Airbrush

We must figure out how to allow Yellowstone (and other super volcanos) to erupt "just enough" to prevent a major, catastrophic eruption later. Nuclear weapons are too broad a brush to use. Instead drill tunnels into Yellowstone, with the final excavation done by conventional explosives. This could, theoretically and hopefully, get it to let off pressure over the next several hundred years. If not, the USA will become history and the rest of the world will be a big mess.

I accept the big bang theory, not because I understand it, but because the experts in the field think it is the best we have for now.

"so many questions, so little time??" Next time use a DESCRIPTIVE title so we know what this is about, and everyone can refer to it easily, such as: "How are astronomical distances determined?" Or simply "Astronomical Distances". That has to be among the weakest topic titles I have ever seen. It is uninteresting and it puts everyone off. It sounds like you have a lot of questions and you want people here to hurry up and answer your questions because you don't have time? Hurry up folks, I need service NOW!

That is right. This is not an either/or. One can be both engineer and scientist.

Did anyone see the anti-nuke documentary "The Atomic States of America"? It is on Netflix. It is very critical of nuclear power, but they never mentioned anything about how vulnerable reactors are to bunker buster bombs. I wonder why people who are trying to discourage the use of nuclear energy would not have thought of that one? Can you figure that out Enthalpy? Maybe you should enlighten them. The documentary's major complaint is that many people are dying of cancers that live near reactors. In the final analysis, they believe we are not ready for nuclear power yet, but in the future we may learn how to handle it safely. They believe the nuclear industry is not accountable to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but rather the NRC is accountable to the very wealthy nuclear industry.

Even a vast number of geothermal "steam-wells" would be mere pin pricks in the Earth's crust. They would not even reach the outer mantle and certainly not interfere with the outer liquid core convection currents that creates our magnetic field.

Geothermal all depends upon our ability to drill holes very deep. Why not think of it as a long-term project? Drill as many holes as you can, as deep as you can, and in the future with better technology, you can make the holes wider and deeper. Why can't we invent autonomous tunneling machines that can be set to dig straight down, and move on to start the next one? This sounds nuts, but could you invent a nuclear device that is intended to melt down in such a way that it goes straight down the 6 miles you need to go, at which time it simply merges into the lava beneath, not to return to the surface? If we are ever to become a Type I civilization we will need to harness all volcanos on Earth (in addition to controlling the weather). Render volcanos harmless by allowing them to constantly erupt in a predictable manner, and also use them to cool the Earth from the warming trend, and as a bonus harness the geothermal energy closer to the surface?

Good question Sensei. I was in Wikipedia when I found those numbers, now I can't find them again. So geothermal is much lower only 0.19%, only a fifth of one percent. I wonder why? Are there that few places on Earth that can be dug into? All you need to do is dig about 6 miles deep and anywhere on Earth could produce geothermal power.

In 2008, according to Wiki, over 10% of world power generation was from geothermal. (2008 approx. sources: OIL 34%, COAL 27%, NAT GAS 21%, GEOTHERMAL 10%, NUCLEAR 6%, HYDRO 2%) If you tunnel deep enough under ground, you reach high temperatures. Why not just tunnel deep enough, inject water, and harness the resulting steam? In hot areas, such as near volcanos, you don't need to tunnel very deep to get to hot stuff.

"Chernobyl Exclusion Zone An area originally extending 30 kilometres (19 mi) in all directions from the plant is officially called the "zone of alienation". It is largely uninhabited, except for about 300 residents who have refused to leave. The area has largely reverted to forest, and has been overrun by wildlife because of a lack of competition with humans for space and resources. Even today, radiation levels are so high that the workers responsible for rebuilding the sarcophagus are only allowed to work five hours a day for one month before taking 15 days of rest. Ukrainian officials estimate the area will not be safe for human life again for another 20,000 years.[57]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster In the documentary they tested some of the 300 people who chose to stay in the area, and they showed low radiation doses. Maybe it is a lie. I want to know the truth. In this age of stealth, many governments should soon have the ability to attack anywhere inside of any country. That means the ability to destroy nuclear reactors at will. The idea of any populated area becoming uninhabitable for 20,000 years seems unacceptable. I was not aware that the Iraq reactor Israel destroyed was only under construction.

Are you sure that simply destroying a reactor results in the surrounding area becoming uninhabitable for a long time? Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor and I don't recall hearing that that entire section of Iraq is now uninhabitable. People have moved back to the Chernobyl area with no bad effect. Take France as an example, since they get 80% of their energy from nuclear power. Do you think that terrorists have the bunker busting capability to destroy a reactor? Sure they can crash an airliner into a reactor, but would that penetrate far enough?

The Pussy Riot members should have known what they were getting into. They got a lot of attention and paid the price. They KNEW how strict their government was.

Governments need more TRANSPARENCY and disinterested parties used for checks and balances. The LIMIT of transparency is necessary secrecy for national security. Economic decisions should be left to the best economists to debate in a public forum. The winner of the debate would be chosen partly by public opinion vote, but more heavily by the vote of a panel of respected economists (like on Dancing With the Stars).

That seems like a reasonable argument that a great proliferation of nuclear reactors, even in unstable areas, would become prime targets for terrorism. Does the destruction of a nuclear reactor, no matter how safe it is, create in effect a dirty bomb? A dirty bomb can make an area uninhabitable for a long time, something we have never seen before.

Enthalpy, could you please watch "Pandora's Promise" and report back to us SPECIFICALLY what is wrong with it? It was made by anti-nuke people who converted back to a belief that nuclear power is a good energy source, at least until safer renewables are up and running.

Thanks Acme, I will try that when I have time. I don't recall "pebble-bed reactor" in the documentary. Several of the anti-nuclear folks came to realize that the argument against nuclear power was unscientific. Apparently democrats are against nuclear power simply because republicans are for it. IT WORKS!! Thank you Acme. "....The atomic bomb and meltdowns like Fukushima have made nuclear power synonymous with global disaster. But what if we’ve got nuclear power wrong? An audience favorite at the Sundance Film Festival, PANDORA’S PROMISE asks whether the one technology we fear most could save our planet from a climate catastrophe, while providing the energy needed to lift billions of people in the developing world out of poverty. In his controversial new film, Stone tells the intensely personal stories of environmentalists and energy experts who have undergone a radical conversion from being fiercely anti to strongly pro-nuclear energy, risking their careers and reputations in the process. Stone exposes this controversy within the environmental movement head-on with stories of defection by heavy weights including Stewart Brand, Richard Rhodes, Gwyneth Cravens, Mark Lynas and Michael Shellenberger. Undaunted and fearlessly independent, PANDORA’S PROMISE is a landmark work that is forever changing the conversation about the myths and science behind this deeply emotional and polarizing issue." http://pandoraspromise.com

Did anyone see the recent documentary called "Pandora's Promise"? It is about the history of nuclear power and nuclear disasters. Most of the 1-hour documentary shows in great detail the effects of nuclear disasters at Fukushima, Chernoble, and 3-Mile Island. All of these reactors were inherently unsafe. The FOURTH generation of nuclear power plants are designed to be very safe. In fact they are impossible to melt down, no matter what happens. Does anyone else believe that nuclear power is a great potential for safe, clean energy? See "pandoraspromise.com", since I cannot copy and paste links any longer. Does anyone else have that problem?

Very interesting, thanks for the thought on this subject. Hopefully, they will continue to build planes better and stronger, use redundant safeguards, and have more and/or better inspections in the future, and let's hope for the best. Maybe they can carry cyanide pills for anyone who doesn't want to burn to death or something like that. Don't they already have the ability to knock all the passengers out with a sedative gas?

An implicit conspiracy is where members are aware of the intentions of the other members, but none of them ever get together to plan anything. The implicit conspiracy I'm thinking of is pharma-medical-junkfood industries. The pharmaceutical and medical industries do not really want to SOLVE a health problem, only address the symptoms with an endless series of Band-Aid remedies that you purchase at the local pharmacy. There is more money in developing Band-Aids for people, than solving the problem, because when the problem is solved there is no more money to be made from it. IF, and that is a big IF, people ate correctly and got enough exercise, they would not feel the need for many pharmaceuticals.

BTW, I'm no longer able to quote when I reply, or copy and paste. Does anyone have this problem? I was getting off topic on "Better Black Boxes", so here is the continuation. Statistically, airliners are a very safe mode of transportation. My question is: How many fatalities occurred during the CRUISING phase (not takeoff and landing) of all flights worldwide, during the past 10 years? My assumption is that during those events, lives COULD have been saved. They could also land in the freezing South Indian Ocean, and eaten by sharks, or on the side of a mountain, but they would have a CHANCE at survival. There were some, according to the stats that Swansant provided in "Better Black Boxes", and many of those lives could have been saved by having a parachute escape system in the plane. If an airline installed an escape system, they could boast about it, and people may pay attention and prefer that airline, even though chances of needing to use it are miniscule, it would have a psychological impact on the average person. If one airline gets more business by having this system, other airlines would follow. The Titannic was unsinkable, so had few life rafts. This IS a plan B, since plan A is always to NOT CRASH.

I sure appreciate all the advice above. Thanks for the info. Nice cross section Capt Ref, very interesting. My last gasp, and then I give up, at this will be to suggest that when you buckle your seat belt you are fastened to a parachute that is inside the seat, but will disengage from the seat. Rather than an expensive seat ejection system, when someone authorized hits the panic button (only in case of imminent disaster), the parachute separates from the seat. Each passenger, who wants to live, buckles a couple more buckles to be securely fastened to your parachute/floatation device. Then anyone who wants a chance at living, forms a line for the escape chute and slide through a tunnel out the bottom of the plane. The parachute opens automatically after a few seconds of free fall. Of course there would be an emergency rip cord to pull, just in case it does not automatically deploy. Or I will suggest this again in a decade.

Revise the design of the plane so that passengers are on the lower level and cargo is the upper level. This way everyone can slide down through a chute in the floor, to facilitate many people exiting in a short time. No training necessary if everyone is securely stapped to a parachute that automatically deploys at the right time. At least they will have a chance at survival, rather than certain doom. Even if only a small fraction of accidents would lend to this, people would feel better to know they had SOME kind of chance at survival (no matter how unlikely). Airlines that had this safety system would have an advantage over airlines that DON'T CARE ABOUT PEOPLE.

A transmitter attached to heavy wreckage, or a sinker device, is attached by a wire 2.5 miles long. That should be long enough to connect the smoke buoy to the wreckage on the bottom of most oceans. In the Marianna's Trench, sorry you're out of luck. And all these efforts to find wreckage isn't going to save your life, if you were a passenger, so have all seats like a piston at the top of a cylander. People can eject out of the bottom of the plane and use a parachute attached to the seat. Heck, even have an oxygen mask attached to your seat. I might pay a little more for my ticket if the airline boasted of these safeguards.

Yes, a radio transmitter or a satellite phone. There should be a tamper-proof transponder, that cannot be shut off by unauthorized people. Even a system of smoke-flare-buoys might be enough to get the attention of search parties, who already know the general area the plane went down from the transponder info. If the buoy can make smoke for 24 hours, it might be long enough. Even if the buoys drift a long way from the wreckage, we can figure out where the wreckage is judging from the speed of local water currents and recorded data of time and location of impact. And forget about solar powered, use a heavy duty truck battery for your radio transmitter.

I posted this again in "Engineering" under "Better Black Boxes for Airliners". Anyone interested join us over there. All I will say to the previous post is, suppose the transmitter is weak because it is solar powered, isn't there a powerful detection device that can scan the surface of the ocean (or land) for a weak transmitter? Now, see you in "Engineering".