The what-if blog comes from the maker of a funny physics/mathematics themed webcomic called xkcd, and it examines the lethality of radiation in a storage pool for spent fuel. It certainly has a comical tone, and one of the reference links is broken, but the author seems to have a good grasp of the science. I figured that we cover a lot of very serious topics in class and a bit of comedy is always welcome.
Here is the link
I would actually recommend reading more of the what ifs, they are all very funny, albeit mostly not related to nuclear physics. The hair dryer one is my favorite.
Ben Roy
Thursday, September 26, 2013
More on Fukushima! I find the article intriguing because it calls for action, not just retorting crisis facts with a journalistic distance and..."unconcern". I find the descriptions of the technical issues with the leak unclear, though, with little analysis to back up statements such as the Japanese government being incapable of handling the problem. And I'm still unclear on the specific cause of this 60 day doomsday mark. Is it only because Tepco is going to be removing those dangerous fuel rods then? I'm curious about these procedures more in depth.
-Chelsey S.
http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18208-nuclear-crisis-at-fukushima-could-spew-out-more-than-15-000-times-as-much-radiation-as-hiroshima-bombing
-Chelsey S.
http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18208-nuclear-crisis-at-fukushima-could-spew-out-more-than-15-000-times-as-much-radiation-as-hiroshima-bombing
Thursday, September 19, 2013
TED Debate on Nuclear Energy
I've found that TED talks are pretty good at providing entry level education on a variety of topics, and the debate format that this one takes seems to be especially relevant to this class. Two environmentalist debate whether or not nuclear energy is the right direction to push in.
This is the link to the video.
Personally, I found that the anti-nuclear side of Jacobson relied heavily on overly complex charts and appeal to fear in the form of 'inevitable' nuclear attacks. Another thing I thought was odd was that while Brand cited research that put the amount of land needed at the size of the entire US, Jacobson said that wee needed only a tiny portion of ocean space. It seemed too good to be true. If we could throw up a couple of wind farms over the ocean in just a few years and solve the whole problem, wouldn't we be doing that?
Ben Roy
This is the link to the video.
Personally, I found that the anti-nuclear side of Jacobson relied heavily on overly complex charts and appeal to fear in the form of 'inevitable' nuclear attacks. Another thing I thought was odd was that while Brand cited research that put the amount of land needed at the size of the entire US, Jacobson said that wee needed only a tiny portion of ocean space. It seemed too good to be true. If we could throw up a couple of wind farms over the ocean in just a few years and solve the whole problem, wouldn't we be doing that?
Ben Roy
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Paradise 26 Feet Underground - Stephanie
Peewee Herman tweeted about this house this afternoon and I thought I would share. Other than being completely bizarre, eccentrically beautiful and lavish... I think it may relate to the class because it captures the fear and anxiety that was of nuclear bombing during the Cold War period.
 |
| view from inside the underground house... out into the "yard" |
Built by a millionaire couple in Las Vegas is the late 1970's, this home brings the outside inside...that is 26 feet inside....the Earth... in order to live through a nuclear blast. The couple had fake grass, fake trees, fake rocks (one containing a bbq pit inside of it), and fake landscapes painted on the walls (mural on walls took 3 years to complete, depicting places the couple has lived before and traveled) along with a pool, dance floor, putting green installed in order to connect them with the outside world and keep them entertained for awhile. There is even mood lighting installed that mimics sunrise and sunset. The house is now for sale. The couple died within 10 years of the home being completed... which I think is weird, I guess if I was elderly I wouldn't care how I died and definitely would not invest my numbered precious time and energy into a project like this... BUT I am glad they did because it is AMAZING.
For more information and more photos click below...you will want to do this
-Stephanie
SourceWildlife around Chernobyl
Hi everyone,
The other day at the end of class, we touched on the subject of nuclear-related deformities and whether they were a legitimate concern or mostly hype. I found this pretty thorough and interesting article on wildlife around Chernobyl, which argues that both the health and diversity of the area's ecosystem counters the assumption that radiation is always detrimental to living things (although the animals at the scene contain high levels of radiation in their bodies, they generally function normally, with no defects). In fact, the article posits the idea that human disruption of natural spaces could have more to do with the population decline of wild species than environmenal radiation exposure does. Obviously not everyone agrees, but reading this definitely makes me appreciate how resilient life is and gives me a little more hope for the future.
Here is the article: Do Animals in Chernobyl's Fallout Zone Glow?
Nola Weber
The other day at the end of class, we touched on the subject of nuclear-related deformities and whether they were a legitimate concern or mostly hype. I found this pretty thorough and interesting article on wildlife around Chernobyl, which argues that both the health and diversity of the area's ecosystem counters the assumption that radiation is always detrimental to living things (although the animals at the scene contain high levels of radiation in their bodies, they generally function normally, with no defects). In fact, the article posits the idea that human disruption of natural spaces could have more to do with the population decline of wild species than environmenal radiation exposure does. Obviously not everyone agrees, but reading this definitely makes me appreciate how resilient life is and gives me a little more hope for the future.
Here is the article: Do Animals in Chernobyl's Fallout Zone Glow?
Nola Weber
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Ways the Syrian Crisis Relates to this Class
Major global events have a place in any classroom in my opinion. But, the current crisis that is unfolding over the response to Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons may be directly relevant to things we are discussing in this class. Here are some possible connections that I see:
1) Policy and precedent on "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs). Chemical weapons and nuclear weapons are both classified as WMDs, and the global reaction to the use of chemical weapons may set precedents for policy and responses to nuclear or radiological weapons.
2) Iran is watching closely. Iran allegedly has a nuclear weapons program, and the U.S. has said we will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. The U.S. reaction to Syria may be seen by Iran as a hint of the consequences if they go forward with a nuclear weapon. Here is an opinion piece from Foreign Policy magazine that discusses the reasons for and against bombing Syria, including the messages sent to Iran.
3) Power dynamic between the U.S. and Russia. We don't often hear about this, but nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons treaties, and missile defense systems are big topics of friction between the U.S. and Russia even in these post-cold-war days. Any situation that affects the relationship between these two countries may impact the next phase of nuclear treaty negotiations, and vice versa. Here's a truly bizarre thing that hints at the weirdness going on between us and the Russians right now - a New York Times editorial by the Russian president about Syria.
4) Russia put out warnings that if the U.S. strikes Syria, we could end up hitting a nuclear facility and creating new problems. Here's a Reuters article about this.
5) As we talk about the idea of "acceptable risk" in this class, we will talk about how dangers that have particularly horrible or scary consequences are often seen to be worse than more "conventional" dangers, even when the actual number of casualties may not be as great. Lots of people right now are debating whether chemical weapons really are worse than conventional bombings and deserve a special response. See, for example, this CNN article. Similar questions could apply to thinking about whether nuclear weapons are considered useable or unusable weapons.
Want some general background?
A Washington Post Blog post on questions you were too embarrassed to ask (it's opinionated but will catch up on the situation quickly).
A BBC Q&A on the current diplomatic crisis
Another BBC article on the alleged chemical weapons attack
1) Policy and precedent on "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs). Chemical weapons and nuclear weapons are both classified as WMDs, and the global reaction to the use of chemical weapons may set precedents for policy and responses to nuclear or radiological weapons.
2) Iran is watching closely. Iran allegedly has a nuclear weapons program, and the U.S. has said we will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. The U.S. reaction to Syria may be seen by Iran as a hint of the consequences if they go forward with a nuclear weapon. Here is an opinion piece from Foreign Policy magazine that discusses the reasons for and against bombing Syria, including the messages sent to Iran.
3) Power dynamic between the U.S. and Russia. We don't often hear about this, but nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons treaties, and missile defense systems are big topics of friction between the U.S. and Russia even in these post-cold-war days. Any situation that affects the relationship between these two countries may impact the next phase of nuclear treaty negotiations, and vice versa. Here's a truly bizarre thing that hints at the weirdness going on between us and the Russians right now - a New York Times editorial by the Russian president about Syria.
4) Russia put out warnings that if the U.S. strikes Syria, we could end up hitting a nuclear facility and creating new problems. Here's a Reuters article about this.
5) As we talk about the idea of "acceptable risk" in this class, we will talk about how dangers that have particularly horrible or scary consequences are often seen to be worse than more "conventional" dangers, even when the actual number of casualties may not be as great. Lots of people right now are debating whether chemical weapons really are worse than conventional bombings and deserve a special response. See, for example, this CNN article. Similar questions could apply to thinking about whether nuclear weapons are considered useable or unusable weapons.
Want some general background?
A Washington Post Blog post on questions you were too embarrassed to ask (it's opinionated but will catch up on the situation quickly).
A BBC Q&A on the current diplomatic crisis
Another BBC article on the alleged chemical weapons attack
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Crazier than fiction?
The latest plan to try to stop contaminated water from leaking into the Pacific from the area around the Fukushima reactors? A giant underground ice wall. You can't make this stuff up...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)