably close to 1 in a million, although Mueller may have picked this number arbitrarily, it is probably close to that, as all other 'odds' published in this paper are unrealistic - as they suggest a terror group should have succeeded by now. The plans for a reprocessing plant from ORNL are online somewhere apparently, that might be intriguing to get and read. Gun-type. See Smyth report(adjunct to Los Alamos primer) Henry DeWolf Smyth, Atomic Energy for Military Purposes: The official report on the development of the atomic bomb under the auspices of the United States Government, 1940 - 1945. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1945. Various editions and publishers are to be found. For onlinetext see: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/SmythReport/index.shtml
There's never been a theft anywhere near this quantity of HEU or plutonium. Nuclear propulsion. Becoming an Interstellar civilization by Oort cloud 'island hopping'.http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/5956313 Comet Riders--Nuclear nomads to the stars . International Aeronautical Federation Congress (IAEFC), Montreal (Canada), 7-11 Oct 1991. sourced from OSTI site. Naval nuclear propulsion, necessary to cut CO2 emissions and the best option for large shipshttp://www.dnv.com/binaries/position%20paper%20from%20dnv%20pathways%20to%20low%20carbon%20shipping_tcm4-535306.pdf Pathway to low carbon shipping by the Norwegian based Det Norske Veritas, nuclear necessary to reduce emissions, biofuel and LNG alone won't reduce shipping emissions. http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=27012&filename=ExecutiveSummary-CMP5_1.pdf http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp5/wp5_conf_2012_june.html http://unctad.org/en/Docs/dtltlb20091_en.pdf http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/news_pub_eo.pdf Exxonmobil's projections for energy and petroleum usage by 2040. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf Chinese navy expansion and implications for US policy, good read. Nuclear desalination and combined heat and powerhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110512082949.htm Why desalination is needed - fresh water shortages - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110804141757.htm http://www.inderscience.com/jhome.php?jcode=ijnd International journal on nuclear desalination, access via college. http://users.ictp.it/~pub_off/lectures/lns020/Majumdar/Majumdar_2.pdf http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1444_web.pdf Optimization of the coupling of nuclear reactors and desalination systems Examples - http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/hybrid-desalination-plant-at-kalpakkam/article4167670.ece http://web.archive.org/web/20071010101517/http://www.dae.gov.in/ni/nijul03/title.pdf multi-stage flash and osmosis dedalination at an India power plant. Combined heat and power, Nuclear district heatingMost of this is done in Eastern European nations and nordic nations. However it is also done in Switzerland. http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200607/000020060706A0175205.php Nuclear District Heating: The Swiss Experience In present Switzerland, about 2,400 users (20,000 persons) in general housing, apartment houses, factories, and farms utilize the regional heat and cooling system of the Beznau Nuclear power plant. In the steam supply to factories using the Gosgen nuclear power plant, the saving of fuel oil for 15,000 tons/year has been realized. These projects started based on experiences in the oil crisis in the 1970's. Beznau makes available 80 MW of heat to industry and homes over a 130 km network http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-O-S/Switzerland/#.UWW4S5OF2uI
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull392/39205082125.pdf Biggest user of nuclear CHP is Bruce power in the production of heavy water for its power plant. The benefits to the environment of distric heating in general, as a sound idea, even excluding nuclear. -http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/chp_report.pdf Future interaction analysis with VHTR's including hydrogen production http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/4374050.pdf CO2 http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v42/v42-238.pdf
Projected growth of energy demands in the US and the worldhttp://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/87/8734cover.html?featured=1 At the heart of the matter is a projected 21% increase in demand for electricity in the U.S. between now and 2030, Singer says, drawing on forecasts from the Energy Information Administration. The need for new power plants that can run nearly around the clock (unlike wind- or solar-based generators) and do not emit greenhouse gases or air pollutants (as coal- and gas-fired plants do) is driving utility companies to tap nuclear energy to meet some of our growing power demands. Nuclear power plants and health hazardshttp://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/5/1247.abstract
Childhood cancer and nuclear power plants in Switzerland: a census-based cohort study August 6th-9th 1945, and 1946 Bikinihttp://archive.org/details/SpecialD1946 Special delivery 1946. Doc shows some radio controlled drone photographic planes and their operators at Bikini atoll and surrounding islands. It also shows preparations for operation crossroads and decontamination efforts. The pictures taken by these drone planes are in the archive's 'pictorial book operation crossroads.' Other than these scenes its mostly fluff. Worth viewing for these scenes though. http://archive.org/details/TaleofTw1946 Tale of two cities. Pretty good doc, includes the 25,000 dead Japanese soldiers in the Hiroshima garrison and the story of the Jesuit priest who also rushed to a window and got glass lacerations. But as he was 3 km away or so from the epicenter, these injuries were not severe for him - however there is no telling how many were closer than he, who did the same thing as he but therefore surely died from faster imploding ballistic glass injuries. http://archive.org/search.php?query=Operation%20Crossroads Operation crossroads search on archive, loads of quality docs and vids. Externality
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please review WP:BRD. After your edit has been reverted, you should initiate a discussion on talk and attempt to gain consensus for your view. Please review WP:EW and [[WP:3RR} and [WP:RS]]. Thanks. Please present your view on talk. SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. I have undone your reinsetion of the lede text, the edit of which was explained in the summary for that edit. I have opened a thread on the article talk page. Please express your concerns and propose alternatives for discussion there, and please review WP:BRD WP:RS WP:NOR and WP:EW Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC) First read the RS. Second, repeat step 1In reply to your rhetorical question (please stop asking rhetorical questions) in this edit summary the first RS (from IPCC) says "could play an increasing role". Somewhere along the line the "increasing" part got dropped. But I post here about editor behavior. Your edit summary indicates you made that change based on your own knowledge. Whether you're right, or wrong, editing on the basis of what you know instead of what the RS says is what we call impermissible WP:OR. In this case, you lucked out because the RSs arguably say what you wrote. My point is that framing your statements in terms of what the RS says is a good habit to cultivate. Cheers NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Edit warring warning Your recent editing history at Externalities shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC) BTW....Climate change mitigation and all other climate change articles, loosely defined, are under a special set of rules from the arbitration committe. See WP:ARBCC. I seem to have forgotten that myself, so I'm going to stop editing Climate change mitigation for awhile, though I may come back and look at it more later. I'd encourage you to do the same. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC) List of straight shooting editors(work in progress)Editwarring vs "machine gun editing" vs "cluster-bombing"FYI, when I first started in the climate pages I was what I call a machine gun editor, and now I see you exhibiting a similar pattern. I don't really know how that pattern is to be viewed in terms of BRD and our policy/guideline against edit warring, so I asked a generic question. I have no idea how rapidly anyone will pay attention or respond. Anyway, I just wanted to call it to your attention, and since we both think Enescot is a "straight shooting" editor, I'm going to ping him too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Request a time outI would like to formally ask you to chill out at Climate change mitigation. The earth is unlikely to open up and swallow the nuclear energy industry if you don't get all your desired changes rammed through in 24 hours. Most recently, when you make main-text changes but provide and edit summary saying you merely added a few "see also" links, that kind of strikes me as deceit. Consensus here at wikipedia is based on trust. Sneaking in main text changes under a false flag might be construed as GAMING THE SYSTEM. You've made a shitload of changes. Time to stop, and let other editors review your work over a period of a few days. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
SovacoolYou really need to start to check the papers that you critize and not just act on Gut-reflection. The 2013 "2009 update" paper by Sovacool is actually referencing the 2010 paper that you harp on about - it is the 2nd reference in Sovacools paper. This addresses both your claim that it is "really a 2009 paper" (it cannot be - since one of the papers it references is a 2010 paper), as well as the claim that Sovacool ignores the critiques. You are not doing well here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Please review WP:CANVAS and WP:3O SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Decline Third party invite (formerly titled "Taking your advice")Per your request I am replying here on your talk page. The original post you put on my talk page read as follows
My reply is
In sum, (A) I decline and (B) my strongest bit of advice for you is to voluntarily sign up for a WP:MENTOR NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
NOTICE: FAKE ARTICLE CONTENT GUIDELINEBoundary, several of your threads above appear to be unrelated to the consensus process of collaborative editing; rather they appear to be (at best) intended for longterm personal archival, or (at WP:POV worst) designed to make your preferred version of text available and maybe even mirrored to other sites. I don't really know your intent, rather I am saying reasonable minds could see those threads as troubling under the WP:FAKEARTICLE content guideline. An example is Please review your talk page and clean it up to remove private content to your own blog or something. Make better use of article talk pages and the WP:BRD process to work with other editors, and let the content that results from consensus be reported solely in the article, instead of creating your own parallel everything-nuclear encylopedia here, be it for archival, soapboxing, or whatever else you might be intending. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Some of these supposed "lowly rough drafts" turned out to be from a 2006 version of a main space article. I googled some of the text, and whaddya know? An old 2006 user space draft appeared at another editor's page....an ed for whom you left a talk page message one could perceive as WP:CANVASSING. That editor quickly deleted the 2006 copy from his user space per WP:UP#COPIES, and I have deleted the redundant 2006 text from your collection of "lowly rough drafts" per WP:UP#COPIES. If you want to revert Nuclear power phase-out to a version from 2006, then talk about that proposal at the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the details of the policies that relate to these issues, but if any editor feels that Boundarylayer has not adequately responded to the stated concerns, I suggest having the matter adjudicated at the Administrators Noticeboard. It would be very unfortunate to have a researcher confuse this text with a WP article as a result of a web search. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The meat of this matter is your failure to engage Johnfos (talk · contribs) in meaningful WP:BRD at the article talk page. Please delete the bloggish entries related to your dispute with him and instead start discussing at the article talk page. I have left him a similar note. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Just a casual reaction to this thread, Boundarylayer. You're being coy and unresponsive and you should seriously consider whether you will be happy with the outcome of an ANI in this matter. Please review the policies and move your ruminations to the sandbox. SPECIFICO talk 03:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
You can repeat yourself as many times as you please but your statements will continue to be incorrect, over and over and over. SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
OK so now we've had a few days to ponder, and we've both been actively editing. Instead of moving material I find troubling off of this page, you have been adding to it. And so we disagree whether you have inappropriate material here. I will eventually take the next step in the DR process to try to make progress on this impasse, but in the meantime, to prevent outside search engines from indexing your page, please add the template {{noindex}} to the top of your talkpage, and also your sandbox since I was wrong about sandboxes being invisible to search engines by default. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Basis of my 2nd remark about canvassingIn response to a comment I made about troubling behavior which I called "canvassing", Boundarylayer (talk · contribs) has asked me to elaborate. I was referring to your selective drumming-up of support for your January edits to Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources, where you only pinged the editor from one side of a 3-month old debate and you did not ping the eds he was arguing with. The debate centered on the "Sovocal Study", which you have harshly criticized. The debate took place on the article talk page and Andrewa (talk · contribs) was the only editor who (like you, elsewhere) was critizing the study. In Jan 2013 you contacted AndrewA with what looks to me like canvassing, and here is how I support that assertion.... 15:11, 20 January 2013 Almost three months after that debate ended, you added some unrelated text to the article which Nigelj (talk · contribs) politely reverted. 05:05, 23 January 2013 You replied to the reversion with altered text 05:20, 23 January 2013 You sought support for your new text from the AndrewA, only editor in that October 2012 debate who happened to agree with your views. When you ask only the eds with whom you agree to come to an article to look at your edits, that's canvassing. I will (or have already) left FYI's to this thread to the eds named above, just as FYI and courtesy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
How should others judge my comment when they see about 10 ways you try to change the issue - you pinged only the ed from one side of a debate, the guy who took a position you have taken elsewhere? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Editing your own talk page comments months after the factPlease don't edit your own comments months after you left them, as you did here. See WP:REDACT NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
how to make a new section on talk pageDon't do this because your new section will appear falsely labeled on the watchlists of other editors. Instead, click the "new section" tab in the upper right. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Use of user pageHi, In this edit I believe you're making an inappropriate use of your user page. If it is for improving an article, please indicate which one, move to your sandbox, and complete your work before it becomes deletable as a WP:STALEDRAFT. If it is not for improving an article, please move it to your own blog because otherwise I'll likely ask for its deletion as a WP:FAKEARTICLE via the WP:MFD process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
BLP noticeboardAn issue in which you may have been involved is being discussed here, and your input is welcome. Thank you. Johnfos (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Careless and biased remarks from BoundarylayerIn the interest of being constructive, I thought I would tone this down. I am a senior academic, writing because it appears that User: Boundarylayer has consistently misrepresented me and my research. He has misquoted my affiliations, shown only one side of key data from my studies, and excluded research questioning his views. Of particular concern has been his insertion of derogatory material at Benjamin K. Sovacool and Talk:Nuclear safety. Bksovacool (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Lead of climate change mitigationHi. I notice that you've revised the lead of climate change mitigation (29 May). I was wondering if we could discuss this revision at Talk:climate change mitigation#Definition. Thanks. Enescot (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Your August 2012 edit of Supersonic Transport articleYour description of the edit is: "Added a referenced article stating essentially stating that the opposition to SST based on Ozone damage was overblown. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-10-08/news/1995281022_1_ozone-sulfur-exhaust-particles." The first sentence of the referenced article: "After directly sampling the high-altitude exhaust from a Concorde supersonic jet for the first time, a research team has warned that a new fleet of such planes could pose more danger to the Earth's protective ozone layer than previously believed." The point of the article seems to be exactly the opposite of what you state. I revised your edit to more accurately reflect what David Fahey said about his own research in the article. After looking at it again I am thinking perhaps the entire paragraph should simply be deleted, or at least moved to another section, since the section you put it in is about the history of SST, and you have inserted something that happened in 1995 between paragraphs about what happened in the 1970's. However, since this is my first edit, and I'm not very familiar with how this process works, I am going to leave it as is for now. Ayarbrough (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Ayarbrough IP sigs when I couldn't remember my pass/too lazy to sign inIt was an experience seeing how IPs are treated again. The anon creators of the vast majority of this project. I've moved house since I had the following IP addresses so I'm not too concerned with the gestapo tracking me down. 92.251.207.177, 178.167.254.79, 178.167.235.146, 86.46.184.167, 86.44.239.203, 86.45.204.211, 86.44.234.63, 86.45.192.251, 86.41.239.213, 86.45.205.13, 86.46.191.135, 86.46.163.12, 185.51.75.188, 31.200.172.50, 178.167.208.192.86.45.207.6
Basically, we will need to collect all the reliable sources, that: 1) have estimations of Saturn V LEO lift/payload capabilities, 2) have actual data about Saturn V LEO lift/payload capabilities, 3) figure out which one is what (the is definitely a difference in interpretations, what is a "payload" and what a "lift capability"); 4) figure out how to take into account different altitudes and inclinations of LEOs (or just omit that factor). IP Addresses / not logging in.Just FYI - I suppressed those, just for your privacy! If it happens again and you want them gone, just let me know - Alison ❤ 19:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 September 2015News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 19:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Operation Plowshare Strauss quote− Regarding your concerns back in Aug, 2015 on the changes I had made to the Operation Plowshares page, − Yes, makes sense. Where have you searched for it so far? The book I referenced starts the sentence with "As Strauss noted in February...". The preceding paragraph references the commission's "semiannual report to Congress in January 1958". Other mentions of Strauss making statements in Feb 1958 or hearings being held are on p 447, and 474 it seems. p.474's quotation: Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Hearings on Control and Reduction of Armaments, Feb. 28-April 17, 1958, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1958) pp.1336-64. I can't find that available online. Unless you can find it, looks like someone would need to go to the Library of Congress and pull up a physical copy of that to confirm the quote. Until then, what's the proper way to add this primary reference as the suspected reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenHochstedler (talk • contribs) 19:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Chernobyl and its various falloutsJust a brief note, in appreciation of your excellent additions to the article, and your grasp of the implications (most of which hadn't occurred to me, and probably many others). Kudos. Haploidavey (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Nuclear winter It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Blocked?Boundarylayer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: There is a claim that "From your contributions, [advertising or promoting] seems to be your only purpose." Though what exactly I'm supposed to be selling is not explained? I do not know which admin has looked at my contributions but I think it pretty clear that I'm not editting articles to get people to buy anything. From where I'm sitting, I'm merely raising the quality of nuclear, chemistry and climate related articles up a higher standard. However right now, I can't help but wonder if this has something to do with User:Pelarmian who has a history of attempting to get me banned, over non-issues when I point out their errors, most recently here. This seems a possibility as they did just send me a private email apparently, as seen above on my talk page. Would I be wrong? Boundarylayer (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Decline reason: Procedural decline; you are not blocked and haven't been for more than four years. If unable to edit, please follow the instructions that appear when you attempt to do so. It's possible you are being hit by an 'autoblock', a block on another account set up to prevent block-evasion. Yamla (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. What other account? I can supply a screen capture that unequivocally shows that I received a "block" for spamming. Boundarylayer (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Just curious, what happened to give you the impression that you had been blocked? Your block log shows you haven't been blocked in over four years. Perhaps there was a technical problem that gave you the impression you were blocked? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC) PS: Oh, and wondering about your user name, since I'm a boundary layer kind of guy myself. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
December 2016
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
NotificationNotice of noticeboard discussion
Reverted youI just reverted your post on Talk:Alan_Robock. You cannot speculate on the real life identity of editors, this violates WP:OUTING. Please don't repost that again. Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ 19:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
By the way, you just tried to re-instate your edit that outed the IP editor again, and I have once again removed it. Please study WP:OUTING and WP:COI as you don't know the difference between outing and pointing out COI. Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ 12:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Mentioned on ANFeel free to comment on it here . Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ 13:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC) COI, yikesJust read through the stuff you have written at Talk:Alan Robock and I just want to say "yikes". I don't think we have interacted before, but I work a lot on COI issues around WP, and have thought a lot about it. The result of that thinking is captured in this too-long thing on my user page, which I encourage you to read. I appreciate your desire to protect the integrity of Wikipedia but:
and most importantly,
The right thing to do if you are concerned, is post a simple, neutral message at WP:COIN asking more folks to watch the article. There are so many articles in WP where we need more people watching out for advocacy editing and dealing with it respectfully, dispassionately, and cluefully - so many articles with badly skewed content - and your passion about COI would be much more productively channeled if you improved content that has been skewed, and used COIN to get help dealing with editors who have an WP:APPARENTCOI. Above all, please be very careful to avoid stating as a fact that anyone has a COI unless they have declared a connection themselves. Happy to discuss, but I hope this makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Broken formattingjust fyi, i tried to figure out what broke the formatting on your talk page. As far as I can tell it broke in this diff back on March 1, 2013. I can't see where the markup is wrong, but the page before that was fine. You also might want to consider adding the {{reflist-talk}} template at the bottom of each section where you used ref tags, to clear up the ref-mess below. If you like. :) Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Uma medalha para você!
Articles I've contributed toAll the material presently in the latter portions of the article peaceful nuclear explosions(PNE), was initially written by me a few years ago for the nuclear weapon/explosive page. This material however was moved to the PNE page by user:johnfos, who seemingly disagrees with peaceful-uses being popularized, so he sent it to the PNE page, a comparative ghost-town that gets essentially no traffic. Whilst I'm not going to challenge this, I will say that it is pretty undeniable that we will see peaceful uses of nuclear explosives again, really we're almost guaranteed to see them employed by humankind in the future. Completely unlike nuclear warfare, were there is no guarantee that humanity will have to start one of those. In any case, some of the more enabling uses of peaceful high-energy-density-devices, include the following concepts, that I more recently penned and developed, now with added pictures - which as we all know are worth a thousand words. In 2015, billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk popularized an approach in which the cold planet Mars, could be terraformed by utilizing the detonation of high-fusion-yielding thermonuclear devices over the mostly dry-ice containing carbon dioxide-icecaps on the planet.[13] Musk's specific suggested plan would not be very feasible within the limitations of the energy of historically manufactured ~megaton range nuclear devices, therefore requiring major advancements in nuclear devices for it to be considered feasible. In part due to this issue, the physicist who is considered to have initially put forward the concept, instead suggests to use nuclear reactors in the typical land based district heating manner to make isolated tropical biomes on the martian surface.[14]  Alternatively, as nuclear detonations are presently somewhat energy limited in terms of demonstrated achievable yield, the use of an off-the-shelf nuclear explosive device could be employed to "nudge" a Martian-grazing comet towards the poles of the planet and upon impact would be a much more efficient scheme to deliver the required energy, water vapor, greenhouse gases and other biologically significant volatiles that could begin to quickly terraform Mars, one such missed opportunity for this occurred in October 2014, when a "1 in a million years" comet designated as C/2013 A1, also known as comet "sliding spring", grazed the martian atmosphere.[15][16] Mutagenesis Please note that Muller's experiments do not support your assertion. Muller's argument is in fact different, that the effect is linear, i.e. there is no safe dosage (i.e. it will cause mutation even at low dosage). You cannot state something that Muller did not argue for or supported in his research, whatever what your opinion on his view of linear response is. Hzh (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you trying to make me laugh? I mean way to break out the Gish Galloping Hzh, and so soon too? So look I am not going to do you homework for you, but I will be nice enough to copy-and-paste you out the first lines from a reference I asked you to read, but like the fan-girl that you apparently are, you've instead moved to get all defensive about your Dear "Hermann". When the reality is, you're flailing your arms to run from the now well documented fact that, your dear "Hermann" Muller suppressed evidence, the peer-reviewed sources actually dug up that he engaged in it willingly. So at this point I have to ask, are you blind, or is there some other reason why you are engaging in blatant Soviet-era disinformation? But to be Civil. Here it is again, in case you're actually blind and missed the introduction, the 1st time round.This paper extends several recent publications indicating that Hermann J. Muller: (1) Made deceptive statements during his Noble Prize Lecture on December 12, 1946, and (2) that such actions of Muller were masked by a series of decisions by Muller’s long-time colleague and esteemed radiation geneticist Curt Stern, affecting key publications in the mutation literature. Such actions further enhanced acceptance of the linearity dose-response model while preventing Muller’s deceptions from being discovered. This paper provides documentation that Muller reinforced such practices within the scientific literature in the early 1950s, by supporting scientifically questionable actions of Stern So it is crystal clear Hzh, it's really you, the accuser, who is "misrepresenting the issue". Gee what a surprise that turned out to be. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-013-1105-6/fulltext.html
References
August 2017
reversion Of Fukashima black outyou reverted my revision without reading the talk page or making a comment on the talk page. You leave undocumented text in the article, and the reason it is undocumented is that it cannnot be doccumented, and that is because it is false in its immplications. Bad job. If you are proud of lowering the accuracy of wikipedia, comngratulations. ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC))
October 2017 warning
ANI notification
Thank you for supporting the Sustainability Initiative! Hi Boundarylayer, Thank you for supporting the Sustainability Initiative, which aims at reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. There are currently over 350 supporters from all over the world – please encourage other community members to sign the page as well! You can also read an update from the Sustainability Initiative in the most recent edition of the Wikipedia Signpost. Thank you, and kind regards, --Gnom (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC) What RSMED is notPlease read both RSMED and the top of FT/N and then re-read the post you keep edit-warring onto FT/N. Your every concern expressed has no bearing on [[WP:FRINGE|fringe theories}}, which is used on this project The conclusion that this death was related to legal structures is neither a mainstream 'nor a fringe theory. It is a political football. Your frequent references to RSMED also betray your point: RSMED means, after all, "Identifying reliable sources (medicine)". Take it to WP:RS/N if you must, but no-one on FT/N has shown any interest in your POV advocacy and it really belongs on the article talk page. That you feel the need to edit-war this back into fringe theory territory is better evidence of a lack of NPOV in the issue than anything I could point to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
October 2017 block You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Miniapolis 22:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Boundarylayer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I believe this farcical allegation of "personal attacks" was settled some hours ago? So why is it commencing now? Secondly this block as it stands now is preventing me from responding to an ongoing noticeboard discussion of which I am a part. So it's pretty ill-timed. Or am I to understand, that is the whole point? Boundarylayer (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: You made a clear PA, you refused to admit it despite every single other person who reviewed it concurring that it was a clear PA, and now want to be unblocked on the grounds that it was "farcical"? Declined. ‑ Iridescent 22:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Boundarylayer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: The manner in which you just went & misrepresented the admin noticeboard is tendentiously false. As the very last time I was pinged, I left a comment to the queston of : do you recognize it as inappropriate & my reply was in the affirmative "I read you 5 by 5". That's the last notification I received from the board. Last thing I saw. Yet now hours later, You've blocked me for "refusing to admit"? You serious? Boundarylayer (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: If you think it's okay to call another user "schizophrenic" regardless of the context, continues to defend the PA, and respond with something incomprehensible like "I read you 5 by 5" when being asked explicitly to take responsibility for your PA? Then that's a problem. Alex ShihTalk 02:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Boundarylayer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: The phrase I read you 5 by 5 is actually by defintion, the very epitome of comprehensible affirmation. Yet for reasons only known to you and yours, you have desired to conjure up the minority view that is instead to mean - "incomprehensible"? This to all observers clearly shows how backwardly farcical this entire ban has been. Secondly you also couch the continuation of this block in such vapid hypotheticals that begin with : "if you thinks...".Boundarylayer (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: Block now expired — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Boundarylayer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Actually this is not a request for review, the previous 1 still stands. This is simply a cache, seen as I was engaged in a reply when this dubious block was put in place and seen as this ban even stretches to editing my sandbox. You are leaving me no choice, considering the machine I am on. But to put that reply here, until such time that this dubious ban is lifted. Decline reason: This is not an unblock request and is incredibly stale. Yamla (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You should be thanking jps, not slagging him as he is trying to offer constructive advice on how you can avoid being permanently blocked. I note that you've made five attempts to revise one short paragraph and it still reads like word salad. That alone is evidence of postings showing a lack of competence in English communication. Here's a reality of Wikipedia: it has 16 years and 32 million user's worth of established ways of doing things. You can persist in quixotically tilting at windmills by insisting you and you alone know The TruthTM, which will render the remainder of your tenure here nasty, brutish and short. You can adapt to the policies and procedures that are in place, which will allow you to remain. No tribalism, no door-slamming, no cryptic insinuations. It's your free choice: do you want to be right (as you define it) or do you want to be effective? Having seen this play out time and time again with the Don Quixotes of Wikipedia, I am betting you will take the former choice but I would not bother posting this at all if I did not have some hope you might choose a more congenial path. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Look, I get that you think you are fighting a noble cause but I don't care. Nobody really cares about your cause, we care about the project. Those "irrelevancies" are why we're here, not your pure beacon of reason. You keep trying to get everyone to fight on your preferred ground where you're sure your opponents will be forced to see the light but no-one is required to oblige you. Wikipedia is not a good place for advocacy or setting the record straight or whatever it is you're trying to do. If you truly feel the need to continue in this manner, post on social media or Facebook or start a blog or, heck, become the Alex Jones of Indo-Irish medical conspiracies. Whatever floats your boat. I'm simply telling you that long rambling walls of text like the ones you have been posting don't change anything. If anything, they cause others to simply tune you out. Which, having made and obviously failed in a sincere attempt at constructive advice, I will now do myself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Edit war warning Your recent editing history at Death of Savita Halappanavar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Notice of discretionary sanctions This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Removing sourced content
To cite an example of the policy you are breaching, WP:ALLEGED -...the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression; the use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression Edit war warning, againYour recent editing history at Premature rupture of membranes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
You are about out of rope here. I suggest you start editing very, very conservatively going forward, because the next time you make an edit like this, I will seek a TBAN and I am very confident that it will gain consensus. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message Hello, Boundarylayer. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Topic banPer this discussion you are topic banned indefinitely from the subjects of Savita Halappanavar, pregnancy, miscarriage and abortion, broadly construed. Guy (Help!) 00:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Mark Z. Jacobson articleI've commented on the Mark Z. Jacobson page about by concern for COI, bias, and bad-faith editing. I believe the best way to proceed with this is for admin intervention. Since you are also contributing to the article in the recent while, do you have any other avenues you want to explore before we proceed to call admin? -- Sjschen (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC) JacobsonI have blocked Jacobson for his COI editing and failure to engage despite numerous warnings. The article is very biased at present, and I think you understand the subject and have some desire to fix it. It is probably worth your time now, because he is forcibly separated from the fray so can't revert your attempts to inject neutrality, but please be mindful of WP:BLP. It's at WP:COIN now, too. Please watchlist Jacobson's user talk page in case he has valid points to make about the article. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC) December 2017Merchants of Doubt is one of the best political books I have ever read, by the way. That and Dark Money. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC) The Signpost: 20 February 2018
Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018
The Signpost: 26 April 2018
Hello, from the Portals WikiProject...You are invited to join the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system... The Portals WikiProject was rebooted on April 17th, and is going strong. Fifty-nine editors have joined so far, with more joining daily. We're having a blast, and excitement is high... Our goal is to update, upgrade, and maintain portals. In addition to working directly on portals, we are developing tools to make portals more dynamic (self-updating), and to make building and maintaining portals easier. We've finished two tools so far, with more to come. They are Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt. Discussions are underway about how to further upgrade portals, and what the portals of the future will be. There are plenty of tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too). With more to come. We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years. See ya at the WikiProject! Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 19:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Terufumi Sasaki (May 22)
AfC notification: Draft:Terufumi Sasaki has a new comment Your submission at Articles for creation: Terufumi Sasaki (May 22)
AfC notification: Draft:Terufumi Sasaki has a new commentYour submission at Articles for creation: Terufumi Sasaki (May 23)
Ireland yes vote biasI just saw on the Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2018 (Ireland) bieas people got Rid of your good post of ARC, or Amnesty Ireland? Or George Soros. I strongly believe that the page need to be tagged as biased.Leftwinguy92 (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2018 (Ireland)I'm posting to remind you that you are topic banned from the subjects of Savita Halappanavar, pregnancy, miscarriage and abortion, broadly construed. Your recent edits breached this topic ban. Don't edit there again while the topic ban is in place. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC) WarningNumerous recent edits violate your topic ban above. [3], [4], [5], [6] are unambiguously related to abortion. This restriction should be understood as being broadly construed, but in this case even a narrow construction shows this to be in the scope of your topic ban. If you make any further edits in this area you may be blocked from editing without further warning. I will also notify this at WP:ANI. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC) AfC notification: Draft:Terufumi Sasaki has a new commentYour submission at Articles for creation: Terufumi Sasaki has been acceptedThe article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)BlockedI've blocked you for 48 hours for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bastun, which I've deleted as it was meritless and consituted an obvious personal attack. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 May 2018
Thank you very muchThe RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up. By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject. I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity. Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them. If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience. Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 23:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC) P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT The Signpost: 29 June 2018
The Signpost: 31 July 2018
The Signpost: 30 August 2018
The Chancer "User:DrKay", wanting to engage in "warring"You have performed 2 reverts on Great Famine (Ireland) in the last 2 hours, despite knowing that you are not permitted to perform more than 1 revert in any 24 hour period. You must therefore undo your last revert. DrKay (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Boundarylayer, it would be very much appreciated if, when making a whole series of edits to an article or a section, you were to use edit summaries. Thanks in advance. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC AlertThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have recently shown interest in The Troubles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC) The Signpost: 1 October 2018
Dweller the vandalBeen a long time since anyone called me a vandal! (If ever). ([8]) It was careless of me to include the section heading. I put it where it was because the text it was with was about residual radiation in the soil, and this seemed to be about residual radiation in a different but related type of organic matter. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
References and citationsPlease take the time to format citations when editing about health. There is a diagram below, explaining how to use a function in the tool bar in the edit window to format citations -- it takes seconds to do this, and then other people don't have to clean up after you. Please do this.   Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.
We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC) The Signpost: 28 October 2018
ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, Boundarylayer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) The Signpost: 1 December 2018
Cite errors in the article Nuclear powerYou made about 100 edits in two days to the article Nuclear power. Your edits generated six "Cite errors" to the reference list. ("The named reference was invoked but never defined.") You should fix the errors that you generated. --TuomoS (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Nuclear powerHello. You did 200 edits on nuclear power in the last few days. The article was already long at ~185k, but now it's over 225k and growing. It's very difficult to keep track of what you are adding. All this text will need to be cut down considerably (the article should be half this size) and will require a lot of work, also because much of your edits are biased and off-topic. Please consider editing related articles more specific to the topics rather than the nuclear power article itself. --Ita140188 (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
A few comments of feedback from my review of your changes:
Economies of truth within wikipedia articles focused on "royals and ladies"In 1845 Victoria supported the £26,000 Maynooth Grant to a Roman Catholic seminary in Ireland, despite some Protestant opposition.[1] As catholic clergy were becoming less condemning of Irish agitations, Peel hoped to win over their support and separate them from popular nationalism.[2] In 1845, Ireland was hit by a potato blight.[3] In the next four years, over a million Irish people died and another million emigrated in what became known as the Great Famine.[4] Victoria would later receive the nickname "The Famine Queen" in an article written by suffragette Maud Gonne, a name which reportedly "stuck".[5][6][7] Gonne's article would be "quickly banned" by British authorities.[8] In January 1847, the worst affected year, Victoria personally donated £2,000 (equivalent to between £178,000 and £6.5 million in 2016[9]) to the British Relief Association, more than any other individual famine relief donor,[10] however as it was the "Royal protocol" that no one may donate more than the monarch, the planned donation of £10,000[11][12] (£24.83 million in 2013[13]) by the Ottoman Sultan, Khaleefah Abdulmejid, was under the insistence of British diplomats, brought to an end, when promptly informed of the "royal protocol", resulting in Victoria's donation having the effect of a net reduction in received famine aid.[14][12] The amount ultimately donated by the Sultan was £1,000.[12][15] Victoria's initial donation offering of £1,000 had been notably controversial, having resulted in Stephen Spring Rice secretary of the British Relief Association, to be "sufficiently indignant" to abstain from placing the subscription on the list, writing to Henry Grey, who by way of comparison to the amount already donated by British politicians, communicated the monarch's donation was "not enough".[16][17] Stephen Spring Rice's protest was initially kept private, though would have the effect of the eventual donation rising to £2,000.[18]
In 1845, Ireland was hit by a potato blight.[21] In the next four years, over a million Irish people died and another million emigrated in what became known as the Great Famine.[22] Victoria would later receive the nickname "The Famine Queen" in an article written by suffragette Maud Gonne, a name which reportedly "stuck".[23][24][25] Gonne's article would be "quickly banned" by British authorities.[26] In January 1847, the worst affected year, Victoria personally donated £2,000 (equivalent to between £178,000 and £6.5 million in 2016[27]) to the British Relief Association, more than any other individual famine relief donor,[28] however as it was the "Royal protocol" that no one may donate more than the monarch, the planned donation of £10,000[29][12] (£24.83 million in 2013[13]) by the Ottoman Sultan, Khaleefah Abdulmejid, was under the insistence of British diplomats, brought to an end, when promptly informed of the "royal protocol", resulting in Victoria's donation having the effect of a net reduction in received famine aid.[30][12] Ultimately the sum donated by the Sultan was £1,000.[12][31] Victoria's initial donation offering of £1,000 had been notably controversial, having resulted in secretary of the British Relief Association, Stephen Spring Rice, to be "sufficiently indignant" to abstain from placing the subscription on the list, writing to Henry Grey, who by way of comparison to the amount already donated by British politicians, communicated the monarch's donation was "not enough".[32][33] Spring Rice's protest was initially kept private, though would have the effect of the eventual donation being raised to £2,000.[34] The story that Victoria donated only £5 in aid to the Irish, and on the same day gave the same amount to Battersea Dogs Home, was a myth generated towards the end of the 19th century.[35] Near the end of the Irish famine, Victoria would travel to Ireland, her first such trip, that had a "certain surreal aura" given the context and "formal type of public pageant", upon arriving by boat in Cork, Victoria would officially rename the city Queenstown, to mark the point on which she first set foot on the island. The monarch received no major Irish resistance, during what was a carefully stage managed visit, which was intended to symbolize British Rule in a part of the British Empire that had shown repeated disapproval of this form of governance.[36] References
HelloHi BoundaryLayer, we might be disagreeing in coming days about how we report on renewable energy and nuclear power. Hopefully we can debate without a heated exchange, and make use of WP:Dispute resolution if the need arises. I'm a little concerned about the sound of some recent edit summaries. One might interpret them as leaning towards a sense of WP:Ownership, which of course is something to be avoided doing consensus based editing. Same goes for my own comments, of course. I don't plan to do marathon sessions, but a bit at a time over time. Carry on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC) Repoted issue to NPOV noticeboardHi BoundaryLayer, I have reported the issue from the EROEI article to the NPOV noticeboard for resolution.
Thomas pow s (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC) CAUTION re Changing your comments after others reply
Yesterday I reverted your changes and explained the reason in the edit summary here. Despite my having told you about this at that time, today you did it again at another place, and I reverted the new changes here. Determined refusal to use the WP:REDACT procedure is disruptive, IMO, and I suspect it may be grounds for blocking. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC) DS Alert - climateThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have recently shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Followup custom commentThis template is FYI only. I regularly give them to editors in pages broadly related to climate change, including myself. After all, it's FYI only. It does open the door to the AE and DS procedures, however. And of course it cuts both ways... that's equally applicable to me. For details, read the linked pages in the template. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Edit warring over pufferyFirst off, WP:3RR is not the measure of edit warring. When you undo a revert ONE FRIGGIN' TIME without discussion, that's the first salvo in an WP:Edit war. But of course, you already know this and seem not to care. Anyway, re your opening salvo of your most recent edit war, there is a difference between dispassionately saying Hall introduced this concept in year X, and has been a regular in the field, and trying to give his views extra WP:WEIGHT via WP:PUFFERY in order to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS of perceived censorship (see also here). If you can't dispassionately evaluate the distinction between neutrally explaining his relevance to this topic and heavy handed WP:PUFFERY to overcome what you see as "censoring", you should probably take a break. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Nuclear PowerThanks for your message but I don't have time to join the debate on the talk page so I will try to remember not to edit that article in future. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 January 2019
Arbitration enforcement warning requsted - climate changeFYI, I have asked admins to review some of your edits under WP:ARBCC#Principles and to issue a warning to tone down what I think is battlefield editing. The thread is here, at arbitration enforcement. Please respond there, not here, so it's all in one place per WP:MULTI. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC) The Signpost: 28 February 2019
The Signpost: 31 March 2019
The Signpost: 30 April 2019
The Signpost: 31 May 2019
The June 2019 Signpost is out!
The Signpost: 31 July 2019
The Signpost: 30 August 2019
The Signpost: 30 September 2019
ANI
BlockYou have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for personal attacks, again. Note that the next block for personal attacks is almost certain to be indefinite. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 16:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC) The Signpost: 31 October 2019
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
The Signpost: 29 November 2019
The Signpost: 27 December 2019
Formatting references in a templateThe edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID, DOI or ISBN.
Another tool is to to use Citer. Just choose from the pick list, enter the ID, and run Submit. Copy the result into the article. Takes a minute so there are no excuses for leaving a bare url in an article! Good luck. --Zefr (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC) The Signpost: 27 January 2020
The Signpost: 1 March 2020
Moseley's lawHi Boundarylayer, check this user carefully because he's continuously spamming the whole Wikimedia project in order to massively advertise his pseudoscientific "work". He's not a true expert of physics nor of mathematics, and Moseley's law is still valid and taught in all universities (he says that he confuted this law). He's not an academic and didn't publish any peer reviewed paper, he's only a cheater searching for some notoriety. --Cisco79 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC) The Signpost: 29 March 2020
The Signpost: 26 April 2020
re:welcome?Hi I'm fine thanks. Fifth pillar of Wikipedia WP:5P5 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules should always be present in the minds of Wikipedia administrators. In your place I would have discussed the veracity of the contents rather than delete them. I am an Independent Researcher sometimes on a collision course with mainstream science. I would have liked a comparison not a rejection of my contents. I thank TreeOfKnowledge who defended me for the sake of truth and science. I hope that Wikipedia without my contents is really better as you say, meanwhile without my intervention today you didn't even have the NIST ka database in the references of Moseley's law page. Meanwhile, with the deletion of my content, the Wikipedia public cannot know that Moseley's law has been refuted. As you may have noticed, having a peer-reviewed article is no guarantee of truth, in fact Philosophical Magazine did not stop Moseley from publishing falsehoods. Science is full of works like mine that are rejected for no reason by scientific journals, without even a reason. Having appeared on a youtube channel that also deals with esoteric topics should not affect the objectivity of the contents transmitted by me. And if the form is more important than the contents and the channel is more important than the broadcasts and the magazine is more important than the scientific articles it contains, you have to tell me this, because I think it's the exact opposite. Then if Wikipedia is of poor quality, you who enforce the rules must ask yourselves about this, perhaps making more exceptions would be healthy for Wikipedia. Returning to my case, my contents were not removed because they were not true, but simply because they did not respect the policies according to a narrow and literal vision. In my case it is an original research that happens to demolish a pillar of Atomic Physics which is Moseley's law and only for this reason the fifth pillar of Wikipedia had to be held and validated. Otherwise what is the fifth pillar for? Finally I tried talking to physicists, but either they don't even know Moseley's law or they avoid confrontation. Dear Boundarylayer, my conscience is calm, by now the world knows what I have done for various information channels, I don't need Wikipedia to advertise. If anything, it's the other way around, Wikipedia needs my content to fill the bestialities that Moseley wrote in his peer rewiewed article that I had offered for free and also spent my time writing them. Are we joking? This ungrateful treatment was the cause of my estrangement from Wikipedia. On my talk I was treated almost like an outlaw, while Cisco79 who first nominated my contents for deletion on Wikimedia and then gave no scientific explanation nor to me who asked him in the appointment of cancellation. Also Cisco79 unduly insulted me by calling me a cheater on TreeOfKnowledge talk and no action was taken. TreeOfKnowledge responded very well, but Cisco79 did not respond to the scientific arguments of TreeOfKnowledge that defended me, also because TreeOfKnowledge was scientifically correct. I believe that personal attacks and measures for vandalism also apply to English Wikipedia, however in Cisco79 talks you made them very sweet welcomes. Finally, if the quality of Wikipedia is poor it is certainly not the fault of people like me who fight every day for the truth. Many greetings.--Starace Aniello (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)--Starace Aniello (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Half Million Award for Nuclear power
Thanks for improving this vital article! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC) ANI notice
Continuation of response to the ANI before being unceremoniously blocked, in the dead of the nightJust to let you all know, that's summarizing aerospace engineer Robert Zubrin's book The source referenced at the end of that very paragraph at Club of Rome. That you have "conveniently" left out for admins. Here in the first literal minutes, that anyone could have found, of a video symposium, of Zubrin on his book tour Video here hosted by Youtube, compares the fringe "anti-humanist", "pseudo-intellectual" "environmentalist" groups still with us, the club of rome, which he'll get to, with "Hitler". Its a long video, though the first 3 minutes should set the tone of the referenced book, for any admins curious, that settles the question, that it is, not my opinion but that of the reliable sources. Out of interest, I have also looked up the Anglican instruction-Malthus-genocide connection. Just to verify Zubrin. Malthus and The Secularization of Political Ideology - Jstor...The anglican Thomas Malthus, who advocated a genocide, now what political ideology was that, that was "secularized" in the 18th century? Its a good read. Certainly looks like Zubrin did his homework. Not just Zubrin by the way have described this fringe club as Malthusian, that's WP:COMMON, social scientists have described the club just the same. With that with genocidal connotations. They're referenced in the article too. So none of the above is a "conspiracy theory". What is a conspiracy theory and only now will I venture into giving my opinion, is the promoting here on this project by special interest groups, advocates of the club of rome and its various vassalage WP:FRINGE pseudo "economics", as though they were "the mainstream" on all topics, all across wikipedia, upon every unsuspecting reader. Which is exactly what is going on, across multiple articles. Where club of rome advocates attempt to go packaging the group as the mainstream "environmentalism" views, without any consideration of what's being pushed, upon unsuspecting readers. With then this followed up here with attempts to ban he, who doth find, those who are engaged with this and anyone that adds anything to the contrary, that would so much as think of putting balance WP:ITA to these WP:FRINGE articles, of what Thomas Sowell calls part of an "anointed" group, at the Club of Rome article. A group, a club, that are not in List of environmentalists, not in the article Environmentalism. This club are not mainstream. Yet on the Michael Shellenberger article, advocates of the club of rome as mainstream, are being pushed as "most environmentalists". I think we should all take notice of this. We also have John thinks he [knows better than most economists, here] when one of their, like-minded, recognises in a reliable source, that they are in the minority position and state "most economics" don't agree with them, on the club's "limits to growth". To end, how exactly did John get here, may I add? From the WP:Canvassing that he was doing? [Here] done without notifying me. Isn't that in contravention of WP:policy and not the least bit disturbing? As much of all of this, has been, over these last few days, that admins may appreciate. Boundarylayer (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
|
