User talk:Boundarylayer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome! Hello, Boundarylayer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Contents

Range of Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector[edit]

I 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[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Government of Ireland Act 1914, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ISTB351 (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

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 attack[edit]

This 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 1918[edit]

Copyright[edit]

You added some text to Firestorm, but did not add the source from which you got it. Most of it was copied from:

  • American National Fire Protection Association (2005), Scawthorn, Charles; Eidinger, John M.; Schiff, Anshel J., eds., Fire Following Earthquake, Issue 26 of Monograph (American Society of Civil Engineers. Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering), American Society of Civil Engineers Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (illustrated ed.), ASCE Publications, p. 68, ISBN 9780784407394 

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)

Please see Talk:Firestorm/Archive 1#Minimum firestorm requirements -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


Firstly you did not clean up the reference section at all, you have cited Glasstone and Doland but the authors names are Glasstone and Dolan. Not 'Doland', where did you get that from? secondly, the 2005 book you mentioned(if it contains the same material) has copied Glasstone and Dolan's 1977 book.
I did cite were I sourced the material:
The effects of Nuclear Weapons, as can be found here--> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/effects/eonw_7.pdf#zoom=100 look at pg 24 of the thermal effects chapter. Notice the author's name Dolan' and not 'Doland' as you suggested.
If the 2005 book copies Dolan's book then that's news to me, but don't go around claiming copyright nonsense when I clearly did cite the source, if you had been bothered to actually look at the edit history.
And as for the last point, yes I agree it would be better to go for something like a direct quote as it may cause confusion amongst readers(as evidenced by you), you even went to the extent of reverting what the source essentially says, so yes instead of my succinct Regardless of what initially causes the fires, including the thermal pulse from a Nuclear Weapon
We should go for the direct quote, that says the same thing - "7.61 The incendiary effects of a nuclear explosion do not present any especially characteristic features. In principle, the same overall result, as regards destruction by fire and blast, might be achieved by the use of conventional incendiary and high-explosive bombs. ..."



Boundarylayer (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Firestorm citation requested and supplied[edit]

With your recent addition to the article Firestorm. You added a citation:
As far as I can tell you are citing page 88 but, I could not work out from the link how to see what the :full citation is (publication date) author, isbn etc. Please could you add that information to the article. :-- PBS (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

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[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Anti-nuclear movement with this edit. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you, -— Isarra (HG) 16:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sock?[edit]

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)

Never heard of that User before Johnfos, are they Irish too? furthermore I am insulted that you would suggest I am Pro-Nuclear, I cite everything I write and seek only to present the truth. Furthermore, where have I made 'false accusations about others'?
Listen, I understand you have been following me around on Wikipedia challenging many of my edits, including in relation to the Anti-nuclear movement and recently regarding Sovacool's Life cycle CO2 emission from Nuclear power ->
Nuclear Power
low-carbon power
Benjamin K. Sovacool
Climate change mitigation
You inserted 'Not in citation given' tages with respect to the 2012 Yale university reference I provided, so I sent you an explanation presenting that indeed both statements I made are in the citation, that 'nearly by a factor of three' is correct, as Sovacool cites 288 g CO2 per kWh, and the Yale Universty cites max of 110 g CO2 per kWh. However I have noticed you just completely removed the explanation I posted to you, on your talk page, on the 24th of August, may I ask, why did you do that?
Again, I request for you to remove those tags.
Finally, could you please desist in harassing me? It seems you have enough on your plate with your reincarnation research Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Thanks.

August 2012[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. --John (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 12:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your reply. Nobody "reported" you in this instance; I noticed you making quite a few edits which seemed to contravene WP:NPOV. I strongly suggest enlisting the help of other editors in article talk before making potentially controversial edits in future. --John (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Duly noted John, I'll do that more often, however I would like to make you aware that I am being harassed by the user Johnfos, they even attempted to erroneously report me as a sock, which is detailed below.

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears I am your sockpuppet[edit]

It 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.

MTM[edit]

Can you please move your agreement down to the move section:

Talk:Mountaintop_removal_mining#Requested_move — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWesco (talkcontribs) 16:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, although like I explained earlier, I think that Coal MTM should be stopped as the available evidence suggests that the human impacts of the process are unacceptable.

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Having noticed you removed my reply to you via your talk page a number of days ago, I've taken it upon myself to put my post here.
Like you I am becoming increasingly aware that wikipedia has become a soapbox for many environmental groups, who attempt to overblow the environmental impacts of many human endeavours, including Supersonic Transport. However in terms of Coal use, I tend to agree with the peer reviewed conclusions on the issue. Coal use kills more people and pollutes the environment far more than all other human enterprises combined. That is not to say that the article wasn't a POV piece pushed by the likes of the usual suspects, which clearly it was, and I commend your efforts in attempting to set it straight.
However although I am aware of Carbon capture and remediation technology, these have yet to be fielded on a large scale, and if they are fielded, I imagine that the price attached to them will make Coal uneconomical in comparison to other sources of energy.
So although I agree with your efforts in principle, that is, to present the facts and not the environmental weasal words, scare mongering and half truths popular amongst the likes of the the usual suspects. On the other hand, from what I've read, No matter which way you look at it Coal use is destroying a lot of ecosystems, and most importantly endangering human health, and for that reason I do not support it.
For example,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110623090001.htm
'The researchers, led by Melissa Ahern, health economist and associate professor in WSU's College of Pharmacy, found 235 birth defects per 10,000 births where mountaintop mining is most common in four central Appalachian states. That's nearly twice the rate of 144 defects per 10,000 in non-mining areas.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101006085228.htm
coal-fired power plants are the leading source of mercury air emissions globally
Best wishes,
Boundarylayer (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing[edit]

We 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)

I see, are you referring to -

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"

Because I can replace it with the following http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/AtomicO
I'll do that right now. Boundarylayer (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
That's a bit better. We do prefer secondary sources where possible. I have copy-edited your additions to conform with WP:NPOV. Good effort. --John (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks man, I'm lucky that it was available, just trying to make the encyclopedia more representative of the expert opinion on the matter, have a good one!

Boundarylayer (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your edits[edit]

This 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:

  • We only capitalise proper nouns and the starts of sentences. Words like "nuclear", "coal", and "gas" are not therefore capitalised, unless of course they start a sentence.
  • The possessive form of the pronoun "it" is "its", and not "it's". Misusing the apostrophe this way is ugly and shows ignorance of basic English usage. Restoring the error with a hostile edit summary shows you are not here to work collaboratively, and that is a shame.
  • We endeavour to write in a neutral manner here. This necessitates avoiding many of the words and constructions you seem to use as a matter of habit. We are specifically not allowed to "balance" one point-of-view with an opposing one, which is something you seem to want to do. Instead it is better to rewrite entirely in a way which is neutral. This I have not seen you do, or even try to do.

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)

In defense of Boundarylayer it seems that the caps were inadvertently added because they were in links. The way links work, is that the first letter can be upper or lower case, only the rest of it is case sensitive, but it is important to be careful to see the affect on the paragraph by inserting caps where they do not belong. So I do think the above is a bit harshly worded. Delphi234 (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
John, my sincere apologies if you feel that I have destroyed your work, I thought we were working well together? Yesterday was some good team work I thought. Sadly, you don't feel the same way.
I'll look at the edit history of a few of the articles I editted yesterday and try to see what you mean and correct them.
Boundarylayer (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Having just got back from work, I have taken a look at the edit in question - here upon doing so, I recognized instantly what you were trying to say, but honestly you got the wrong end of the stick.
It's my fault entirely, you see, I work out of notepad and copy paste directly from it into wikipedia. The order of edits that have led up to the misunderstanding were:
I made my first edit(with all the incorrect capitalizations) then unbeknownst to me, you helpfully fixed my over-capitalization etc, but then I found a new piece of information to be added(the International Court of Justice section) and blissfully unaware of your helpful intermediate edit, I added it to my over capitalizated notepad version and proceeded to copy it directly into wikipedia again(completely nulling all your work). I didn't think anything of it at the time, but having now recognized you went to the bother of trying to help me out, and removed the over capitalizations, I completely understand your frustration.
And in regard to my reason for editing, or edit summary, the second time I wrote - Injected some facts, double standard noted and reduced the bias.
That wasn't aimed at you, but at the article itself, the double standard of the article before my 1st edit was in respect to plastering the massive insurance cost of insuring against Chernobyl class events onto the page, but neglecting to make readers aware that this isn't uncommon to Nuclear plants as the insurance cost necessary to similarly insure every hydroelectric plant against Banqiao dam class failures would also be astronomical. After my 2nd edit(were I was blissfully unaware of your helpful hand) I was describing the double standard of the page in respect to not mentioning the insurance cost from fossil fuel use and rising sea levels. Hence the 'reduced the bias' and the 'injected some facts'.
The edit summary wasn't aimed at you at all man, my sincerest apologies for how it looked, I can understand it from your shoes.
Honestly, my mistake, but you completely got the wrong end of the stick, it was one big misunderstanding.
hope we can put this behind use. Boundarylayer (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate the apology. I do think that you need to rein in your strong opinions as per WP:NPOV. Your editing has a hint of WP:GREATWRONGS about it and that is best avoided. --John (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying about WP:GREATWRONGS but upon reading it, it appears that it is only a problem when the edit goes unreferenced, as I take pride in citing everything I write, if my references aren't good enough, just let me know. In respect to our previous misunderstanding, I'm confident that we can put it behind us?Boundarylayer (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it is much more complicated than that Boundrylayer. I can write an article about someone and have it be nothing be negative material, all true, all sourced, but it still wouldn't be neutral. You can do with with any politician, for example. Wikipedia requires articles are not biased for or against, but rather we simply publish facts of all relevant sides, presented neutrally. This means, written in a tone that someone would write it if they didn't care one way or another about nuclear power. If you have strong feelings about nuclear power, pro or con, that makes it much more difficult, and maybe impossible. I've been here 6 years and have worked on thousands of articles, but there are some areas I can't work because I know I can't be neutral enough: I have too many opinions about them. So, I avoid them, or at most, will drop ideas on the talk page of the article and allow others who are not emotionally invested to add the material. If your goal is simply to get the material into the article, that would be a problem as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a general purpose website, and as such, there is a vetting and editorial process that requires neutrality. If you feel you can't be completely unbiased about a topic, sticking to the talk page is the way you keep out of trouble with POV edits. References are only part of the solution, balance is just as important. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the input Dennis, to be honest, I don't have strong feelings about nuclear power, I do however have strong feelings about the endemic level of misinformation spread about it. If you could take a look at the High-level radioactive waste management talk page for a moment, you can see that is exactly what I'm trying to fix, published only a few hours before your message to me I have requested a collabortive effort to rewrite the utterly backward lede.
It is this seeming blind eye given to all this misinformation on wikipedia that worries me, and as it goes utterly unchallenged, with no 'POV' tags even attached I have to shake my head in disbelief. It is the fact this material has been sitting here so long on an encyclopedia that so shocks me, and spurs me on to right these obvious WP:GREATWRONGS, if I come off as un-neutral when doing this, then I can see nothing else to blame but the editorial process and apparent 'vetting' you say is supposed to catch these unsupported claims.
Not to be contrarian, but you say you publish facts, yet in the example above - High-level radioactive waste management - Where are the referenced facts in the lede that support the opening paragraphs, namely that the isotopes mentioned are 'High-level'? There is not a single sentence in the references that support that claim, and as I bring up on the talk page (with references), the lede couldn't be much more wrong as all the isotopes mentioned are in fact classified as 'Low-Level'.
Boundarylayer (talk) 23:45, 7 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 - © Join WER 12:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I've just been exacerbated by the sheer level of misinformation being pushed out there. I've dutifully taken your advice on board and hope you have taken note that I haven't attempted to edit the High-level radioactive waste management page at all, my only input has been on the talk page.

Boundarylayer (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Mojo-chan[edit]

I 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)

Agreed, they appear to not even have a high school level of scientific knowledge. Could I ask, what other topics have they disgraced?
Honestly, I was beginning to lose hope in wikipedia, your message has lifted my spirits by reminding me, I am not alone.
Boundarylayer (talk) 15:21, 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)


lucky that, I know some people who are working on applying EMS to prevent muscle and bone loss from occurring in astronauts in free fall/'low gravity', its getting funding from the European space agency.
http://newsletter.enterprise-ireland.com/1dizr14imgu16wqwz8efc7?a=6&p=20093535&t=19885095
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/item/24575-astronauts-stay-fit-in-spac
update this year - http://www.ucd.ie/ucdtoday/2012/04APR/01-A-stimulating-experience-at-zero-gravity/index.html
The technique was also looked at by the Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory -
AIAA PAPER 90-3135
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910014388_1991014388.pdf
S ee page 46 to 47. EMS was studied to create more life like training flight simulators.
the paper discussed above is here, but is closed access.
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1990-3135
The US air force in 2008 also looked at EMS to increase blood pressure(and therefore prevent black outs) in pilots who run the risk of passing out under combat maneuvers/G-LOC environments.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a535870.pdf
This would be worthy of addition, no?
Boundarylayer (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Gerald Holtom[edit]

Panzer 4 Division insignia.jpg

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)

This is original research. Marshall46 (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
That may be your POV, but it really isn't OR.
have a look at any one of these references.
http://www.granddistraction.com/the-peace-symbol/
&
http://www.crossroad.to/Books/symbols1.html#peace
&
http://www.vikingrune.com/2009/07/norse-runic-third-reich-symbols/
&
Runic insignia of the Schutzstaffel
&
Beside the 'IN' here on a Panzer 3 nazi tank model-
http://www.panzerworld.net/pictures/00166.jpg
Therefore, contrary to your POV, it isn't original research at all.
The symbol does indeed have an ancient and diverse history, I honestly find it bewildering why you are trying to censor this information. Please revert your censoring.
Thanks.
Boundarylayer (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The symbol does indeed have ancient uses attached to it, with many references to that fact, from Viking runes to represent death*, to Nazis to the present CND use. You may argue that the Viking runes are not the CND symbol due to the fact they lack the circle. Granted, that's spliting hairs, but I can partly understand that. However it does appear that the symbol, with the circle included, was also used by the Nazis.
  • see the Death rune here - Algiz and read the 'German Mysticism' section.
& again see here- Runic insignia of the Schutzstaffel
See here - http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/24/247.html
& for the circle included, see here- From the University of milwaukee.
http://web.archive.org/web/19991104132643/http://www.csd.uwm.edu/~jpipes/heer4p.html
&
4th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)
&
http://www.feldgrau.com/PzDiv.php?ID=4
Presently the Campaign for nuclear disarmament article makes no mention to the fact that the CND resembles that of the Death Rune of the Vikings, nor does it make any mention to the fact the CND symbol is exactly the same as the 4th Panzer Division. This is a very strange omission.
This is no conspiracy, just a mere coincidence. it's not an 'exceptional claim' at all Marshall.
Boundarylayer (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11[edit]

Hi. 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[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{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)


File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Boundarylayer (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


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 - © 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 and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Calling an edit libel is considered a legal threat on Wikipedia, as it is an attempt to stifle or bully the editorial process with legal menace. — Coren (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The solution is even more trivial than the "legal menace"; just say "oops, I didn't know that rule and won't do it again, and I certainly intend no legal action." --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I've received a message from an obvious DUCK Boundarylayerlives on my userpage if an admin wants to tag that. Where did the blocking admin seek to clarify the issue before blocking as mentioned at WP:NLT to make certain it was an actual legal threat? Considering Johns very strong criticism of Boundarylayers editing [1] etc, the block should never have been made by him. He is clearly involved. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I am obviously Boundarylayer and wouldn't use this account if I was able to reply without it.
I was a bit bewildered at the initial ban and so I had to look through my edits to see where I had made the legal threats, having found what I think is the offending section. I think it a bit extreme but would obviously re-word False and libel to simply false and misleading if given the opportunity to do so.
As jpgordon mentioned I didn't know the rule against using the word libel, and I didn't intend, nor do I intend, any legal action.
Thanks jpgordon!
I think this was one big misunderstanding, but if Dennis Brown Unblocked me in a few weeks for making legal threats that'd be cool, I suppose I should be happy enough with that, as long as it isn't indefinite?
Boundarylayerlives (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
A few of the admins here are probably in the US, so you might have to wait a few hours for a reply. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • BoundaryLayer, Note Dennis Brown's reply: Stop using other accounts like Boundarylayerlives and wait a week [2]. Using other accounts is considered ban evasion. Even though Boundarylayer is blocked, you can still use it on this page to talk. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I see, I wasn't aware that I could still edit my talk page with my original username while it was blocked, thanks for the heads up!
I'll wait a week no problem.
See you both on the 5th of November?
Boundarylayer (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Great, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Puppeter template.svg

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)

  • I've blocked the latest puppet. I understand that you don't understand the policies here, and trying to cut you a little slack, but you can only edit using the original account (as was pointed out above) and only here. Lets let this set a bit and I will be happy to review the case in week. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 13:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I see, I wasn't aware that I could still edit my talk page with my original username while it was blocked.
I'll wait a week no problem.
See you on the 5th of November.
Boundarylayer (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think Boundarylayer's original infraction was serious, and he does appear genuinely not to understand Wikipedia policies, but before his block is lifted I think he ought to acknowledge his mistakes. Pelarmian (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
He already did. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking[edit]

I'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)

Thank you, I'll remove the word libel from the edit that caused all this now. As I've said, I would have removed the word previously if I had known there was such a strong rule against. Water under the bridge and all that, regardless, thank you for your time and help!
Boundarylayer (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Accusation of slander[edit]

You 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)

I'm not making legal threats. The word slanderous has been changed to malicious. Thanks for the heads up, this time!
Boundarylayer (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Allow me...[edit]

...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 - © Join WER 22:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries man! though to make everything clear, I have only used the words 'libel' and 'slanderous' in their defined non-lawsuit capacity. I've never attempted to chill the conversation with legal speak, or commented on the legal status of an edit.
I've been using the synonyms 'insulting' and 'malicious' now that I know it is taboo to use 'libel' and 'slander', in an attempt to lay to rest the idea that I've been issuing legal threats or trying to chill people with legal speak.

Boundarylayer (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


RfC Talk:Nuclear_power#Chapter_on_reserves[edit]

Hi 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 Mojo[edit]

Hi 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[edit]

Peacedove.svg

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[edit]

I only know about pottery kilns, nothing about glass or smelting. You might be able to do glass work in a pottery kiln, which usually fires to 1300 deg. C., but I don't know about smelting. There's no need to get a new kiln. You can probably find one on ebay. Pelarmian (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

Glazes rarely go above 1300 - very exceptionally some porcelains are glazed nearer to 1400. At 1700 clay melts. 19:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I hear you man, I've watched many a Seger cone slump over and end up as a pool! But I don't need that temp for the clay glazing, I need it for smelting! :-D That is why I would like if there were an electrical temperature controlled resistance heated - all in one triple use kiln/furnance available. I've got Seger cones and a hand held pyrometer but it's quite a balancing act with those.
Boundarylayer (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on CND article[edit]

It'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?[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

In regards to the demonizing of nuclear energy because of its potential use to make nuclear weapons. I find that those who often demonize nuclear energy are simply not aware that nuclear technology in the form of research reactors produce the majority of the worlds medical isotopes, isotopes that save millions of lives each year, every year. Radiopharmaceuticals for example are produced in research reactors. Similarly, weapons grade material is produced in production reactors and not in power reactors which are the reactor design that dominate the worlds electricity supply, so it is rather misleading to suggest nuclear weapon proliferation will increase if civil nuclear power reactor numbers increase, just as it would be misleading to suggest radiopharmaceutical costs would diminish and life saving medicines would be more available if power reactor numbers increased.
Furthermore, nuclear peace is a real and quantitative effect of nuclear weapons, there is no stronger explanation for why we have entered into this time period of long peace and such comparatively low levels of war deaths. Beginning with the introduction of nuclear weapons, a downward trend in war deaths has occurred since 1945, a trend that was on the increase from 1500 until 1945. It is for this reason that many contend that we should give the nuclear bomb the Nobel peace prize.http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929553,00.html
http://jcr.sagepub.com/content/53/2/258.short journal of conflict resolution. Do nuclear weapons produce stability? It found they do.
http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/uploads/Rauchhaus_Evaluating_the_Nuclear_Peace.pdf The full paper above, published by the author.
Steven Pinker wrote a considerable amount on the reduction of war deaths since 1945, here is a video of a lecture he presented, start at the 20 minute mark to get to the point, although he argues it was a multitude of factors that have reduced the number of war deaths, his graphs of deaths from 1500 to 1945 give you a sense of the long peace we are in right now. - http://talkminer.com/viewtalk.jsp?videoid=_gGf7fXM3jQ&q=#.UQ2lm2d9UYQ
Boundarylayer (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


There should be a simple enough compromise between developed and developing nations over CO2 emissions, something fair and rational such as - once your nations quality of life reaches X value, you have to start adhering to the 6000+ dollars of GDP per ton of CO2 legal requirement. Presently the EU for example(where pretty much everyone has a high quality of life) would cut its CO2 emissions by more than half if every country in the EU followed the Swiss and French electricity models of using high amounts of Hydro power(when available) and nuclear power in an economical low-carbon power manner, the technology is ready to go today. There is no point waiting around listening to all the greenwashing from the Wind and Solar industries while meanwhile Germany is all talk about cutting CO2 but really is building more coal burning power plants.
Rich nations must lead by example, Germany, by building more fossil fuel plants, has made a complete mockery of the kyoto protocol. To a point that if I were from India or China I would tell you where to shove your tax too. You can't blame them, so I don't blame developing countries, I blame developed countries who have the financial flexibility to drastically cut CO2 emissions, but choose instead to increase them

biofuels[edit]

http://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 2013[edit]

According 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%).[2]

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%).[3][4]

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.[5] With the world average percentage of total energy supplied from renewable energy at 13.1%(including OECD countries and non-OECD countries) in 2010.[6]

  • that is a tiny increase.
Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy[edit]

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.[7]

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.[edit]

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.

  • CO2 from geothermal power plants, a paper presented for the international geothermal conference. - www.jardhitafelag.is/media/PDF/S12Paper103.pdf Note Figure 2 that clearly displays CO2 emissions from geothermal zones increase once a power plant begins to exploit the zone. Therefore classifying any synthetic fuel produced by geothermal plants as 'renewable synthetic fuel' is clearly incorrect as it is a net polluter of CO2.

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 waste[edit]

In 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 Reactor[edit]

Technical 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 Reactor[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chemistry

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-04/uranium-rebound-seen-as-japan-considers-nuclear-energy-markets.html

Technical options for the advanced liquid metal reactor. the - IFR By United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. available online.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=Lr0sPxjBD2MC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=breeding+ratio+of+generation+III+0.6&source=bl&ots=7TZbugNMw1&sig=hJCQiehlHXztK-Dvs-m9vlb9rZ4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=S_IUUZPYHsPMhAeSmoHYCQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=breeding%20ratio%20of%20generation%20III%200.6&f=false

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 [8] 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.


Since a dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths, many do not consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction.[9] Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological, not physical, harm through ignorance, mass panic, and terror.

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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons non-proliferation signaturies almost every country. so no prolif concerns.

Best reactors and power plants currently operating[edit]

Beznau 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.[10] In addition, Unit 2's capacity factor in 2008 was a world-record high of 101.37 percent.[11]

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?[edit]

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 ... By Jan Forsythe

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.


http://books.google.ie/books?id=VemjbZfvry8C&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=ipsr+reactor&source=bl&ots=V1PFSRsu1R&sig=CgG_HefLR9mWJqTjHtCLKjUIMoE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=C5gvUdSXA5GThgft44DQAw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=ipsr%20reactor&f=false International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies 43rd Session By R. Ragaini

Page 114 onwards discusses safety and waste burning designs, including their historic lineage.


http://books.google.ie/books?id=LZ7zBwWLyLEC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=ipsr+reactor&source=bl&ots=RjrcdZBH5t&sig=CFdyY4mBX774oMKN2D-Z2OAiZKk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=C5gvUdSXA5GThgft44DQAw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=ipsr%20reactor&f=false 3 Rs of Nuclear Power: Reading, Recycling, and Reprocessing Making a Better ... By Jan Forsythe 120ish onwards.

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

Climate change mitigation[edit]

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.[12]

Much of the global economical hydro power potential was, as of 2012, already exploited,[13] 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.</ref>

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.[14]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). [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 plants[edit]

Due 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[edit]

This graph illustrates the potential rise in CO2 emissions if base-load electricity currently produced in the U.S. by nuclear power were replaced by coal or natural gas as current reactors go offline after their 60 year licenses expire, as part of the Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program.[citation needed]Note: graph assumes all 104 American nuclear power plants receive license extensions out to 60 years.[clarification needed] When a country declares they are abandoning Nuclear power, such as Germany in 2011, it historically demonstrates a dash for more Coal and gas power plants.[34][35][36]

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]

This graph illustrates nuclear power is the USA's largest contributor of non-greenhouse-gas-emitting electric power generation, comprising nearly three-quarters of the non-emitting sources.

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.[edit]

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.-


The carbonic acid in seawater is in chemical equilibrium with atmospheric carbon dioxide. The United States Navy has done extensive work studying and scaling up the extraction of carbon from seawater.[43][44] Work at the Palo Alto Research Center has improved substantially on the Navy processes, resulting in carbon extraction from seawater for about $50 per ton.[45] Carbon capture from ambient air is very much more costly, at between $600 and $1000 per ton. At present that is considered an impractical cost for fuel synthesis or carbon sequestration.[46][47]

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.


Renewable energy- 'synthetic fuel' is too broad a term as it predominately means the manufacturing of liquid fuels from coal and fossil gas. As renewable fuels are also 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 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.
  • CO2 from geothermal power plants, a paper presented for the international geothermal conference. - www.jardhitafelag.is/media/PDF/S12Paper103.pdf Note Figure 2 that clearly displays CO2 emissions from geothermal zones increase once a power plant begins to exploit the zone. Therefore classifying any synthetic fuel produced by geothermal plants as 'renewable synthetic fuel' is clearly incorrect as it is a net polluter of CO2.
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.
Boundarylayer (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Wind power or Nuclear power?[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc7rRPrA7rg&feature=youtu.be

Fusion[edit]

LOCA 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 hybrid[edit]

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/ Fusion-Fission hybrid.

Radiation LNT Linear no-threshold crumbling.[edit]

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 list[edit]

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/53939/radiation-exposure

Nuclear insurance[edit]

The 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.

Reactor-grade plutonium[edit]

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]


Weapons usable definition change, after the magnox sourced plutonium test of 1962, Now weapons usable plutonium has to have a purity of more than ~80% Pu-239. http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/osti.gov/www.osti.gov/html/osti/opennet/document/press/pc29.html

Transparent publications and health studies[edit]

All 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 comment[edit]

You 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.[edit]

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 independence[edit]

Oil 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 sources[edit]

In 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.

Your writing above is replete with error and misrepresentation. Where is it written that there are two schools of economic thought? Where is it written that the Buchanan paper is the only WP:RS on externality? I am truly delighted that you cherish your original research and personal opinions but please do not insert them in WP articles unless they happen to coincide with appropriate WP source material. I've asked you to review various WP policies. If you decide to do so, it could save you much pointless effort broadcasting extraneous material here and elsewhere on this site. Please study up on WP policies. SPECIFICO talk 20:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
SPECIFICO I see you are dodging the Externality talk page, and instead prefer to devolve into ad Hominem attacks here on my talk page. I'll assume good faith, in case you didn't see them -
Where in WP:RS does it say that open-courseware supplied, for example, by Samuel L. Baker, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, University of South Carolina is inadmissible? He's number 5 on the list of open courseware. - http://oedb.org/library/features/top-100-open-courseware-projects#econ
Medical care in general is obviously a positive externality. - He states - 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. http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/courses/ECON/Externality/index.html
As for the definition of the word - Externalities have been defined by marketers as the uncalculated costs and/or benefits of exchange, where uncalculated refers to costs and benefits that have not been accurately included in the exchange valuation (Mundt 1993). http://jmk.sagepub.com/content/16/1/73.abstract Journal of Macromarketing Spring 1996 vol. 16 no. 1 73-88
This is far more in line with Pigou's terminology. - http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/725216?uid=3738232&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102039738887 The Problem of Externality Carl J. Dahlman Journal of Law and Economics Vol. 22, No. 1 (Apr., 1979), pp. 141-162
Another source supporting medical care as a positive externality - Externalities arising from health care provision: Health services are normally assumed to be merit goods providing a private benefit for people who consume them and additional external benefits for society as a whole. http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-health-care.html QED radiopharmaceuticals are a positive externality.
Boundarylayer (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I discuss article content on the article talk page and address comments to you concerning your behavior on your talk page. Because I believe that your interactions are not civil and responsive, I will no longer be responding to you here. I may continue to edit articles in which you also participate, and I expect you to learn and adhere to WP site standards and norms. SPECIFICO talk 03:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

But, the fact of the matter is, you haven't responded on the externality talk page. I am also now very curious how you have concluded I have attacked you? If anything declaring as you do that - I believe that your interactions are not civil and responsive is a personal attack.
Boundarylayer (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Positive nuclear power externality costs[edit]

The 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.[77] Fission products such as Yttrium-90 and Technetium 99m have a wide and valuable use in Oncology and diagnostic medicine.[78][79] 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.[80]

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

Limits of government support for renewable energy investments[edit]

Research 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.[81]

Particulate matter emissions by energy source[edit]

See 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 sources ===

Wind power, fossil fuels and all energy sources are subsidized by many governments. For example a 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[82] 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.[83]

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.[84] History shows that no energy sector was developed without subsidies.[84]

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".[85] 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.[86] 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.[87][88][89][90]

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.[91] 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.[92]

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.[93] 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.[94]

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.[95]

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.[96] 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".[97]


--- include at a later date, stronger references on subsidies received per unit of energy generated by energy source.

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.

Nuclear power's immunity from cost inflation of fuel, NPP's Achilles heel is capital cost and not fuel or waste costs.[edit]

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 society[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

My edits on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.[edit]

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.

Comparison of radiation levels for different nuclear events.

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.[98][99]

The severity of the nuclear accident is provisionally[100] 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.[101][102] 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,[103]) is ~1.5×10^16 becquerels (Bq) of Cesium-137 released,[104] in contrast the amount released from Chernobyl, was ~8.5x10^16 Bq of Cesium-137.[105] which is an activity produced by 24 kilograms of Cesium-137.[103]

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.[101][105]

In terms of the most biologically hazardous short lived radioisotope iodine-131, 5x10^17 Bq of Iodine 131 were released from the Fukushima disaster.[104] In comparison to the release at Chernobyl ~17.6x10^17 Bq of iodine-131 was released.[105] 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.[106]

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.[107] 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.[108]

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%].[109][110] Cancer risks for the unborn child are considered to be similar to those in 1 year old infants.[111]

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.[112] 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.[113] 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.[114]

No increase is expected in the incidence of congenital or developmental abnormalities, including cognitive impairment attributable to within the womb radiation exposure.[115] 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.[116] No increase in these effects are therefore expected in or around the Fukushima power plants.

My edits on Hibakusha and Teratology[edit]

The 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.[117] 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.[118][119][120][121] 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.[122][123]

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.[120]

Request for assistance from Earlysunn[edit]

I 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)

Apologies, I do not know any specialists, Ireland being a veritable backwater in this respect due primarily to our 'ban' on nuclear fission. However, if you expanded upon what exactly you are looking for then that could help us narrow down what type of specialist your needs would best be filled by. From the tone of your writing I'm led to assume that you are approaching this question from a position of already having your mind made up on the cost? Are you also wishing to know the real cost of Coal,Gas,Wind,Solar etc. too?
If you're interested in subsides, then this might be a good place to start -
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903285704576559103573673300.html
Boundarylayer (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Effects of nuclear explosions on human health[edit]

See 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 References[edit]

Having 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)

Thanks man, I must take a look at that cite template one of these days, although I'm always paranoid I will unintentionally put a cite in the wrong place and confuse readers, as it appears to be a common enough mistake using the cite template that it even was brought up on the Chelyabinsk meteor page. Either way, keep up the good work in the article, and thank you for including my edits in the lede and moving up info that I wrote further down the article in the lede, and thank you especially in regards to the injuries section.
Specifically including the Brazilian Tunguska, Duck and cover injuries and the 90 kt yield of the air burst.
As we discussed on the talk page, I'm still finding that,(basing calculations off data from the historical record of HANE) that it would only take a nuclear weapon of yield ~ 30-60 kt to do the same broken window damage over the same area of land that was observed(and that's before we correct for how the blast wave wouldn't have been spherical in the case of the Chelyabinsk meteor but conical and in the direction of travel, as was observed in the updated calculations of the yield of the Tunguska event). As honestly, they would have had at least 1 example of an injury with retinal burns had the yield been 90 kt for the superbolide explosion. But hey, I won't argue with NASA, as at least they're making steps in the right direction by bringing the yield down from 500 kt to 90 kt and trying to communicate the difference in energy and power. The TNT equivalent unit should only be used for explosive events and not describing kinetic energy as that's just dumb.
For example, why in the hell would you describe a forest fire* in units of explosive yield? weapons are not about total energy release, weapons are about power. So using a power unit to describe energy output is down right junk science.
Boundarylayer (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that 500 kt (or 440 kt) was released along the 200 km track (I think I used those exact words at some point, long since re-edited multiple times I expect), 90 kt of which was in the main explosion, we now learn.
The cite template is really easy. It frees you from thinking about how the reference will look, you just fill in the | url= | title= | first1= | last1= | date= | work= | agency= | publisher= | accessdate= | parameters as necessary, and it does the rest for you. The parameters can be stated in any order. The bare minimum is url= and title= but most of the others are usually easily found on the page. Use agency= when the story comes from AP or Reuters, etc, rather than from a named author.
Reusing a reference is really easy, you just restate the reference, name, like ref name="Reuters-123456" / you want to use again, with a closing slash. The name can be anything. Some people use the surname, others the publisher, and some combine that with a unique number, perhaps the story date or the story ID. The idea is to keep it consistent; for example the IDs for the various Russia Today stories are RT-291, RT-283, etc. The edit window also has a way to check for some basic errors (click cite, then error check). -- 212.139.104.161 (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tunguska - what are the most convincing height and yield calculations?[edit]

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 Authors: Rasmussen, K. L., Clausen, H. B., & Kallemeyn, G. W. Journal: Meteoritics, Vol. 30, Issue 6, p.634 & http://www.gps.caltech.edu/uploads/File/People/kanamori/HKhsew88.pdf Importance of historical seismograms for geophysical research. Kanamori 1988, page 26. - Ben-Menahem 1975 analyzed a few seisomgraphs of the 1908 Siberian explosion and concluded that the explosion consists of of an air explosion at a height of 8.5 km. & http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r05/ The height at which the explosion occurred was estimated to be approximately 7.5 km...(Ben-Menahem 1975)


  • Ben-Menahan(1975) Source parameters of the siberian explosion of jun 30 1908 form analysis and syntheis of seismic signals at four stations Phys. Earth Planet. Int., 11, 1-35

Celestial impacts & Diamond dave j[edit]

http://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).

  • The Velocity was reported as 16 - 17.4 km/s before impacting the atmosphere by some sources in march- http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1796 Yet JPL have stated the velocity was higher at 18.6 km/s at peak brightness- so one assumes even faster still before impact with the earths atmosphere.http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/fireball_130301.html as the requirements in mass and velocity of the object, to arrive at the suggested 1.8 peta joules of kinetic energy during peak brightness, are found when one uses 11,000 tons for the mass, as JPL does, and a velocity of 18.6 km/s at peak brightness. If this mass and velocity figures are realistic then the energy before atmospheric impact would naturally be a bit higher than 1.8 peta joules, as the object probably bled off a bit of velocity before peak brightness.

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.

Fusion[edit]

Do you have a source for fusion power being viable commercially, let alone sustainable? Josh Joaquin (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean right now? see - PACER power which has a lot of references that it is commercially viable(although politically a hot potato and therefore unlikely to be tested). As for steady state sources. Well apart from the worldwide international effort to build the first steady state fusion reactor - ITER, a project that has more nation state collaborators than any other construction project in the history of mankind, because everyone and their cat knows it will be commercially viable and sustainable. Well then no I don't :-D
Moreover, are you honestly trying to argue the most common source of visible energy in the entire universe -Fusion, is not sustainable for billions of years? The very processes that power our star and every other star in the entire universe... is not sustainable?
Am I in the twilight zone?
Boundarylayer (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
We don't file "wind power" under "solar" for the same reason we don't file "solar" under "fusion." Please do not beat around the bush. Are there any reliable sources which say Project PACER or any other fusion sources are commercially viable or sustainable for terrestrial power production or not? As for ITER, didn't that recently get pushed back from estimated for 2030 to 2050 by its proponents? Josh Joaquin (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
No, see you don't file wind and solar under nuclear fusion because you don't like admitting to yourself that this is where the energy comes from. Simple as that. Secondly, ITER didn't get pushed back you are mistaken, here's a thought why don't you read about it? Although money is tight, ITER is secured and we could have fusion power in 5 years if people actually funded it properly and stopped hitting there heads against the wall trying to get luddite amish technology to break the laws of nature and be as sustainable as nuclear fusion. For example, humanity spends more on dog grooming bills each year than fusion research. Isn't it a grand world we live in!
I am not a fan of repeating myself, or trolls, so for the last time, all the references are in PACER, if you don't think the Department of Energy or LANL or Harvard are reliable sources than there really is no hope for you, as you've already made your mind up. I forgot, with you people it's - they are the establishment so they must be lying if they calculate something and say positive things about stuff I don't like...Imma go see what crack pots like greenpeace say Yet if the DOE etc. say something positive about one of your favorite energy sources then it's - oh goody even the government says it...so it must be true! Hypocrisy at it's most basic.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/6718615-nHBbSQ/6718615.pdf
How about Harvard, are they part of your mental conspiracy too? hahaha
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976iece.conf.1118H
Boundarylayer (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Ugh, forget I asked. Josh Joaquin (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
No thank you? I gave you the references you were looking for, people these days, I never.
Boundarylayer (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(ITER)Magnetic confinement Fusion Plasma facing material/wall radioactivity[edit]

Some 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.[124]

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,[125] 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.[126] 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.[127]

Nuclear Winter[edit]

No 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)

Thanks man, I'll be sure to give it a read.
Boundarylayer (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
http://www.secretsdeclassified.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/450806-F-7892W-008.jpg allegedly the height of the pyrocumulus cloud at Hiroshima town, smoke appears to be in the stratosphere here. No other info given, nor what plane took this picture, or the height of the plane.
Assuming all cities are built like Hiroshima, and all would firestorm, which in the real world, they would not, instead just lots of conventional fires would spring up, akin to what was observed at Nagasaki.-
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/myths/aerosol.html Pinatuba in 1991 reduced global temp by ~0.5 kelvin, for 1-2 years. . A standard way to quantify the longevity of a substance in the atmosphere is its "lifetime" -- the time that it takes for an initial amount to be cut by about two-thirds. More precisely, for an initial amount of 1000 tons injected into the stratosphere, about 368 tons would be left after one lifetime. Each subequent lifetime would reduce the remaining amount by about 63%. As the graph shows, the amount of aerosols in the stratosphere dropped at about the same rate as would a substance with a lifetime of about 11 months. Three years after the eruption, nearly all of the Mt. Pinatubo aerosols were gone.
Indo-Pakistan War gaming scenario - http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/southasia.asp Most Indians (99 percent of the population) and Pakistanis (93 percent of the population) would survive the second scenario. Their respective military forces would be still be intact to continue and even escalate the conflict.

How fast did France de-carbonize their electric grid, without even trying hard[edit]

https://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 world[edit]

Taishan 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 interactive[edit]

http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~dcurtis/NETA.html

Nuclear terrorism[edit]

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


From the above 2nd doc, the IAEA classify a 'significant quantity' theft to be 25 kg and 5 kg of HEU and Plutonium respectively. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Safeguards/pia3810.html

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'.[edit]

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 ships[edit]

https://www.bimco.org/en/News/2009/12/~/media/News/2009/General/Ship_Fuel_efficiency_in_a_historical_perspective_BB1_2009.ashx

http://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 power[edit]

http://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 heating[edit]

Most 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.cospp.com/articles/print/volume-11/issue-3/features/carbon-free-nuclear.html dustrict heating industry estimates on the amount of CO2 saved in Finland by the building of a nuclear power plant coupled with their district heating system.

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


More research to do - CHP appears to be paired best with industrial users who require heat, however for residential users, particularly for rural residents Thermal energy storage would probably be safer and more economical. Something like transporting a salt melted at the power plant to households and filling their super insulated storage tank with this salt, with the household only tapping into and using the thermal energy when needed. Other mediums include innocuous Zeolite- http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/130523-zeolite-thermal-storage-retains-heat-indefinitely-absorbs-four-times-more-heat-than-water Once the material is depleted in energy, you send it back to the power plant and they recharge it full of their surplus thermal energy for you.

Projected growth of energy demands in the US and the world[edit]

http://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 hazards[edit]

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/5/1247.abstract Childhood cancer and nuclear power plants in Switzerland: a census-based cohort study There was no evidence of a dose–response relationship with distance (P > 0.30). Results were similar for residence at diagnosis and at birth, and when adjusted for potential confounders. Results from sensitivity analyses were consistent with main results.

Conclusions This nationwide cohort study found little evidence of an association between residence near NPPs and the risk of leukaemia or any childhood cancer.

August 6th-9th 1945, and 1946 Bikini[edit]

http://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[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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)

I have done all that, I started a conversation with another user - User talk:Volunteer Marek on their talk page on the first revert by them.
I was also the one who started the discussion on the talk page of the Externality article.
You seemingly did not check this out before coming here.
Boundarylayer (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Please do not impugn my actions or motives. Starting a discussion is not what is required. Reaching consensus is what must happen before reinserting the deleted material. You have not completed the process. I will again delete your edit and warn you not to reinsert it again prior to consensus for your view on talk. Please review the relevant policies, previously cited. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Externality. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

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 1[edit]

In 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[edit]

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....[edit]

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)[edit]

User:Enescot

Editwarring vs "machine gun editing" vs "cluster-bombing"[edit]

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 out[edit]

I 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)

I request that you check the edit. There was no 'sneaking' as you suggest, merely stating an uncontroversial fact. If the edit summary max character length was longer, I would have detailed info on the additional edits that I preformed, and I hope you bear in mind that I specifically did not tag the edit as minor for the very reason that I also included the following. -
Much of the global economical hydro power potential was, as of 2012, already exploited, new hydro is likely to require displacement of populations, for example on the scale of the 1.5 million people were displaced to make way for the Three Gorges Dam.[128]
Here's the edit you allege was 'gaming the system'
If this is the only issue you have with that edit, then I will now specifically explain in the edit summary that I'm including this material.
Secondly, the ground is opening up and swallowing too many people due to premature death every day, as the vast majority of humanity is obliviously practicing the burning of carbonaceous fuels at an alarming rate, which due to particulate matter emissions is killing about 1 million people each year, every year, according to the World Health Organization. With ~13,000 dying each year in the USA from coal's particulate matter emissions alone, again - each year, every year. With this latter statistic according to Health scientists at Harvard. So quite frankly I do not appreciate your condescension or patronizing tone, or for that matter, the suggestion that I'm editing for the benefit of the nuclear energy industry. Furthermore, because of the ongoing death toll, it is reasonable and rational to regard anyone that delays the adoption of truly low carbon power sources as equivalent to being an accessory to murder. With those pushing for un-economical sources of low carbon power similarly also being accessories to murder as this (1) delays the replacement of [carbonaceous]] fuels, and therefore keeps the million murders happening each year, and (2) Many uneconomical low carbon power sources are intermittent power sources and therefore only displace gas, and simply cannot displace base load coal use, coal which is arguably the worst offender of particulate matter and climate change, that is, they are incapable of replacing the single largest source of death.
So I cannot fathom why you would possibly think I would just sit back and watch other editors blanket censor all the relevant information that I have painstakingly included for the benefit of readers, something that you can see has already begun, - Here. In that edit, exactly why was the fact that mainland France, with the lowest CO2 emissions per unit of GDP of industrialized nations, in the entire world, removed from an article specifically about none other than climate change mitigation? It's really unbelievable how POV censor prone so many editors here are(this not being directed at you). Moreover, why were the words low carbon power removed by the other editor, and replaced with the incorrect in context, and weasel word - (renewable energy) in the edit? The list really goes on, and on.
It is really incredulous, and I just cannot get over, how anyone can sit there and think it right to remove information on which large industrialized nation produces the least amount of CO2 per unit of GDP in the world from none other than the climate change mitigation article? The bureaucratic claims that this was done for WP:SYNTH WP:WEASEL cited to opinion, not WP:RS reasons is absolutely preposterous and truly laughable as the editor who removed the material has no WP:RS to explain why they took it upon themselves to blanket censor the material. They just name dropped a load of wikipedia policies, as if they are relevant, to make the censoring appear authoritative.
By all means go to the internal link I included in the edit, and fact check the data, and also read the attached source document from the International Energy Agency. France(including overseas colonies) emits a value of 0.16 kilogrammes of CO2 per unit of GDP, and the lowest value comes from Switzerland and Sweden with a value of ~0.11 and 0.12 of CO2 per unit of GDP respectively. Incidentally, all these countries use a lot of nuclear power, ~40-80% of the electricity generated comes from NPPs, the exact percentage value, obviously depending on the country. With the latter two countries being very mountainous(thus they exploit a lot of hydro power, which accounts for ~50% of their electricity with the other ~50% being provided by nuclear power), for example see Electricity sector in Switzerland. But crucially, as noted in the newspaper article I also linked to, mainland France(excluding colonies) has the lowest CO2 emissions per unit of GDP in the world. Also of note is that neither of the latter two countries are large industrialized nations, only France is in the G8, and you do know that in absolute terms large industrialized nations are generally the primary sources of CO2 right? - China, the USA, Germany, India etc. - See Page 93 for the data set. - http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,32870,en.html & the newspaper - https://www.businessandfinance.ie/index.jsp?p=164&n=397&a=1565
Now I've got to organize a St. Patricks day marching band in a couple of hours, and I will be away from the console for a time, so in a way, you get your request, but rest assured, I will return.
Boundarylayer (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
That appears to be what is known wikispeak as a WP:WALLOFTEXT and is not likely to win you an easy relationship with other editors. If you disagree with an edit, you are expected to calmly try to discuss (as in bold-revert-discuss on the article talk page, and after giving that a good shot, you are expected to civilly proceed to the lowest levels of the dispute resolution process. Instead, you appear to be waging battle, something specifically forbidden in our general policies and emphasized again in the arbitration decision on climate change (WP:ARBCC). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Boundarylayer, I happened to see this thread because I came to this page to warn you against tendentious editing on Externality. Your comment above and the attitude that it appears to express are not consistent with WP community norms. If you denigrate those norms and policies, you eventually will be blocked from editing here. Please also review WP:OWN WP:LISTEN and WP:BATTLE. For the time being, other editors are taking the time to help you become familiar with WP policies and to channel your efforts appropriately. I urge you to do so promptly before that effort is exhausted and other remedies are needed. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I don't see how WP:WEASEL or WP:SYNTH apply either. If you want to work collaboratively, Boundary, then the thing to do is to calmly start a thread at Talk:Climate change mitigation, supply the DIFF to Specifico's reversion and edit history, and politely ask him/her to explain. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
See the talk page of the article on the weekend so.
Boundarylayer (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sovacool[edit]

You 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)

First things first, state what this is in reference to please, it is a bit impolite otherwise, it is in respect to the edit and talk page history of Environmental impact of wind power, is it not?
Right, for the 3rd time Kim, can you tell me what the 1st reference is, in his updated paper? and would you like to describe the context in which the 2nd reference is given? Does the 2009 update actually deal with the meat of what the peer reviewed, actual ecologists and biologists, stated in their 2010 criticism of Sovacool's 2009 paper? No it does not, the 2009 update does not deal with the numerical critiques at all. The only reason why Sovacool referenced the criticism as reference #2 is because he finally recognized that Bats are not an avian species, which is just one of the many dubious errors by Sovacool, and therefore one of the many critiques brought up by the 2010 paper that rebuked Sovacool's 2009 paper and bird death figures.
My claim that it really is a 2009 paper is correct, even Sovacool himself acknowledges this at the end of the paper it states- -This paper was initially published in [1 2009] Moreover, The title of the very table in his 2009 update, now used in the wiki article, is - Comparative assessment of avian mortality for fossil fuel, nuclear, and wind power plants in the United States, 2009.
So yes, it is primarily a 2009 paper, and yes he does pretty much ignore all the critiques. There are a lot of them -
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142150900620X or full access - http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/11581 'Bats are not birds and other problems with Sovacool's analysis on animal fatalities due to electricity generation. Journal of Energy policy 2010, vol. 38, issue 4, pages 2067-2069.
Boundarylayer (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
"For the 3rd time"? You haven't even asked me once. But i can certainly give you the first reference within the paper, since you ask so nicely... in fact i'll give you the first two citations in the paper:
  • [1] B.K. Sovacool Contextualizing avian mortality: a preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity Energy Policy, 37 (6) (June, 2009), pp. 241–2248
  • [2] C. Willis et al. Bats are not birds and other problems with Sovacool’s (2009) analysis of animal fatalities due to electricity generation Energy Policy, 38 (4) (2010) (April), 2067–2069
Notice the second one - which is an article published in Energy Policy in 2010 ... and it is in fact the paper that you claim refutes this paper!
Finally when you quote the last part of Sovacool's paper.. you are only partially quoting. But let me quote directly from the papers last part - and underline the part that you do not seem to want to acknowledge:
This paper was initially published in [1], and presented at one of the “Energy Policy and Strategy” Sessions of the Eleventh World Renewable Energy Congress and Exhibition at the Armed Forces Officers Club and Hotel, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, September 25–30, 2010. This version of the article has updated some data to 2009, and it has also incorporated some of the excellent suggestions made by conference participants.
So as we can see, not only is the critique from the "Bats are not birds" paper is addressed, it also updates data, as well as incorporate several additions proposed at a conference in 2010. Thus we can conclude with certainty:
This is not the 2009 paper.
Thank you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The only critique addressed is that Sovacool accepted his earlier error that bats are not birds - despite his earlier suggestions that they were. That is all. His bird death rate figures and methodology is exactly the same from his 2009 paper. Again, I ask you, can you actually access the paper from the Journal Energy policy and Renewable energy? If you can, just look at both of his papers side by side and you will see that the numerical data is all exactly the same.
The title of the very table in his 2009 update paper, now used in the wiki article, is - Comparative assessment of avian mortality for fossil fuel, nuclear, and wind power plants in the United States, 2009.
This is the bird and bat death rate from wind turbines according to 7 ecologists and biologists. It should be in the article, and their criticism of Sovacool should also be in the article. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142150900620X or full access - http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/11581
Moreover Sovacool even acknowledges in his 2009 update that his wind turbine figures are outliers. - Next, the author(Sovacool) assessed the real world operating performance of six wind projects, each varying according to windiness, size, and location in the United States. Though his numbers may not be the most accurate or accepted given varying searcher efficiency and carcass removal rates[2] - So he even acknowledges his figures really are indeed to be held with a grain of salt, it is quite curious how this article never mentioned that it was pushing figures on bird death rates from wind turbines that are not even regarded as the most accurate or accepted by the author himself.
Thought I would repost the below here (from another talk page). I'll also be raising some questions about Boundary layer's consistent misrepresentation of my research. BL, I'm weighing in here, again, because, again, you don't seem to be aware of the facts. First, the Willis et al. response had a number of serious methodological errors, which were published side-by-side their article. So my study was in no way discredited, and, if anything, Willis et al. made some serious mistakes. See here http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.052,, and keep in mind that this response was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Second of all, the 2009 update was accepted for publication in 2008 but not published until 3 years later, such is the nature of the long peer-review process. So it's not that I didn't take into account Willis et al, I did so (see below), just not in this piece. Third, to see new analysis that incorporates some of the criticisms of Willis et al., though not all of them (since their own arguments were flawed), see these pieces, also peer-reviewed: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2011.09.019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.004, and http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2012.746993. Next time, be responsible enough to check your facts before you start making baseless assertions. As for the methods that may not be accepted, this is because there is no common technique for carcass removal within the community of biologists investigating avian mortality. I wasn't saying that I was choosing to ignore an accepted method. I was saying there is no accepted method. You might know this if you read the article cited above, responding to Willis et al.Bksovacool (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Boundarylayer (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.

Please review WP:CANVAS and WP:3O

SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't the faintest notion what you are talking about SPECIFICO?
Boundarylayer (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I asked you to review WP:CANVAS and WP:3O. I'll now add WP:OWN and WP:HEAR. Ignore this advice at your own peril. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes I reviewed both, but I'm still not clear why you have asked me to read them. Who is doing the WP:CANVAS? Why are you alleging WP:OWN?
Boundarylayer (talk)

Decline Third party invite (formerly titled "Taking your advice")[edit]

Per your request I am replying here on your talk page. The original post you put on my talk page read as follows

Hey man, trying to take your advice, and seen as you're involved with the ecology aspects of energy production, I thought you might be a good person to ask, if you're willing, for a third party opinion on an edit that continues being entirely reverted by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs), which is then being followed by odd taunts on my talk page. Speaking of talk pages, could you reply to me there, thanks man.
Here is the edit history of the article page. Personally I believe they are attempting to drag me into a 3RR edit war with them, or something similar. I don't think they understand that if 7 ecologists and biologists publish a peer reviewed paper in 2010 discrediting 1 persons 2009 wind turbine 'avian' death rate(deaths/GWh) per unit of energy generated findings(Sovacool's) and then that same 1 person(Sovacool) later publishes a paper titled 2009 update with the same exact bird death rate, without dealing with the meat of the criticism leveled at him, then the earlier criticism by the 7 scientists still stands. With the 7 ecologists and biologists own bird death rate findings also, obviously, still being needed to make the article more balanced.
Here's the peer reviewed criticism of Sovacool's suggestions.-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142150900620X or free full access here - http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/11581 Bats are not birds and other problems with Sovacool's analysis on animal fatalities due to electricity generation. Journal of Energy policy 2010, vol. 38, issue 4, pages 2067-2069.
Would appreciate if you could help explain to them that this material is needed to inject scientific balance.
[[User:Boundarylayer|Boundarylayer]] ([[User talk:Boundarylayer|talk]]) 13:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)}}

My reply is

  • Sometimes when you complain about people on wiki it is required to notify them; in my opinion it is always good practice. Did you notify the editors you are refering to?
  • It is unclear which piece of my advice you're referring to, but one piece of advice I gave was to avoid waging WP:BATTLE;
  • There is a whopping big difference between the dispute resolution process known as 'third opinion' and trying to recruit an editor (e.g., myself) whom you believe will be favorable to your perspective. The latter is a WP:BATTLEGROUND technique we call WP:CANVASSING. I decline to be canvassed to do battle, and despite my attempt to WP:AGF because I am familiar with your edit history and commentary history I took your post to be a battle recruitment;
  • Even if it had not been a battle recruitment, I also have to decline because I am an "involved editor" with respect to climate articles, which this 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)

PS When I have the time to write it up, I plan to request an uninvolved admin formally notify you about the WP:ARBCC decision, and then formally log the notice. I have previously told you about the the WP:ARBCC decision and will assume in good faith that you have already read it (prior to canvassing me) and having read it, you already know what being formally notified by an uninvolved admin will mean in terms of discretionary sanctions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Note to NAEG - the conflict mentioned above is on a renewable energy article issue, and is not part of ARBCC. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I disagree most strenuously so we'll have to let the admins make that call.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The advice you gave, that I was alluding to, was the advice tobold-revert-discuss. I honestly did try reading WP:ARBCC, but I was left utterly uninformed what it is all about. All I took away from reading it is that WP:ARBCC is some administrative deal concerning editing climate change articles, with many bans to users being issued and a lot of fighting going on. I was looking to find, what it was actually about, and why there have been so many bans issued, but to no avail. I did not see a list of rules on the page one must not break.
As for the allegation that I was canvassing you, I'm aghast, If I really wanted to canvas someone, I would not have picked you. To dispel that idea, ask yourself, why would I even assume you would be favorable to my perspective? I mean, come on man, I can't remember you ever saying a single solitary favorable thing to me, or ever siding with me before, so why would I try and canvas you...of all people? If you must know, the reasons why I thought you would be a good person to get a 'third opinion' from, is that you appear pretty active here and that you are a user unlikely to take sides. That is all.
Thankfully Kim also commented here about how the debate between us is over the number of bird and bat deaths caused by wind power, and it is not at all got to do with climate change or even pollution. However, if you don't want to fill the role for whatever reason( don't have a clue about what an "involved editor" is), could you perhaps suggest another 'third opinion' user to fill the role?
I'm also curious, had the debate between Kim and I been about something related to climate change, what would that have resulted in? Is there some rule against asking you to serve as a 'third opinion' in climate change articles?
Boundarylayer (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Notice your word-choice, "I can't remember you ever .... siding with me...."; Through NPOV I might arrive at the same opinion as other editors, but since I try not to do WP:BATTLE I do not "side" with them. As for ARBCC, if you didn't find the list of principles that the committee voted on then obviously you didn't read the entire thing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Which is exactly the reason why I asked you to give your 2 cents, because you don't seem like you would have taken sides in the debate. As for WP:ARBCC, yes, I did not read the entire thing.
Boundarylayer (talk)

NOTICE: FAKE ARTICLE CONTENT GUIDELINE[edit]

Boundary, 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

the thread titled "My edits on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster"

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)

I'm not finished editing any of the headings, they are works in progress, some rougher drafts than others, you will find I add to them habitually. I have added the- userspace draft heading above, but I'm wondering if I have to add this tag to every single heading above? I'm also curious, do you know of anyone doing mirroring to other sites of my lowly rough drafts?
Boundarylayer (talk) 18:23, 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)

Hey? You vandalized my talk page. Please desist from this conduct. You do not seem to understand that the article is titled Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector and not the livengs, which is but one of the number of cases of vandalism you instigated on my talk page. Moreover, please present your case that all the material you changed is WP:UP#COPIES and there is WP:CANVASSING going on. As I have repeatedly told you, these are works in progress, rough draft editions to presently displayed articles and so on. I am not going to move them into the talk pages of their respective articles until I'm happy they are no longer userspace draft versions.
Boundarylayer (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
If these are for your own use, why not move them to a sandbox page in your user space? SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
(1)Also in reply to real issue, where you said, "please present your case that all the material you changed is WP:UP#COPIES", that's pretty simple. First off, the text I removed relate to nuclear power and has nothing to do with your bizarre red-herring about the flame projector. Second, the text I removed under under WP:UP#COPIES is verbatim, or very close to verbatim, from versions of the article titled "Nuclear power phase-out" from early May 2006 like this one for example. There have been over 250 edits to that article since then.
(2)Specifico has a good idea but since a few days ago you added a ton of personal commentary and WP:OR to one of the sections in question, your own blog or harddrive are better places to move this stuff to. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:25, 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)


There was a charge of WP:CANVASSING, so again I inquire, please display the case.
Secondly, the material is not from 2006, it was the state of the Nuclear power phase-out article from only about 6 months ago in 2012, and the section was then wiped clear of this material by 2 editors. Now, all I've done is rescue this specific section for use in another article that I have in mind, is that a crime? I also added a considerable amount to that section here in my talk page, which you also bizarrely removed, and which is plainly not WP:UP#COPIES and therefore not very close either, it is me doing a very rough draft, not at all fit for an article, yet. Here, the material you are talking about is from the state of the Nuclear power phase-out page about 6 months ago, in 2012.here, under the proliferation heading.
Thirdly the text you removed NewsandEventsGuy, in the very link you provided states on line 9, you altered the name livens to the incorrect livengs, in a bewildering act of odd WP:Vandalism, this is just the first of a number of which vandalism cases in your edit of my talk page, not a red herrings but - Vandalism.
SPECIFICO they're not for my own use per se, but very very rough drafts for the addition of sections to certain articles, but, acknowledging the concern you bring up I attached the userspace draft tag here on my talk page to belay the unlikely chances of a scenario were someone unwittingly thinks a talk page is an actual wikipedia article. But by all means, if you still have concerns, put them to the Administrator noticeboard if you think it likely.
Boundarylayer (talk) 01:44, 5 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)

You've completely misconstrued my intentions, I do not wish to edit Nuclear power phase-out with that material, moreover it is a rough draft, as I've just said, I have an entirely separate article in mind. I thought I made this pretty clear, as I just explained to you 3 hours ago - all I've done is rescue this specific section for use in another article that I have in mind. By the way, another separate issue is the last time I asked Johnfos a question on his talk page - about how his return from a forced voluntary retirement for repeated Wikipedia:Copyright violations, he just deleted my query without answering the very short and simple question about the how, and why, he is back.
Boundarylayer (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't know about Johnfos' troubles with copyright vios. Thanks for telling me. So you say the material is for a different article.... ok, how about moving it to your sandbox as Specifico suggested? That's what sandboxes are for, after all. If you have a reason to decline moving this material - which I think looks rather blog-gish in its current form - to your sandbox what is your reason? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
My main motivation for not moving it, is keeping it all on the talk page reminds me to come back to it later, to tidy it up. So how about I just attach more userspace draft tags? Though I'm still wondering about the WP:CANVASSING charge you made against me, can I at least see what you were talking about?
Boundarylayer (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
You could add your sandbox to your watchlist; You could add a reminder to look at your sandbox from time to time at the bottom of your talk page; you could tell your browser to open an additional tab for your sandbox; you could write a note on your daytimer or paper calendar that you want to finish up that editing and move it to mainspace. Talk pages are not blogs and should not look like blogs. I'm not persuaded your unwillingness to do time management in some other way is a reason to let the search engines log your bloggish commentary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:14, 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)

Well, I haven't disclosed any alleged canvassing DIFFS, have I? But I suppose I could if Boundary starts a separate thread, since this one is about his talk page BLOG NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
How am I being unresponsive and coy? I've proposed a solution to your concerns with userpage draft tags and moved some of the very very rough drafts to the sandbox. So how can my talk page, now in this present form, be considered a blog? Where's the blog offending bits? This is all draft material. SPECIFICO You know I did review some policies, including WP:WIKIHOUNDING, you did only recently say you would be following me here on my talk page, and since then I've found it quite intriguing how you show up every time NewsAndEventsGuy arrives here. Yes correct NewsAndEventsGuy, you haven't disclosed any alleged canvassing DIFFS, that is why I am curious to see what you are referring to. Seen as you brought it up here, why not present it here in this thread?
Boundarylayer (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess you forgot to look up "coy" and to check how the watchlist feature works and why you appeared on mine. Meanwhile, do not misrepresent what I said. It's too easy to check, and it might undermine your credibility here, to your detriment. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you now trying to tell me coy is a policy? Moreover I am not being coy, I am simply curious about the allegations you two are making, show me the evidence of canvassing, show me the evidence of 'blogs' and show me the evidence of being 'coy'. Secondly WP:WIKIHOUNDING, does include watchlisting.
Boundarylayer (talk)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

Thank you for your high class argument.
Boundarylayer (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't find Specifico's additions to this thread especially helpful, either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC
That's odd, News. As a result of my "additions to this thread" Boundarylayer fixed the search engine eligible content on his talk page. He didn't say that I was unhelpful, so your remark strikes me as gratuitous and off-topic. Please consider reverting your remark. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Without comment on anything you've said other than the request to self revert, I decline. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
SPECIFICO you give yourself credit for something that you did not cause, you succeeded in nothing but demonstrating more WP:WIKIHOUNDING and slowing down my discussion with News.Boundarylayer (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not asking Specifico to hit the road, just to work harder to focus on issues and use WP:DR effectively.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:30, 8 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)

Thanks! That was a very fast response. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I had looked for a no-bots/ no-robots script to prevent search engines from indexing this page earlier but to no avail, you really should have told me about the no index tag earlier man, it would have prevented this whole issue.
Boundarylayer (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
(A) I told you as soon as I learned about it myself (via an edit at talk:nuclear_powera help page... oops, sorry the same day learned how to make talk pages show refs via reflist-close template at talk:nuclear_power)
(B) It would not have prevented the whole issue because wiki users can still come to your page. As I said, we disagree whether there is inappropriate content here. I plan to bring some additional eyes via the DR process, and part of the DR process is telling you about any of the DR levers I pull when I pull them. I plan to let it rest awhile. I'm still hoping you will move personal notes on draft text and subject commentary to a non-indexed sub article in the meantime. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Basis of my 2nd remark about canvassing[edit]

In 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)

Wow more trumped up nonsense, like falsely sugg0esting I was in a slow motion edit war with Johnfos (talk · contribs), you know, I am still awaiting an apology for this false accusation. I also find it interesting how earlier above you made the claim that this was from 2006, you wrote- 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. What happened to 2006? Did the 2006 stuff not work out for you?
Anyways, this is just another pretty large and conspiratorial stretch, your own 'evidence' doesn't even support the odd conclusion you've arrived at, with edits being separated by 3 days, and the edits being concerned with wholly different issues. Here my edit on 23 January 2013 to AndrewA I wasn't canvassing, I even plainly expressed my intent, with asking - 'Let me know what you think'. You will also notice I didn't ask them to come on over to the article to support my Jan 23rd edit of the page, which by the way, is an edit that has gone completely unchallenged, so I ask you, why would I even need to preform canvassing, or get support to defend an edit that has gone completely unchallenged? Really this is total nonsense friend, you fail on the important factor of suggesting I had a motive to canvass. Which I clearly did not have a need to do then, nor do I even have a need to do now.
Moreover, you seem to also be synthesizing edits, or just to not grasp that the edit on Jan 23rd was in a completely different section to that of my, and Nigelj (talk · contribs)'s, edit 3 days earlier. Now if I had reinserted my edit made on the 20th, in the Sovacool section, without attributing it to a source(as Nigelj asked me to do on Jan 20th before putting the material back in) and then I proceeded to ask someone to defend me on the Jan 20th edit, then yes that would be canvassing. However as I did no such thing, and you know it, and I was only asking what another editor thought of an entirely separate and uncontroversial edit, its simply not canvassing. So as I had anticipated, it appears you have stooped to synthesizing edits to stretch them to breaking point, failed on the basic 'motive' aspect, and all in an effort to do what, fit your own particular point of view?
Lastly, after I added the Yale University meta-analysis, I also added the IPCC's 2011 paper to the top of the article, both being curiously absent before I begun editing the article, both are now in the article and thankfully the article is more balanced than it was before, which was an article that pushed one single 2008 paper, that focused on nuclear power, published by none other than a known anti-nuclear lawyer. The article is better now - Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources, and if I'm not mistaken pushing this single study by Sovacool was contrary to the policy of WP:BALANCE was it not? So you should be thanking me for putting the time in at making the article better, though it still has a ways to go, and not wasting my time with your exceedingly unlikely, and conspiratorial, notions.
Boundarylayer (talk) 07:09, 8 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)

Again you're flat out wrong, I notified, as a courtesy, more than 1 person of my edit, I notified those who were no longer active on the page but had expressed opinions on the talk page, with Nigel not needing pinging because he was active. Moreover, Nigel hasn't even tried to challenge my edit, so again, tell me what exactly would be my motive for canvassing? Why would I even need to canvass?
I count this now as at least 3 accusations made by you that have fallen flat on their face (1)You tried to link wind power with the WP:ARBCC committee, even after Kim told you wind power isn't covered under your ABRCC bureaucracy, but that didn't stop you from trumping up some nonsense back in March and saying- I disagree most strenuously so we'll have to let the admins make that call How did that go for you? (2) You claimed I was in a slow-mo edit war, again nonsense and something you haven't even apologised for this, (3) More nonsense about canvassing from 2006, now this canvassing allegation. Maybe you should read WP:HOUNDING too?
Boundarylayer (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
(A) I believe the things I said so if you want to demand an apology you'll have to seek it at ANI.
(B) In reply to where you said
"I notified, as a courtesy, more than 1 person of my edit, I notified those who were no longer active on the page but had expressed opinions on the talk page"
Trust is an essential component of our collaboration here. Please list the diffs where you told any other editor about the same thing you told Andrewa in the diff I provided above, because when I studied your contribs I must have overlooked them. On that list of diffs I overlooked, are the other eds from the October debate with Andrewa on the list? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes trust is an important component, but why trust someone, it has to be earned does it not? Now of course I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you, simply because you continue to make things up and dress them up as a controversy while also presenting them as facts as part of your recent obsession and scheme to dirty my name. How about you actually do some real simple investigative work and go here to the debate you brought up and read what user AzureAnt wrote. Now contrary to your recent yarn about me only contacting 1 person, did you bother to look at the separate user AzureAnts talk page? No you did not, you just ASSUMED I went canvassing, and you just came in here with your shoddy investigative work accusing me of only contacting 1 user that agreed with me, when in fact I contacted 2 and AzureAnt didn't agree with me over Sovacool. What's this, a note by me to AzureAnt giving them a courtesy notification. At 05:13 Jan 23rd 2013. [Here] Even BEFORE I even contacted the other user AndrewA, contrary to your trumped up nonsense claim
So if I see you on this talk page again making crap up, or going round slandering me to other users, I'm going to simply delete your nonsense and ignore you. You are nothing but wasting my time.Boundarylayer (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

:::::::Non-responsive. To try to show you told other eds you posted two diffs; (A) the Oct 2012 debate I already linked and (B) a diff to your OWN talk page in which YOU posted a new section with an unsigned note, apparently to yourself, since there is no evidence AzureAnt has ever been here! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC) new comment to follow NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(A) I apologize for overlooking your post to AzureAnt but
(B) You still left out Talkingwalker (talk · contribs), who was also in the Oct debate;
(C) The lesson to be learned from this is that on user talk pages, it is preferred to post DIFFS which call attention to a discussion on the ARTICLE OR PROJECT TALK PAGE. This is straight out of the talk page guidelines. User talk pages are NOT the proper venue to discuss specific text and specific ideas for article improvement because other eds with diverse views must also be included if consensus is to work. If you would just participate more in article talk pages, and on user talk pages just post DIFFS to call attention to your threads on article talk pages, your experience here will go smoother because you avoid anyone asking "why is B just talking about these details with a (select?) few eds instead of on the article or project talk page, so ALL interested eds will know about the discussion?
(D) History repeats itself until lessons are learned. Please re-read paragraph C.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes history does repeat itself, as this is just more unsubstantiated nonsense, if you actually looked at the talk page history of the article that you are suggesting I post more in, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources you would find it is absolutely chock full of me posting in it, I'd estimate ~70% of the text in the talk page is all me- I'm asking for feedback, seeing what others think, recommending what the article should look like, and so on. How about you go read it, and while your there notice how I didn't see eye to eye with AzureAnt in 2012, yet I gave him the heads up to my change of the article in 2013, now I know I didn't even have to do this, but I did it out of courtesy. So don't worry this case of WP:Hounding by you has thought me not to bother being this courteous, and that the administrators here are absolutely biased and will very blatantly hound the daylights out of those that try and get in the way of their anti-scientific agenda, you know I never would have even bothered to start working on the energy portal or the nuclear section of wikipedia if you lot hadn't made pretty much all the articles so full of all the usual anti-nuclear disinformation. I would have happily dedicated myself to editing rocketry articles like my recent edits on the F-1 rocket engine. You guys are just reaping what you sowed. By the way, apology accepted, so will you please stop hounding me, and cease making up all these baseless allegations?
15:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talkcontribs)
Note I admitted my mistake about your post on AzureAnts' talk page. Does your last comment mean you are (A) going to stop posting draft text and discussing specific suggestions for article improvements on individual editors' talk pages and (B) instead keep those discussions on the project or article talk page and just call attention to them via diffs posted to usertalk pages ? If you can also promise to put all your specific text and specific improvement discussion on the related project or article talk page, I think we can wrap this up. As you consider your response please note I am only asking you to follow the talk page guidelines. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Editing your own talk page comments months after the fact[edit]

Please 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)

Its not editing when you just add more questions, and seen as no one ever replied WP:REDACT doesn't appear to apply at all.
Boundarylayer (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
But you are prolific in your subject area. With four months between your changes, how can you tell if others read version 1 and decided not to reply, but don't even realize version 1 was changed four months later? For "just adding questions" please just add a new comment below the original. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

how to make a new section on talk page[edit]

Don'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 page[edit]

Hi, 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)

It's sandbox stuff, of which I'll get around too, by the way, I don't have a blog.
However it does not qualify for WP:FAKEARTICLE as its not indexed by search engine bots.
Boundarylayer (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013[edit]

ACNPP[edit]

The description of the fission comes almost directly from a document that I can no longer find. Admittedly, the idea of a proton and anti-proton "touching" does not seem particularly accurate! Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013[edit]

BLP noticeboard[edit]

An 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 Boundarylayer[edit]

In 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)

  • Ad hominem edits, attacks, and dialogue have no place in WP. The Administrator Noticeboard discussion is the right forum to address the behavior. If consensus does not progress, or if the behavior escalates in the meantime, there are processes to provide parity and relief. placing on both talk pagesEBY (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 10 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 17 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 24 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 31 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 07 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 14 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 21 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 28 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 September 2013[edit]

Lead of climate change mitigation[edit]

Hi. 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)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013[edit]

Your August 2012 edit of Supersonic Transport article[edit]

Your 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

The Signpost: 09 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 16 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 23 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 13 November 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 20 November 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 December 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 December 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 December 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 December 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 01 January 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 01 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 08 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 15 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 15 January 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 22 January 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 22 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 12 February 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 12 February 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 19 February 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 15 February 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 26 February 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

</source>

The Signpost: 26 February 2014[edit]

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 05 March 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 12 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 12 March 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 23 April 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 23 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 30 April 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 30 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 14 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 14 May 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 21 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 21 May 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 04 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 04 June 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 30 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 30 July 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 06 August 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 06 August 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
  1. ^ http://www.scribd.com/doc/32717516/1919-Cork-Its-Trade-and-Commerce
  2. ^ http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/deliver/fulltext/3011041ec051.pdf OECD Factbook 2011-2012: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics. PDF indicator.
  3. ^ http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/deliver/fulltext/3011041ec051.pdf OECD Factbook 2011-2012: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics. PDF indicator.
  4. ^ OECD Factbook 2011-2012: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics - For the OECD as a whole, the contribution of renewables to energy supply increased from 4.8% in 1971 to 7.6% in 2010. The contribution of renewables varied greatly by country. On the high end, renewables represented 85% of energy supply in Iceland, 39% in New Zealand and 37% in Norway. On the low end, renewables contributed 3% or less of the energy supply for Japan, Korea, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom. In general, the contribution of renewables to the energy supply in non-OECD countries is higher than in OECD countries.
  5. ^ OECD Factbook 2011-2012: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics - For the OECD as a whole, the contribution of renewables to energy supply increased from 4.8% in 1971 to 7.6% in 2010. The contribution of renewables varied greatly by country. On the high end, renewables represented 85% of energy supply in Iceland, 39% in New Zealand and 37% in Norway. On the low end, renewables contributed 3% or less of the energy supply for Japan, Korea, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom. In general, the contribution of renewables to the energy supply in non-OECD countries is higher than in OECD countries.
  6. ^ http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/deliver/fulltext/3011041ec051.pdf OECD Factbook 2011-2012: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics. PDF indicator.
  7. ^ http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-07.htm Today's primary sources of energy are mainly non-renewable: natural gas, oil, coal, peat, and conventional nuclear power. There are also renewable sources, including wood, plants, dung, falling water, geothermal sources, solar, tidal, wind, and wave energy, as well as human and animal muscle-power. Nuclear reactors that produce their own fuel ('breeders') and eventually fusion reactors are also in this category.
  8. ^ Smarter use of Nuclear Waste, by William H. Hannum, Gerald E. Marsh and George S. Stanford, Copyright Scientific American, 2005. Retrieved 2010-9-2.
  9. ^ http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dirty-bombs.html
  10. ^ "Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Sets World Record". Constellation Energy. 2009. Retrieved 2010-1-14]. 
  11. ^ "Maryland Chamber of Commerce Visits Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant". Business Wire. June 19, 2009. Retrieved 2010-04-20. 
  12. ^ REN21 (2011). "Renewables 2011: Global Status Report". p. 18. 
  13. ^ www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/5/2/305/pdf Assessing Climate Change Impacts on Global Hydropower Journal of Energies. Abstract -Globally Hydropower generation is predicted to change very little by 2050...
  14. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/22/us-china-threegorges-idUSBRE87L0ZW20120822 Thousands being moved from China's Three Gorges - again. China relocated 1.3 million people during the 17 years it took to complete the Three Gorges dam. Even after finishing the $59 billion project last month, the threat of landslides along the dam's banks will force tens of thousands to move again.
  15. ^ Jacobson, M.Z. (2009) "Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security" Energy and Environmental Science 2:148-73 doi 10.1039/b809990c (review.)
  16. ^ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030&page=4 page 4. Overall construction cost for a WWS system might be on the order of $100 trillion worldwide, over 20 years, not including transmission
  17. ^ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030&page=2 Page 2. The worldwide footprint of the 3.8 million turbines would be less than 50 square kilometers (smaller than Manhattan). When the needed spacing between them is figured, they would occupy about 1 percent of the earth’s land, but the empty space among turbines could be used for agriculture or ranching or as open land or ocean....The nonrooftop photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants would occupy about 0.33 percent of the planet’s land.
  18. ^ Cite error: The named reference slate.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  19. ^ http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/a-skeptic-looks-at-alternative-energy/0
  20. ^ REN21 (2010). Renewables 2010 Global Status Report p. 53.
  21. ^ http://www.worldenergy.org/publications/3800.asp
  22. ^ http://www.theledger.com/article/20080814/COLUMNISTS/808140356 Lynn Edward Weaver is president emeritus at Florida Institute of Technology
  23. ^ http://www.businessandfinance.ie/index.jsp?p=164&n=397&a=1565
  24. ^ http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200607/000020060706A0175205.php Nuclear District Heating: The Swiss Experience
  25. ^ http://www.alpiq.com/news-stories/stories/stories.jsp?story=tcm:95-66873 Alpiq makes it possible: Nuclear power plant fires up Cartaseta
  26. ^ http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200607/000020060706A0175205.php Nuclear District Heating: The Swiss Experience
  27. ^ http://www.cospp.com/articles/print/volume-11/issue-3/features/carbon-free-nuclear.html
  28. ^ http://www.euroheat.org/files/filer/ecoheatcool/documents/Ecoheatcool_WP4_Web.pdf page 40
  29. ^ http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull323/32304794348.pdf Nuclear desalination: Experience, needs, and prospects.
  30. ^ Osman A. Hamed (2005). "Overview of hybrid desalination systems – current status and future prospects". Desalination 186: 207–214. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2005.03.095. 
  31. ^ B.M. Misra and J. Kupitz (2004). "The role of nuclear desalination in meeting potable water needs in water scarce areas in the next decades". Desalination 166: 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2004.06.053. 
  32. ^ http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/green-motoring/2010-09/renault-ze Renault to sell electric cars for the same price as diesels
  33. ^ http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/green-motoring/2010-09/renault-ze Renault to sell electric cars for the same price as diesels
  34. ^ http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/caught-in-the-climate-conundrum-germany-plans-boom-in-coal-fired-power-plants-despite-high-emissions-a-472786.html Germany Plans Boom in construction of Coal-Fired Power Plants.
  35. ^ http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/germany-talks-solar-but-goes-coal/
  36. ^ http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928012.600-germanys-coal-own-goal-over-carbon-permits.htm
  37. ^ Sims, R.E.H., et al., "Ch. 4: Energy supply", Executive summary , in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007
  38. ^ IAEA 2008, p. 42
  39. ^ IEA (16 June 2010), Technology Roadmap: Nuclear Energy. 2010 Edition, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) / International Energy Agency (IEA) and OECD / Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) , pp.5-6. Also available in Chinese and Italian
  40. ^ http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060711-7.html
  41. ^ "President Discusses Energy Policy, Economic Security". The White House. June 22, 2005. Retrieved 2006-05-19. 
  42. ^ http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf
  43. ^ DiMascio, Felice; Willauer, Heather D. ; Hardy, Dennis R. ; Lewis, M. Kathleen ; Williams, Frederick W. (July 23, 2010). Extraction of Carbon Dioxide from Seawater by an Electrochemical Acidification Cell. Part 1 - Initial Feasibility Studies (memorandum report). Washington, DC: Chemistry Division, Navy Technology Center for Safety and Survivability, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA544002. Retrieved September 7, 2012.
  44. ^ Willauer, Heather D.; DiMascio, Felice ; Hardy, Dennis R. ; Lewis, M. Kathleen ; Williams, Frederick W. (April 11, 2011). Extraction of Carbon Dioxide from Seawater by an Electrochemical Acidification Cell. Part 2 - Laboratory Scaling Studies (memorandum report). Washington, DC: Chemistry Division, Navy Technology Center for Safety and Survivability, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA544072. Retrieved September 7, 2012.
  45. ^ Cite error: The named reference Eisaman2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  46. ^ Cite error: The named reference Socolow2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  47. ^ Cite error: The named reference Goeppert2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  48. ^ Holte, Laura L.; Doty, Glenn N. ; McCree, David L. ; Doty, Judy M. ; Doty, F. David (2010). "Sustainable Transportation Fuels From Off-peak Wind Energy, CO2 and Water". 4th International Conference on Energy Sustainability, May 17–22, 2010. Phoenix, Arizona: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Retrieved September 7, 2012. 
  49. ^ Willauer, Heather D.; Hardy, Dennis R. ; Williams, Frederick W. (September 29, 2010). Feasibility and Current Estimated Capital Costs of Producing Jet Fuel at Sea (memorandum report). Washington, DC: Chemistry Division, Navy Technology Center for Safety and Survivability, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA539765. Retrieved September 7, 2012.
  50. ^ Rath, B.B., U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (2012). "Energy After Oil". Materials Challenges in Alternative and Renewable Energy Conference, February 27, 2012. Clearwater, Florida: American Ceramic Society. p. 28. Retrieved September 7, 2012. 
  51. ^ (English) (2005) Physical, Nuclear, and Chemical Properties of Plutonium, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Takoma Park, Maryland, EE.UU. [23 de septiembre de 2006]
  52. ^ Nuclear Weapon Test of Reactor-Grade Plutonium. Ccnr.org. Retrieved on 2011-06-04.
  53. ^ "Nuclear Electricity Chapter 7". World Nuclear Association. 2003. Retrieved 2006-05-19. [dead link]
  54. ^ "Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors". World Nuclear Association. May 2006. Retrieved 2006-05-19. [dead link]
  55. ^ NEWS – Home Page[dead link]. News.iaea.org (2001-10-31). Retrieved on 2011-06-04.
  56. ^ bnfl.co.uk. bnfl.co.uk. Retrieved on 2011-06-04.
  57. ^ Cite error: The named reference ne6 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  58. ^ http://www.barsebackkraft.se/templates/Umain.asp?ItemID=1630&OItemID=1627&siteid=
  59. ^ 10th Report Press Release. Comare.org.uk (2005-06-10). Retrieved on 2011-06-04.
  60. ^ bnfl.co.uk. bnfl.co.uk. Retrieved on 2011-06-04.
  61. ^ Nuclear and solar energy to cut Saudi oil, gas use. gulfnews (2011-04-04). Retrieved on 2011-06-04.
  62. ^ Saudi focusing on solar, nuclear energy as oil burns out | 25 March 2011 | Commodityonline (2011-03-26). Retrieved on 2011-06-04.
  63. ^ http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/Resources/News%20Features/nukeinsight/
  64. ^ Is It Reliable To Depend On Import?. (PDF) . Retrieved on 2011-06-04.
  65. ^ http://glencoe.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0025694212/student_view0/chapter16/origin_of_the_idea.html Economics (McConnell), 18th Edition Chapter 16: Public Goods, Externalities, and Information Asymmetries.
  66. ^ Buchanan, James; Wm. Craig Stubblebine (November 1962). "Externality". Economica 29 (116): 371–384. 
  67. ^ Externality vs Public Goods Hanming Fang, Duke University
  68. ^ Bishop, Mattthew (2012). "Economics A-Z terms beginning with E;externality". The Economist. Retrieved 11 July 2012. "An economic side-effect. Externalities are costs or benefits arising from an economic activity that affect somebody other than the people engaged in the economic activity and are not reflected fully in PRICES" 
  69. ^ http://www.oecd-nea.org/med-radio/reports/MO-99.pdf The Supply of Medical Radioisotopes An Economic Study of the Molybdenum-99 Supply Chain Since the benefits may not be fully accounted for in the pricing structure, a positive externality exists. page 19
  70. ^ http://www.radiologytoday.net/archive/rt0910p20.shtml
  71. ^ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100708111326.htm
  72. ^ http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Clinton_moving_into_molybdenum_production-1409118.html
  73. ^ The ExternE project series. Externe.info. Retrieved on 2011-06-04.
  74. ^ Results of ExternE (Figures of the National Implementation phase). Externe.info. Retrieved on 2011-06-04.
  75. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4295389.stm
  76. ^ http://www.colgate.edu/portaldata/imagegallerywww/2050/ImageGallery/teh_jobmktpaper.pdf
  77. ^ http://www.oecd-nea.org/med-radio/reports/MO-99.pdf The Supply of Medical Radioisotopes An Economic Study of the Molybdenum-99 Supply Chain Since the benefits may not be fully accounted for in the pricing structure, a positive externality exists. page 19
  78. ^ http://www.radiologytoday.net/archive/rt0910p20.shtml
  79. ^ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100708111326.htm
  80. ^ http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Clinton_moving_into_molybdenum_production-1409118.html
  81. ^ M. Nicolas Firzli & Vincent Bazi (Q3 2012). "The Drivers of Pension & SWF Investment in Energy- Focusing on Natural Gas". Revue Analyse Financière, volume 44, pp. 41-43 (.). Retrieved 7 July 2012. 
  82. ^ "Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002–2008" (PDF). Environmental Law Institute. September 2009. Retrieved 31 October 2012. 
  83. ^ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903285704576559103573673300.html.
  84. ^ a b Pernick, Ron and Wilder, Clint (2007). The Clean Tech Revolution: The Next Big Growth and Investment Opportunity, p. 280.
  85. ^ "World Energy Outlook 2011 Factsheet How will global energy markets evolve to 2035?". IEA. November 2011. Archived from the original on 4 February 2012. 
  86. ^ Cite error: The named reference LobbyingAfter was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  87. ^ http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/nuclear-energy-lobbying-push/story/nuclear-energy-working-hard-win-support/ Nuclear Energy Lobby Working Hard To Win Support
  88. ^ Cite error: The named reference spendingOnNuclear was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  89. ^ Ward, Chip. Nuclear Power – Not A Green Option, Los Angeles Times, 5 March 2010.
  90. ^ Pasternak, Judy. Nuclear Energy Lobby Working Hard To Win Support, McClatchy Newspapers co-published with the American University School of Communication, 24 January 2010.
  91. ^ http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20121207/NEWS01/312070013/Wind-energy-has-small-slice-energy-pie-big-lobbying-push-tax-credit?nclick_check=1
  92. ^ http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/wind-energy-funds-going-overseas/story/wind-firms-join-lobbying-frenzy/
  93. ^ http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/10/26/1 LOBBYING: Disclosure forms don't tell full story Anne C. Mulkern, E&E reporter
  94. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/26/26greenwire-lobbying-disclosure-forms-dont-tell-full-story-66540.html?pagewanted=all Lobbying Disclosure Forms Don't Tell Full Story
  95. ^ Stefan Schultz (23 March 2011). "Will Nuke Phase-Out Make Offshore Farms Attractive?". Der Spiegel. 
  96. ^ Helm, Dieter (October 2009). "EU climate-change policy—a critique". The Economics and Politics of Climate Change (OUP). 
  97. ^ Cite error: The named reference FourthReport was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  98. ^ Kevin Krolicki (24 May 2012). "Fukushima radiation higher than first estimated". Reuters. Retrieved 24 May 2012. 
  99. ^ "TEPCO puts radiation release early in Fukushima crisis at 900 PBq". Kyodo News. 24 May 2012. Retrieved 24 May 2012. 
  100. ^ Cite error: The named reference en20110412-4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  101. ^ a b Directly comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl : Nature News Blog. Blogs.nature.com (2013-01-31). Retrieved on 2013-02-13.
  102. ^ Austria (12 April 2011). "IAEA Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log – Updates of 12 April 2011". Iaea.org. Retrieved 24 April 2011. 
  103. ^ a b Cesium-137: A Deadly Hazard. Large.stanford.edu (2012-03-20). Retrieved on 2013-02-13.
  104. ^ a b Press Release | The Estimated Amount of Radioactive Materials Released into the Air and the Ocean Caused by Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident Due to the Tohoku-Chihou-Taiheiyou-Oki Earthquake (As of May 2012). TEPCO. Retrieved on 2013-02-13.
  105. ^ a b c Chapter II The release, dispersion and deposition of radionuclides - Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impact. Oecd-nea.org. Retrieved on 2013-02-13.
  106. ^ Brumfiel, Geoffrey (23 May 2012). "World Health Organization weighs in on Fukushima". Nature (journal). Retrieved 20 March 2013. 
    • Brumfiel, Geoff. "Fukushima: Fallout of fear". Nature 493 (7432): 290–293. doi:10.1038/493290a. 
    * Brumfiel, Geoff. "PRINT - FUKUSHIMA". Nature 485 (7399): 423–424. doi:10.1038/485423a. 
  107. ^ http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78218/1/9789241505130_eng.pdf WHO report, page 92.
  108. ^ http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78218/1/9789241505130_eng.pdf WHO report, page 83.
  109. ^ http://science.time.com/2013/03/01/meltdown-despite-the-fear-the-health-risks-from-the-fukushima-accident-are-minimal/#ixzz2MnbjhPmv Meltdown: Despite the Fear, the Health Risks from the Fukushima Accident Are Minimal Time magazine article which includes a link to the WHO report, and explains the report in laymans terms.
  110. ^ http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78218/1/9789241505130_eng.pdf WHO report, page 8 & 9.
  111. ^ http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78218/1/9789241505130_eng.pdf WHO report, page 70, 79 & explanation on page 80.
  112. ^ http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78218/1/9789241505130_eng.pdf WHO report, page 13.
  113. ^ http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78218/1/9789241505130_eng.pdf WHO report, page 87 & 88.
  114. ^ http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78218/1/9789241505130_eng.pdf page 19 internal.
  115. ^ http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78218/1/9789241505130_eng.pdf WHO report, page 67.
  116. ^ http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78218/1/9789241505130_eng.pdf page 24
  117. ^ "Prejudice haunts atomic bomb survivors". Japan Times. Retrieved 2007-08-25. 
  118. ^ http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78218/1/9789241505130_eng.pdf World Health Organization report. page 23 & 24 internal
  119. ^ http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/268/5/661.short The Children of Atomic Bomb Survivors: A Genetic Study. 1992. No differences were found (in frequencies of birth defects, stillbirths, etc), thus allaying the immediate public concern that atomic radiation might spawn an epidemic of malformed children.
  120. ^ a b Teratology in the Twentieth Century Plus Ten
  121. ^ http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v88/n3/full/6600748a.html
  122. ^ http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html (RERF)Radiation Effects Research Foundation. Formerly known as the (ABCC)Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission.
  123. ^ http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/04/11/1
  124. ^ Di Pace, Luigi (2012). "Ch. 14: Radioactive Waste Management of Fusion Power Plants". In Rehab Abdel Rahman. Radioactive Waste. InTech. p. 318. ISBN 978-953-51-0551-0. Retrieved 19 May 2012.  More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)
  125. ^ 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
  126. ^ "Consideration of strategies, industry experience, processes and time scales for the recycling of fusion irradiated material". UKAEA. p. vi. "dose rates of 2-20 mSv/h, typical of plasma facing components after intermediate storage for up to 100 years" 
  127. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20040506065141/http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/default/tech_papers/18th_Congress/downloads/ds/ds6/ds6_5.pdf Figure X page 13.
  128. ^ http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reviews/201207-SteveRaynerAmartyaSen.pdf