Delbert

I'm not saying anything of the sort. And again, I'm not undisturbed you've formed this quite disgusting interpretation from my remarks. I'm sorry but I can't explain it any more.

It is clear I've not expressed or explained correctly. So I'll try to again. I'm not making any comparison or statement about fewer dead people being descent into chaos. And I'm not undisturbed that you appear to conclude that I was. I'm referring to the philosophy or technique of comparison to justify or divert attention away from a process as being a descent to chaos. Simply doing a comparison trick with an aspect of human activity when faced with a problem to justify it will undoubtedly stymie human progress, for the simply premise that a particular process doesn't have to get better so long as it's not worse. Progress of the madhouse. And no, I'm not suggesting we don't endeavour to make things better, but rather the direct use of comparison when faced with a subsequent problem as a justification - I believe there's a subtle difference. And just to emphasise, I'm not making any statement about coal (apart from responding to your comparison philosophy). It may be better or it may be worse, I'm not interested at this moment in time. This thread is about the continuing problems with the Fukushima reactors and nothing to do with relative death or injury rates between nuclear and coal.

I don't think anybody is unconcerned about people killed by coal. But for me it's this apparent philosophy of: justify nuclear by find something that you feel is worse. I'm sorry, but that's no justification for anything. But rather a policy of descent to chaos if applied generally. Like how about the number of people killed or injured by gas? Like asphyxiation poisoning or the of reports of houses being blown up. But how many cases of asphyxiation or houses blown up by nuclear? None all as far as I can recall. Can you please place this comparison business in the trash can.

It seems to me this business is nothing more than delaying tactics. He probably realised he couldn't use chemical weapons again without getting an ear bashing from the Russians. So take up the suggestion to destroy them, use the situation to buy time and divert attention from other activities. Play his cards right and in the fullness of time he might end up on the world stage as a UN peace delegate.

It seems to me that what we call detection in fact changes the situation from one ('one' being a mass of interactions as above) process to two processes. Nothing to do with a conscious thing as you seem to imply - unless of course we take it further and say consciousness is a physical process. Observing presumably involves a sequence of events leading to a realisation, so perhaps it is and therefore nothing mysterious. I understand it can get even better with this entanglement business. Like, a photon (or the consequence of events as above!) hits a receptor in my eye whilst I'm looking at the stars, and I can apparently cause the source, millions or billions of miles away, to be a source!!! So was it there before I looked? I didn't know I was so influential.

Not quite. Time for the probe as seen by the observer (say back on earth) will appear to slow as it approached the black hole, such that it will never be seen to enter or pass through the event horizon. Even if you waited long enough to the death of the universe. But if you were piloting said probe (ignoring the crushing and stretching!) you wouldn't sense time slowing at all, but rather upon looking back (say at earth) you'd see things speeding up. Presumably the conclusion might be that you'd see the universe speed up so fast (and shrink) that entering the event horizon would coincide with the future end (death) of the universe. That's what relative or relativity means, time is relative to us wherever we are. In other words, our time will always be correct for us, with others or elsewhere apparently being wrong (slowing or speeding up). Go to where it was wrong and it will now be right, leaving back were you came from now being wrong! Time is relative as per Einstein. As for why we should see all the matter (stuff) that's entered the black hole actually hovering at the event horizon, it probably is hovering. But its visibility would at least be tempered by frequency shifting. Couldn't see it because as matter approaches the event horizon it also gets fainter, light frequency (or any radiation) becomes ever lower (Doppler) to the point that it would disappear to us back on earth. I also think there are other aspects that make it disappear to us back on earth. Although he didn't seem to venture too far into the subject, one interviewee mentioned the above apparent bizarre fact during the last Sky at Night (UK) TV program.

Couldn't agree more. So I refer to my previous: does anyone know how long do they have to keep on cooling the things with water (reportedly 400 tons a day); is it years, decades or centuries?

Well, that may be true, but I seem to recall reading somewhere (can't recall where) that they were simply going to dump the lot, it as it is (untreated), in the pacific! But what I seem to have read was that the things need 400 tons of water each day to cool. So to reduce the total amount they've got to clean more than that each day! A tall order to say the least, I'd say. And as for drawing up plans, presumably the plan for an earthquake and subsequent ingress of water was also drawn up. Presumably along with all the other stored waste that I understand they don't know what do with. I'm sorry, but I suggest the consequences - in particular the long term - of active isotopes and radiation upon living organisms is not known. The reason I quoted the swans (reply #7) on my local river was to highlight the apparent fragility of the difference between life and death. If the swans just managed to pass the coots all would doubtless be well, and the connection would not even be known about. I also quoted Morphogenesis and brainless cells managing to organise themselves and the possible fragility of that process - something I believe we've very little understanding. And similarly I suggest we have no idea whatsoever whether or not there's subtle adverse connections with nuclear power. All not scientific I know, but perhaps it's something we lose sight of at our peril. Also, it seems to me that there always seems to be confusion in the media about the difference between radiation and ingesting active isotopes. I'm not aware of any figure, but to me the dangerous bit is ingesting. Radiation one can walk away from (run preferably!), whereas ingested isotopes, one is stuck with them or it banging away at our tissues.

On a side issue, I take Sci Am and getting a tad disenchanted with it. I'd still like to know (if anyone does know) how long they have to keep on cooling the things with water and storing the outflow - like, how many years, decades or centuries? Because if it's either of the latter two, it seems to me that they have a very serious problem - if not an unsolvable one.

So how does the list of 'rights' prevent economic collapse? If anything, I'd suggest the list would in fact facilitate economic collapse. And I'd go further and suggest that contrary to what appears to be the basic idea of fairness, they are unfair. Take 23 of the first degree. How on earth is that fair? On the surface it might seem very fair, but in real life it isn't. For example, say I'm running a small company employing a couple of people. I'm required to pay them the requisite wage as you describe, but the company is going through a bit of a hard time. Consequently to keep the company afloat I find I've to take a reduced emolument (my wage). So who can I take action against for a wage lower than your ideal? In other words that one example has created a two tier society. Unfairness straight away.

Well, there's a lot there. Most of which I think is in the Magna Carta, but I defer to others if I'm wrong. But as I think I've mentioned previously, item 2 of the second degree I suggest render all the others meaningless. Armed forces have to be trained and that takes time. We have to have a system of recruiting. It may appear voluntary at the moment, but I think it is the case that conscription is only suspended while there is enough volunteers. But an absolute voluntary right of choosing to leave it to others to put their body parts on the line to protect the ideals of those who choose not to, I find quite disturbing. If one is not prepared absolutely to defend what you consider fundamental axioms, then those axioms are not worth writing down. If you want disharmony and insurrection then I suggest such an absolute right will create it. For example, just imagine a situation whereby solders are returning from defending the country with some of their comrades in bags, meeting those who were too submerged in their 'rights' not to bear arms?

Yes. Presumably the way we describe these things enables us to do descriptions and calculations. As I intimated above, the very idea of a 'photon' is a human construct. The thing probably doesn't actually exist, but as mentioned, is rather a countless sequence of events. I suppose the tricky bit is how or what causes the distributed infinite morass of events to somehow condense into a single event at the destination, giving us the illusion of a particle travelling from A to B!

From what I read they aren't solving it at all. But rather, simply confining the leak with barriers - something about freezing the ground. The fundamental problem seems to be the diabolical shambles with the melted reactors, and this water business is not a solution but a remedial attempt to keep the situation from being a runaway catastrophe. Does anyone know for how long this water cooling business is needed? It seems that if Chernobyl is anything to go by, these melted radioactive cores will remain difficult to deal with for a very long time. With untold amounts of cooling water which then needs to be stored. So what the long term solution will be I can't imagine - assuming there is what could be called a long term solution! The only good thing I can see is that the water tank construction industry is probably experiencing a bit of a boom, so it's not all gloom and doom!

That seems to be a human construct. There were two sets of events, as I described previously. I would suggest that's not one photon moving from source to observing point and then to destination. Yes that's right. So how can it be one object? And I understand we're not necessarily limited to two slits. We presumably can have any number of slits for the slit experiment and the photon will travel through the lot on the same journey. And my understanding of Feynman's paths is that they are not just paths, but interactions. Such that as soon as what we call a photon leaves the source it reacts and changes into other particle or particles, which then react again, and so on. As per Feynman's diagrams. So how could a photon have ever travelled at all or even existed!

I'm not disagreeing with you in terms that such would be nice. But by setting up control as you suggest one has to create suitable rules. But introducing rules, or new rules, simply changes the environment in which market forces operate. Market forces would still operate and be cold and brutal as I described. You will still be competing in the world market, and manufacturers will still move their operation abroad if it's cheaper. One also has to give consideration to one's customers, and perhaps that's why the Chinese are investing as mentioned. I also read the other day 27% unemployment in Greece. If you need to build a new factory, would you build it in a place with tight and controlling rules when your competitors have theirs in places with freer rules? As said, we might not like cold and brutal market forces, I can't say I like them too much, but I suggest we freely and willingly engage in them everyday without a second thought. Even brag about a good deal we might have got. We even like it so much we get very excited about free money - you know, winning a competition like the lottery.

It seems to me that by implying this thing we call a photon can be 'modelled' as you describe, we are doing nothing more than shoehorning what's really going on into a classical understanding. But I think we all know these things don't follow a classical understanding. It seems to me we've no evidence whatsoever that a photon travels from A to B. But rather whenever we observe it 'in flight', the situation changes, such that our observing point becomes a detector. In other words we presumably simply have the thing travelling from source to observing point, and then from the observing point to the destination, as I mentioned previously. We never observed anything 'in flight'. All we've observed is an event at the source and then another at the destination. What happened in between can only be imagined. As you suggest, we presumably can only understand the thing by modelling many - if not a infinite number of - paths. If I throw a ball from A to B, I only have to model one path to come up with a correct calculation. Mind you, I suppose some might say there maybe tiny errors in my calculation - like slight varying gravity in its trajectory occasioning a tiny relativity affect, maybe. But I think even that wouldn't require a multipath calculation. The conclusion seems to be is that the thing isn't real as a we understand a thing to be, therefore doesn't exist as we understand existence. So, trying to say it travels fails as a consequence. All we can say is we have a sequence of events.

It always behaves the same. Assuming that is that you accept it exists as a 'thing'. The wave pattern is one experiment. Observing activity at the slits and also observing what then happens at the destination is two experiments, and thus two sets of events. However one designs or constructs it, observing at one of the slits will be detecting it. Thus turning the observing point into not only a detector but a new source. Thus there will be one experiment from the source to a slit, and the other from a slit to the final detector. No double slit was involved in either experiment. And if you accept what I understand to be Richard Feynman's explanation, a photon doesn't 'travel' from source to destination, but rather the energy of what we call a photon is a myriad of interactions. Such that if one is able to construct a appropriate experiment one could possibly detect the said photon in all sorts of places. I suppose one could even argue whether or not there is even such a thing as a photon; leaving the situation whereby all we have is an event at the source and then an event at the destination. What happens in between is in the land of imagination - possibly the fairies!. Trouble is, we have mental hang up whereby because we have an event in one place and then a event a moment later at another place, whereby the second seems to follow the first, we make this ridiculous assumption that something has travelled from the first place to the second! The universe is a weird place.

I thought Kirchoff's law was to do with electrical current, such that the currents entering a given junction must equal the currents leaving it.

No it isn't. What determines the ability to compete is one's ability to deal and confront market forces. One might not like the apparent cold brutality of market forces, so detached are they from what we consider to be a compassionate society, but nonetheless it seems to me to be the thing we all engage in everyday. When we set out to buy something in a shop, we want to pay the lowest price for the best widget, food or whatever. We might not like it but we act in a cold and brutal way. For example, a friend of mind was complaining about the low wages his employer was paying him. But when he was shopping I noticed that he was very choosey and said: I'm not paying that price for those goods, I'm only buying it if it's £X! It's clear to me he was doing exactly the same as he was complaining his employer was doing! Why should his employer pay him more than he has to, the same as why should he pay more than he has to for things in a shop? It might appear detached from what we like to think is our caring and compassionate society, but that's the brutality of market forces, and something I suggest we all engage in every day. Something the EU is totally detached from. The EU mandarins like to portray themselves as some sort of essential requirement to enable market forces, but they aren't and they don't. They just burden and hinder market forces. That's why countries within the EU are overburdened with debt and essentially bankrupt, because they are overburdened with bureaucracy and rules and the policy of throwing money at problems.

Tell me I'm wrong, but the reason it doesn't work is that the system we (the west) have seems to have always required a cheap manufacturing process. Currently, it appears we need to import a considerable amount of cheaper goods from abroad. We simply couldn't make the widgets over here because the cost would be too high - which if we did would mean only a few would be able to afford them. And even with said cheap imports we still need to borrow shedloads of money each day just to stand still. And here in the UK I read recently the shedload amounts to £400,000,000 a day! Now that's serious money each day - just to stand still. You try manufacturing something here in the UK. How much paperwork have you got to deal with even before you can get a prototype made? Get it done aboard in (say) China and you might get a prototype in a couple of weeks. And you'll almost certainly get it manufactured at a price you could sell the thing. Just caught part of a TV prog the other day, apparently following an EU official on her daily activities. In simple terms and as far as I could see, it appeared that what she got up to was a mile (if not longer) away from the coalface. Pontificating about this and that in an ivory tower, attending meetings, all completely divorced from the cut and thrust of what's required in business. I'm sorry to be so bigoted, but such just gets right up my nose. I understand there's a lot currently at the G20. I saw them on TV, all full of how they are solving, or going to solve, economic problems. But it's those with their nose on the grindstone at the sharp end doing business, making money and overcoming the imposed financial and bureaucratic burdens that provide through taxation the financial support a country needs. And as a result are the ones that have any chance of solving problems.

Probably none at all. But this thread is about the EU. Just because the west and others in general are similar doesn't make it better or okay. Two wrongs don't make a right, as my parents used to say. If you want my overall view of the lot, it is that the economic system adopted by those you mention doesn't work. But that's off subject and I won't develop it further. I think we all know how the west has always got around economic conflagrations, it creates a bit - or maybe a bit more than a bit - of inflation to devalue the money in your pocket. Or to put another way, they rob you. Low interest rates and printing money devalues that hard earned pound, euro, dollar or whatever in your pocket.

I don't know what you're taking about. I never said coal was or wasn't worse than nuclear. I questioned the logic, science or even the philosophy of simply looking around for something worse, finding what you think is worse, and then saying on that basis nuclear is okay, nothing to worry about or whatever. Such an approach is so far away from science as to need a space telescope. My view is that considering the continuing problems of Fukushima (ignoring the basic idea of nuclear power), which from what I can glean could go on for a long time (maybe hundreds of years - or is it thousands?), the consequences of contaminating the landscape, I don't consider the things safe at all. Not forgetting the brave individuals who initially attended the site in an attempt to recover control when we saw those explosions on TV. And, how long have they got to keep cooling those melted reactors and storing who knows how much radioactive water in leaky tanks? Four hundred tons of cooling water a day, I understand!! And I also understand the knowledge of a melted reactor is very poor - just one more little snag. I for one can't see much of a problem attending a site of a busted coal power station, but I wouldn't go anywhere near a busted nuclear plant! Again, if you take the view that the things are safe, not much to worry about or whatever, then go there on your next holiday and help out sweeping up that leaking water. P.S. just caught a news report that the situation is a backbreaking, not to mention a financial nightmare that's just getting worse.

All very laudable, and rightfully so, but doesn't address the basic flaw or flaws with the EU. As someone once said: it's the economy, stupid. I'm sure we can all pick on all sorts of side issues: this bit, that bit, this rule, that rule and so on. But the underlying factor is the economy. The basic problem is borrowing money, and the reason why money is borrowed. Or to express it another way: earning one's keep and living within one's means. Each is clearly dependant and complimentary to each other, but they are something the EU is patently and clearly unable to deal with, or it seems, even willing to acknowledge. The euro has been running for over ten years and all they've done is encourage borrowing and blowing economic bubbles. A problem? Oh, just borrow a bit more, revalue assets and we'll get over it. Mind you, they don't call it borrowing, they apparently call it investment. And if that don't work, borrow - sorry, invest - a bit more. I'm sorry, that's not a way to run an economy.

As you seem stuck on this philosophy of justifying the disadvantages of something by identifying something that you consider worse, I was surprised that you didn't mention smoking - that's why I mentioned smoking. You may be right about coal, but I'm sorry that doesn't justify nuclear power. And the discussion here is about nuclear power. And I suggest justifying something by identifying something worse is also not scientific. I cast a viewpoint and you justify one diabolical process by comparing it to another possible diabolical process. Presumably you would claim your remarks to be scientific. And you still haven't responded to my query about popping down to Fukushima to help with the clean up. If you'd be unwilling to help do a spot of cleaning up, then I'm sorry, for me, your argument falls - perhaps book your next holiday as a working holiday down there.

That's right. Central control, rules controlling just about everything. Flourishing and feeding less need to strive resulting in diminished aspiration leading to decline and fall - not to mention the current penchant of spending money they don't have. Similar to said system.