Nukes 6of6: Worst Case Scenario and Nuclear Waste Storage
Lecture by Professor Richard Muller of the University California, Berkeley. Taken from Lecture 7 of the spring 2006 webcasts of Physics For Future Presidents. Also known as Descriptive Introduction to Physics. Empahsis is on conceptual understanding, rather than mathematics. This lecture deals with nuclear reactions, bombs and reactors. Also some information about the nuclear programme of Iraq in the 90s and North Korea recently. All Lectures: www.youtube.com
“Who is this lecturing to ? Pre – School !!”
No this is physics for future presidents. Preschool is a bit advanced for them.
Who is this lecturing to ? Pre – School !! Try reading ” Nuclear afternoon”.
is The China Syndrome a real concern in a worst-case scenario? Im not worried but im not sure how accurate the movie was in that depiction?
@alkx4444 This is Nuclear Power through rose colored glasses.
But river,lakedams and wind dont give you nice big fat nuclear weapons to protect you from USA do they.
so, it will all just end out getting stored underground?. and thats it? does not anyone see the flaws in those plans? it takes only a moron to support nuclear power!!! now-, soler, wind and river/lake-dam powers are the answer!!!
I think he harped too much on the RBMK. Even though they were badly built, and of the wrong materials, they weren’t badly designed-Only at very low power levels did they have instability, and a slew of systems had to be bypassed to even run it there, for an instance, the RPS was set to account for the the instability, but it was manually disabled, and ALL of the control rods were withdrawn to raise power(Xenon poisoning) which was against all of the regulations. Youtube comments are too short!
lol yeah. using sentences like that towards someone who is able to argue his point perfectly well with no problem whatsoever is exactly what makes YOU a “kid”. it also makes you insecure and so on, but that’s psychology 101…
You poor poor confused kid.
and I didn’t say “advancement”, I said “advanced”. there’s a difference. one IS absolute, the other isn’t.
Sure when it’s unqualified in some general sense like “I’m free” is meaningless, but my point is that it’s not meaningless to say “I’m able to criticise my government and I won’t be tortured and killed for it”. This is a real distinction and is probably a lot more noticable for those who would get tortured and killed for such things. If you don’t like to use the word freedom to describe this difference, then invent a new word, but the distinction is real.
that saying things like “you don’t believe in freedom”, “I’m free” and talking about how great a country is because of it is completely and utterly devoid of meaning. x.x which is what I wanted that other guy to see, but you kinda took over from him. suit yourself. :S
Exactly what? Are you just trying to be obscure and incomprehensible? What point are you actually making?
With regard to advancement, I don’t think that’s an absolute either. Whether you’re talking about social or technological advancement, why does it have to be all or nothing? Surely you can see that there is a real noticable difference between a society that approves of slavery and torture, and one that condemns it. Is a society either totally evil and primitive or totally perfect? Or is there a scale with gradual steps along the way? What are you actually trying to describe in reality?
exactly. x.x
I really don’t know what your point is. Regardless of what words you want to use to describe it, there is a real actual distinction between what it’s like to live now, and what it was like to live in a time where you could be tortured to death for criticising the government. If you’re going to insist that words like free or advanced only be used in an absolute sense, then the words become useless since they don’t apply to anything in reality. How does this help explain anything?
lol, “more free” still isn’t “free”. in the past people had less advanced technology than we do today. do you think we should call humankind “advanced” today because of that? even though we still act like monkeys most of the time? do you think people in 2000 years would agree that we were very advanced? hardly.
Don’t you know how things used to be? In the past, you could have been tortured to death for expressing views that criticise the government or the church. There’s a world of difference between the amount of freedom people had in the time of the spanish inquisition, or even in some places today like North Korea, and the modern western societies. No-one is going to torture and kill you for expressing an opinion. People didn’t always have that luxury. Do you really not see the distinction?
freedom of religion and freedom of speech are myths. especially the latter. it’s illegal to say certain things. I’m swedish and we basically allow people to say whatever but if an american were to say he was planning to kill the president or used “fuck” on tv, he’d be fined or jailed. x.x
interesting point actually: did you know some guy threw a pie at the king of sweden a while back? I’d like to see someone try that on the president of america. x.x but that’s different than words. funny still.
Well, perhaps not as a matter of degrees, but there are different domains of freedom. Such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the market from government regulation, etc. I think these qualifications make the word more useful, as opposed to an absolute sense of freedom in all possible domains. I think when people in the west talk about freedom, they are generally referring to things like freedom of speech and religion, rather than some kind of anarchistic form of total freedom.
oh good point. those people aren’t really free either. being completely free would mean that you could live anywhere and hunt of the land without having to pay taxes for the land and taxes for the hunting and being forced to abide to the laws of the land you happen to live in and so on.
and if you’re not COMPLETELY free…then you’re not free by definition. it’s not a scale. it’s like being dead, either you are or you’re not. in this case. x.x
How are you defining freedom? As I understand it, freedom is merely the lack of others trying to stop you from doing things, and it’s a matter of degrees, not an absolute that you either have totally or not at all. In what way are isolated rainforest tribes more free than we are? They probably aren’t free to question their tribal elders or the traditions of their culture in many cases. I’m puzzled about how you could know about the living conditions of people our society has never contacted.
honestly, if you think you’re “free” then you’re an idiot. nobody lives in “freedom” other than the last uncontacted tribes in the rainforest. freedom is something you’ve been brainwashed to believe.
Ah you’re one of those people who do not believe in freedom.
you’re not confusing his ability to “dumb down” a subject with ignorance, are you? he IS having a lecture for students here. he’s giving them the easy version.