Bridget Woodman of Greenpeace said "Pursuing nuclear fusion and the ITER project is madness. Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident." "Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. "Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today."
French environmental groups said the project ITER, was "dangerous", "costly", and "not a job generator". A French association including about 700 anti-nuclear groups, Sortir du nucléaire (Get Out of Nuclear Energy), also claimed that ITER was a hazard because scientists did not yet know how to manipulate the high-energy deuterium and tritium hydrogen isotopes used in the fusion process.
The ITER project confronts numerous technically challenging issues. French physicist Sébastien Balibar, director of research at the CNRS said We say that we will put the sun into a box. The idea is pretty. The problem is, we don't know how to make the box.
A technical concern is that the 14 MeV neutrons produced by the fusion reactions will damage the materials from which the reactor is built. Research is in progress at IFMIF to determine how and/or if reactor walls can be designed to last long enough to make a commercial power plant economically viable in the presence of the intense neutron bombardment. The damage is primarily caused by high energy neutrons knocking atoms out of their normal position in the crystal lattice. A related problem for a future commercial fusion power plant is that the neutron bombardment will induce radioactivity in the reactor itself. Maintaining and decommissioning a commercial reactor may thus be difficult and expensive. Another problem is that superconducting magnets are damaged by neutron fluxes.
Rebecca Harms, Green/EFA member of the European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, said: "In the next 50 years nuclear fusion will neither tackle climate change nor guarantee the security of our energy supply." Arguing that the EU's energy research should be focused elsewhere, she said: "The Green/EFA group demands that these funds be spent instead on energy research that is relevant to the future. A major focus should now be put on renewable sources of energy." French Green party lawmaker Noël Mamère claims that more concrete efforts to fight present-day global warming will be neglected as a result of ITER: "This is not good news for the fight against the greenhouse effect because we're going to put ten billion euros towards a project that has a term of 30-50 years when we're not even sure it will be effective."
A number of fusion researchers working on non-tokamak systems, such as Robert Bussard and Eric Lerner, have been critical of ITER for diverting funding that they believe could be used for their potentially more reasonable and/or cost effective fusion power plant designs. Criticisms levied often revolve around claims of the unwillingness by ITER researchers to face up to potential problems (both technical and economic) due to the dependence of their jobs on the continuation of tokamak research. An informal overview of the last decade of work was presented at the 57th International Astronautical Congress in October 2006.
Fusion energy - if it would ever operate - would create a serious waste problem, would emit large amounts of radioactive material and could be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons. A whole new set of nuclear risks would thus be created.
I think it depends how 'clean' the reaction is. From what I understand, the only residue from Fission in an ideal situation is water, or possibly hydrogen, but possibly 100% efficiency is impossible in the reactions? I'm more guessing than anything else to be honest.
That said, I'm not certain about the concept of neutrons knocking down a building, if these things can take out high-density concrete, then I'm somewhat concerned what they would do to organic matter, and if that were the case, then why is Fusion the Shangri-la of power-creation. I think there might be more to it than is being argued there.
I dunno, i'd say oil / petrol. It took millions of years to make, only a century+ to bleed it dry.Well, I sure as hell don't want anybody burning my corpse for energy...
Well, I sure as hell don't want anybody burning my corpse for energy...I do. It would be far more cost-effective to burn the dead for energy instead of searching for a place in the ground where you can dump the corpse in a big, boring box.
I do. It would be far more cost-effective to burn the dead for energy instead of searching for a place in the ground where you can dump the corpse in a big, boring box.I'd like my corpse to be featured on MythBusters!!!! Oh yeah!!
I think they just annoy people for the hell of it.Years ago, Greenpeace actually stood for something and really tried to make a difference. Then, the old order slowly got pushed out and replaced with borderline survivalist, extremist nutjobs. Don't get me wrong, Greenpeace have a lot of good ideas, but they're full of so many morons and reactionary wankers who understand so little of what they're doing, instead making up for their ignorance by doubling their resolve.
If you burn biomass, you still harm the environment since the fire will eat up the nearby oxygen.
I think it depends how 'clean' the reaction is. From what I understand, the only residue from Fission in an ideal situation is water, or possibly hydrogen, but possibly 100% efficiency is impossible in the reactions? I'm more guessing than anything else to be honest.
That said, I'm not certain about the concept of neutrons knocking down a building, if these things can take out high-density concrete, then I'm somewhat concerned what they would do to organic matter, and if that were the case, then why is Fusion the Shangri-la of power-creation. I think there might be more to it than is being argued there.
There's already neutron bombs available, and they're designed to take out organic matter only.
you lot are just now noticing that Greenpeace sees anything good for man kind as bad for the planet?
But since most of the scientists find basic research in CERN more important...
I think it depends how 'clean' the reaction is. From what I understand, the only residue from Fission in an ideal situation is water, or possibly hydrogen, but possibly 100% efficiency is impossible in the reactions? I'm more guessing than anything else to be honest.
That said, I'm not certain about the concept of neutrons knocking down a building, if these things can take out high-density concrete, then I'm somewhat concerned what they would do to organic matter, and if that were the case, then why is Fusion the Shangri-la of power-creation. I think there might be more to it than is being argued there.
There's already neutron bombs available, and they're designed to take out organic matter only.
I still want to know how Greenpeace came about with the quote, though.Unless you can make nukes out of helium, which is already available anyway and so if it's possible is not a new risk anyway.Fusion bombs? Could they use the by-products produced?
If Total Annihilation taught me anything growing up. . .it's that one reactor is better than six-hundred solar panels. As long as no pesky Core get near it.
I think it depends how 'clean' the reaction is. From what I understand, the only residue from Fission in an ideal situation is water, or possibly hydrogen, but possibly 100% efficiency is impossible in the reactions? I'm more guessing than anything else to be honest.
That said, I'm not certain about the concept of neutrons knocking down a building, if these things can take out high-density concrete, then I'm somewhat concerned what they would do to organic matter, and if that were the case, then why is Fusion the Shangri-la of power-creation. I think there might be more to it than is being argued there.
There's already neutron bombs available, and they're designed to take out organic matter only.
I still want to know how Greenpeace came about with the quote, though.Unless you can make nukes out of helium, which is already available anyway and so if it's possible is not a new risk anyway.Fusion bombs? Could they use the by-products produced?
NO. Nutron bombs are NOT designed to take out ORGANIC MATTER only. That's a common misconceptions. Neutron bombs were designed to take out armored vehicles since the primary lethality of an A-Bomb is heat, and beyond that the pressure wave.
The thick armor of a tank can actually easily handle the heat, and even the shockwave.
So what should be done? Hmm...radiation penetrates that armor with ease. Hurray! Let's build a bomb with increased radiation emission.
It was a bummer, they doubled the radiation output, but to immediately kill the crew of the tank battalion they'd need to give them 20 times the lethal radiation dose. Ergo for a mere 200 meters in increased lethality they had a lot more dangerous and lot more dirty bomb on their hand.
The project was scrapped.
http://www.manuelsweb.com/sam_cohen.htm
*files link away for the inevitable argument next time someone says Iran can't be trusted with nukes*
:p
Quote from: From Wikipedia page on ITER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER)Bridget Woodman of Greenpeace said "Pursuing nuclear fusion and the ITER project is madness. Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident." "Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. "Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today."
French environmental groups said the project ITER, was "dangerous", "costly", and "not a job generator". A French association including about 700 antinuclear groups, Sortir du nucléaire (Get Out of Nuclear Energy), also claimed that ITER was a hazard because scientists did not yet know how to manipulate the high-energy deuterium and tritium hydrogen isotopes used in the fusion process.
The ITER project confronts numerous technically challenging issues. French physicist Sébastien Balibar, director of research at the CNRS said We say that we will put the sun into a box. The idea is pretty. The problem is, we don't know how to make the box.
A technical concern is that the 14 MeV neutrons produced by the fusion reactions will damage the materials from which the reactor is built. Research is in progress at IFMIF to determine how and/or if reactor walls can be designed to last long enough to make a commercial power plant economically viable in the presence of the intense neutron bombardment. The damage is primarily caused by high energy neutrons knocking atoms out of their normal position in the crystal lattice. A related problem for a future commercial fusion power plant is that the neutron bombardment will induce radioactivity in the reactor itself. Maintaining and decommissioning a commercial reactor may thus be difficult and expensive. Another problem is that superconducting magnets are damaged by neutron fluxes.
Rebecca Harms, Green/EFA member of the European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, said: "In the next 50 years nuclear fusion will neither tackle climate change nor guarantee the security of our energy supply." Arguing that the EU's energy research should be focused elsewhere, she said: "The Green/EFA group demands that these funds be spent instead on energy research that is relevant to the future. A major focus should now be put on renewable sources of energy." French Green party lawmaker Noël Mamère claims that more concrete efforts to fight present-day global warming will be neglected as a result of ITER: "This is not good news for the fight against the greenhouse effect because we're going to put ten billion euros towards a project that has a term of 30-50 years when we're not even sure it will be effective."
A number of fusion researchers working on non-tokamak systems, such as Robert Bussard and Eric Lerner, have been critical of ITER for diverting funding that they believe could be used for their potentially more reasonable and/or cost effective fusion power plant designs. Criticisms levied often revolve around claims of the unwillingness by ITER researchers to face up to potential problems (both technical and economic) due to the dependence of their jobs on the continuation of tokamak research. An informal overview of the last decade of work was presented at the 57th International Astronautical Congress in October 2006.
I know that Greenpeace and other environmental groups are trying to save the planet, and I commend them for that, but I find it annoying that they think a FUSION reactor is as dangerous as a fission reactor. The only by-product from a fusion reactor is helium. Aren't they supposed to be much safer?
(Unless the tritium leaks out, and I'm sure that's not as bad as uranium and stuff.)
EDIT: From their website,Quote from: Greenpeace (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance)Fusion energy - if it would ever operate - would create a serious waste problem, would emit large amounts of radioactive material and could be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons. A whole new set of nuclear risks would thus be created.
:wtf:
Exactly, karajorma. If the US has nuclear power that it can use with abandon, why can't Iran do the same? It almost makes the US look like a terrorist nation, since they can use a gun, and some other countries can't.
Ha-hem...Says who? Haven't they only expressed interest in developing a civilian nuclear program to help wean their country off its oil dependence?
1) Iran is interested on nukes and new weapons. No one can simply sit and wait while someone develops nukes and new armaments like the Saegeh(I hope I spelled it correctly) and the recently developed missiles able to hit Israel.
2) Whoever claims that Israel should be cancelled shouldn't be allowed to keep the research on nuclear energy going. They're free to claim that they won't be developing nukes but...it's still dangerous. It's pretty much like giving a gun to a child.They may talk big, but would they really commit to attacking Israel non-conventionally, knowing that it would invite instant retaliation in kind from the US? It's the same thing with people who try to make out North Korea's nuclear "capability" as show-stopping, end of the world type stuff: Dictators need a country to dictate over, and assured nuclear destruction isn't exactly how they want to write themselves into the history books.
They shouldn't threaten Israel, anyway.So the West can threaten people, but the Middle East can't (note: I am in no way saying Iran should be threatening to wipe Israel off the map. I'm simply saying world values are extremely unbalanced)? I remember Sarkozy said something about a nuclear counterattack if terrorists ever got to France again - Exactly who the hell would Sarkozy target with nukes? Palestine and the hundreds of civilians there? Afghanistan, a bunch of farmers hiding in hills? The best target would be France itself - They're probably on your soil, not in any of the Middle Eastern countries. You can't counter Al-Qaeda, a non-geographical organization, with nukes. So if anything, it's America that is unjustified in having nuclear bombs.
Do you honestly believe after reading that article that Reagan wouldn't have tried to use neutron bombs in Vietnam had he been the one in charge back then?
Instead they have placed their stronger youth of the military in harms way trying to root out as much of the Al-Queada leadership as logic and political restraint allows them. Sending aid whenever possible to the peaceful civilian populace trying to push the balance in that region without the barbarism of Saddahm Hussein.
You actually think all of the business being done in Dubai is not a front for major intelligence?Can you back up any of those?
Its the financial hub at the center of it all.
Have you tried getting one of those 6 figure jobs working in that region?
What is driving this money machine?
You are talking about a party region where the princes make in excess of 30 billion a day.
More money than attributable to that upper 1% of America's wealthiest.
How many people would attribute their resources to those people out of simple jealous animosity in the war of the "Have and Have Nots?"
Why was Bin Ladens family the only civilian flight allowed during the 911 incident?
Do we have the right to freeze those assets based upon accusation and cripple global economies?
Placing entire regions of families in a state of crisis and emergency?
Because one angry family member committed mass murder, your entire family is put to death by angry mobs in the heat of the moment?
We can debate all of this, sure I love to debate, but I stay away from trolls and do not wish to be one in any respect and hope I do not come off as one ever. That being said, I'm glad to have this conversation. We all learn from eachother and that is the secret to compromise being the source of a global societies evolution and growth. Tradition is a beatiful romance of ceremony and should be respected. Change is inevitable as the information age brings us closer to the point of claustrophobia due to world population and consumption ever increasing.
Getting back to the topic of Fusion an alternative energy sources.
Alternative energy is going to be the solution to the bleak outlooks we all are consumed by in the past 10 years.
The biggest problem is we use our consciences and experiences to the point of procrastination during these infant stages of change.
The Earth is going to be fine regardless of what we do to it.
It was here long before we infested it and long after we could be gone due to our insolence.
Our responsibility is to life and the existence of not just humanity but the evolution of all species.
Am I going to become a Vegan? Nope. I'm a predator and I love meat.
Green Weeks and other awareness programs are merely stimulating change in spite of the drama we face with the current attrocities we are capable of. I guess the main reason I was attracted by this thread is the stupidity I see in the big picture in the amount of positive, experienced people and resources being quagmired by the ill informed. None of us wish to be part of that group. But we are of course all human and need to debate these issues publicly and genuinely speak up out of common sense instead of letting those who whine the loudest rule our lives.
A trend we have only begun being aware of. Like I said before, repeating a lie until we beleive its truth is what kills us most.
Myself, I want one of those coke a cola sized machines in my yard making hydrogen for my car from water and electricity.
I wish I had the capital to invest into what the Netherlands have already accomplished.
You really want to remove power from the middle east? All while building up our own countries economic staminas?
Alternative energy infrastructure changes will never get cheaper than now.
Inflation and war are screaming these facts in our faces but we do have to take risks.
I would rather look at ecological balancing influences and negating my carbon foot print with my daily activities than seeing the potential that my kids are going to be risking their lives at the hands of irresponsible political dog and pony shows over petroleum based economies.
A curious pundit as we approach elections and we have Paris Hilton making a more remarkable infomercial than our candidates.
That would take considerable time wouldn't it?
I'm not going to dance around the issue of validity with anyone as it will never cease to be challenged.
I know I am an optomist in many of my views but I am an honest man willing to invest his time to hope others would share my beleif that the world isn't inherently evil and all is not lost by a long shot.
I'll make a deal with you since your investment here is one sentence long with a simple question.
Give me one instance to validate and I'll do my best to provide reasonable proof.
In the same regard, can you deny them with just as valid proof you claim to have for doubt?
I look forward to the response regardless because both of us stand to learn something new in the process changing our perspectives.
Response to criticism
Proponents believe that much of the ITER criticism is misleading and inaccurate, in particular the allegations of the experiment's "inherent danger." The stated goals for a commercial fusion power station design are that the amount of radioactive waste produced be hundreds of times less than that of a fission reactor, that it produce no long-lived radioactive waste, and that it be impossible for any fusion reactor to undergo a large-scale runaway chain reaction. This is because direct contact with the walls of the reactor would contaminate the plasma, cooling it down immediately and stopping the fusion process. Besides which, the amount of fuel planned to be contained in a fusion reactor chamber (one half gram of deuterium/tritium fuel[27]) is only enough to sustain the reaction for an hour at maximum,[28] whereas a fission reactor usually contains several years' worth of fuel.[29] In case of accident (or intentional act of terrorism) a fusion reactor releases far less radioactive pollution than an ordinary fission nuclear plant. Besides, tritium being lighter than air would rise up into stratosphere where it very soon dilutes to concentrations far below natural background radioactivity of air. Proponents note that large-scale fusion power — if it works — will be able to produce reliable electricity on demand and with virtually zero pollution (no gaseous CO2 / SO2 / NOx by-products are produced).
According to researchers at a demonstration reactor in Japan, a fusion generator should be feasible in the 2030s and no later than the 2050s. Japan is pursuing its own research program with several operational facilities exploring different aspects of practicability.[30]
In the United States alone, electricity accounts for US$210 billion in annual sales.[31] Asia's electricity sector attracted US$93 billion in private investment between 1990 and 1999.[32] These figures take into account only current prices. With petroleum prices widely expected to rise, political pressure on carbon production, and steadily increasing demand, these figures will undoubtedly also rise. Proponents contend that an investment in research now should be viewed as an attempt to earn a far greater future return for the economy.[citation needed] Also, worldwide investment of less than US$1 billion per year into ITER is not incompatible with concurrent research into other methods of power generation.[citation needed]
Contrary to criticism, proponents of ITER assert that there are significant employment benefits associated with the project. ITER will provide employment for hundreds of physicists, engineers, material scientists, construction workers and technicians in the short term, and if successful, will lead to a global industry of fusion-based power generation[citation needed].
Supporters of ITER emphasize that the only way to convincingly prove ideas for withstanding the intense neutron flux is to experimentally subject materials to that flux — one of the primary missions of ITER and the IFMIF,[33] and both facilities will be of vital importance to the effort due to the differences in neutron power spectra between a real D-T burning plasma and the spectrum to be produced by IFMIF.[34] The purpose of ITER is to explore the scientific and engineering questions surrounding fusion power plants, such that it may be possible to build one intelligently in the future. It is nearly impossible to get satisfactory theoretical results regarding the properties of materials under an intense energetic neutron flux, and burning plasmas are expected to have quite different properties from externally heated plasmas.[citation needed] The point has been reached, according to supporters, where answering these questions about fusion reactors by experiment (via ITER) is an economical research investment, given the monumental potential benefit.
Furthermore the main line of research—the tokamak—has been developed to the point that it is now possible to undertake the penultimate step in magnetic confinement plasma physics research—the investigation of ‘burning’ plasmas in which the vast majority of the heating is provided by the fusion event itself. A detailed engineering design, supported by substantial technology R&D, has been developed for a tokamak experiment which would explore burning plasma physics and integrate reactor relevant technology. In the tokamak research program, recent advances in controlling the internal configuration of the plasma have led to the achievement of substantially improved energy and pressure confinement in tokamaks—the so-called ‘advanced tokamak’ modes—which reduces the projected cost of electricity from tokamak reactors by a factor of two to a value only about 50% more than the projected cost of electricity from advanced light-water reactors. In parallel, progress in the development of advanced, low activation structural materials supports the promise of environmentally benign fusion reactors, and research into alternate confinement concepts is yielding promise of future improvements in confinement. [35]
Finally, supporters point out that other potential replacements to the current use of fossil fuel sources have environmental issues of their own. Solar, wind, and hydroelectric power all have a relatively low power output per square kilometer compared to ITER's successor DEMO which, at 500 MW,[citation needed] should have an energy density that exceeds even large fission power plants [36]
Well based on the reasonably dead horse trolling is that people keep kicking,That would take considerable time wouldn't it?
I'm not going to dance around the issue of validity with anyone as it will never cease to be challenged.
I know I am an optomist in many of my views but I am an honest man willing to invest his time to hope others would share my beleif that the world isn't inherently evil and all is not lost by a long shot.
I'll make a deal with you since your investment here is one sentence long with a simple question.
Give me one instance to validate and I'll do my best to provide reasonable proof.
In the same regard, can you deny them with just as valid proof you claim to have for doubt?
I look forward to the response regardless because both of us stand to learn something new in the process changing our perspectives.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but more to the point, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. Sure, validity can always be challenged, but there comes a point where further challenge grows ludicrious. If you have the facts, why the hesitance to back them up?
Argument from ignorance doesn't fly. Just because you can't prove something does not exist does not mean it does.
Perhaps, perhaps not, but he didn't use them, so whether we were backed into the compliment or not we have a pretty good track record. The probablity of past events doesn't matter for science, it happened, so whether it should have or not is moot.
It does matter when you're trying to argue that America can be trusted with nukes in the future while Iran can't.
Oh and you have the worst track record. Nukes used in wartime, 100% American. :p
It is said that nuclear fusion produces more power than nuclear fission, but I don't think anyone has managed to control nuclear fusion yet. Controlling nuclear fission was done back in the 1940s to produce the A-Bomb.
It is said that nuclear fusion produces more power than nuclear fission, but I don't think anyone has managed to control nuclear fusion yet. Controlling nuclear fission was done back in the 1940s to produce the A-Bomb.
Heh, there's nothing controlled about a fission bomb.. although I do see what you were getting at. :)
Fission-based power plants are capable of delivering almost as much collective benefit (low waste, high output, high reliability, 0% of meltdown) as the 'we'll have it in 50 years' commercial fusion reactors are predicted to deliver.
Don't get me wrong - I'd love fusion plants tomorrow as much as the next geek but the truth is that fusion research has become a giant porkbarrel where money is the motivating factor rather than good science.
The real problem with fission is the States is that reprocessing is a swearword that equates to 'nookular weppins for them ay-rabs' in the minds of most average folk in the US. This is the result of uneducated FUD. Modern nuclear fission concepts are pretty darn slick, pretty darn efficient, and pretty darn safe. Check out Wikipedia for details on the nuclear lightbulb and pebble-bed reactor designs.
No energy source is completely safe, but at least it takes transport out of the equation. Those supertankers filled to the gunnels with liquid natural gas? About the same explosive energy as sixty Hiroshima bombs, according to the Discovery channel (ingest with sodium chloride as appropriate). I believe Little Boy was about 13 Kilotons (some say up to 17), so we're talking damn near three-quarters of a megaton in one vessel alone. Who needs nuclear weapons with fuel tankers like these?
Sorry, this wasn't aimed at you specifically, I actually agree with most of your post. :)
That's the exact same argument intelligent design people would use about evolution, in different clothing. The probablity is so low it must be impossible! (Unless there is an outside source!).
Probablity of past events is irrevelant. Probablity of future events is not, and since GWB wasn't crazy enough to order a nuclear attack in response to 9/11 or the use of neutron bombs in Iraq, and he's the most inept, fundie, and militarily incompetent president the US is likely to elect for the foreseeable future, I'd say it's safe to let the US keep their nuclear weapons for another forty years or so.
And the wartime use is irrevelant because what we're worried about here is nukes used in a preemptive strike or terroristic attack, not in wartime against an opponent who fired the first shots and in an attempt to prevent even more serious bloodshed by impressing upon them the utter futility of further resistance.
There was some explosion back in the early 1900s which had a blast yield of 30 megatons. Rumour is that a UFO exploded.
The Tunguska Event, or Tunguska explosion, was a massive explosion that occurred near the Podkamennaya (Lower Stony) Tunguska River in what is now Krasnoyarsk Krai of Russia, at around 7:14 a.m. (0:14 UT, 7:02 a.m. local solar time) on June 30, 1908 (June 17 in the Julian calendar, in use locally at the time).
Although the cause is the subject of some debate, the explosion was most likely caused by the air burst of a large meteoroid or comet fragment at an altitude of 5–10 kilometres (3–6 miles) above Earth's surface. Different studies have yielded varying estimates for the object's size, with general agreement that it was a few tens of metres across.
Although the meteor or comet burst in the air rather than directly hitting the surface, this event is still referred to as an impact. Estimates of the energy of the blast range from 5 megatons to as high as 30 megatons of TNT, with 10–15 megatons the most likely - roughly equal to the United States' Castle Bravo thermonuclear explosion set off in late February of 1954, about 1000 times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan and about one third the power of the Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated. The explosion knocked over an estimated 80 million trees over 2,150 square kilometres (830 square miles). It is estimated that the earthquake from the blast would have measured 5.0 on the Richter scale, which was not yet developed at the time. An explosion of this magnitude is capable of destroying a large metropolitan area. This possibility has helped to spark discussion of asteroid deflection strategies.
Although the Tunguska event is believed to be the largest impact event on land in Earth's recent history, impacts of similar size in remote ocean areas would have gone unnoticed before the advent of global satellite monitoring in the 1960s and 1970s.
BTW: There is a reasonably solid rebuttal on Wikipedia in the same article area:
Yes. And you're the one making it! You're the one claiming that since Reagan never got the chance to be in a war where he'd use nukes the fact that he didn't use them means he could be trusted with them. You're the one claiming that the probability of past events is irrelevant.
So hypothetically you'd have no objection to Iran being allowed to developing nukes if there was some way for the launch codes to remain with other more stable governments to be given to Iran if they were attacked by the USA for instance then?
Try that on again. You're either delibrately misinterpreting or not thinking it through, because they argue the probablity of past events is relevant...just like you are.
Well based on the reasonably dead horse trolling is that people keep kicking,
I had to request some more input based on such a smug and very little effort question.
But I'm glad you bring up the fact that you find my claims extraordinary.
All I am asking is what specifically seems unlikely or without evidence and contived if you will?
Don't say all of it, thats completely contrived and wreaks of pedantic trolling.
I do not mean any insult towards you or others here.
All I ask is a reasonable investment of time from both members invested for an enlightened conversation.
To be fair, it's really not a scientist's problem anymore so much as it is an engineer's.
Not actually. I think it's an applied research problem, and there is a lot of physicists in applied research field, though you have never heard of them. In my list it would turn to engineering problem when they have verified the first prototype and noted that it is working.
Insofar as I know, we have built working fusion reactors, but we've not managed to break even in terms of energy input vs. energy output.
Not actually. I think it's an applied research problem, and there is a lot of physicists in applied research field, though you have never heard of them. In my list it would turn to engineering problem when they have verified the first prototype and noted that it is working.
IIRC JET was able to for a couple of seconds. The ITER utilizes many advances in plasma control and superconducting technologies and theories, many of which are being tested in China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EAST)
Insofar as I know, we have built working fusion reactors, but we've not managed to break even in terms of energy input vs. energy output.