new | show | ask | jobs Github

TheSpiceIsLife 2 days ago

> around nuclear power plants

Exactly what I said.

> This is not true at all

Yes it is.

I mean, if you’re going to dispute my point without providing any evidence, then all we’ve got is opinions.

If we’ve got data, let’s go with the data. If all we’ve got is opinions, let’s go with mine.

▲

Retric 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I mean, if you’re going to dispute my point without providing any evidence

Pure Americium-241 is extremely radioactive 0.0000045 grams of the stuff puts off useful amounts of radiation for smoke detectors, it’s half life is also 432 years.

As an alpha emitter it’s not that bad to stand next to but internally it doesn’t take much to be lethal.

▲

TheSpiceIsLife 2 days ago | parent [-]

Awesome. So how does one go about diverting this from nuclear waste storage to the diet of average citizens, as an act of terrorism?

Also, I don’t know how to gauge “useful amounts of radiation for smoke detectors”.

α-particles can be stopped by a sheet of paper.

	▲	Retric a day ago \| parent [-]
		> diverting this from nuclear waste storage This is a manufactured product not waste from a nuclear reactor. We use it because it’s an alpha emitter, there’s harder to shield material with similar half lives they are just less useful. I bring this up because longer half lives don’t mean safety. If you’re looking for a weapon, salted nukes are the stuff of nightmares if they use something with a month long half life or several hundred years. > I don’t know how to gauge And that’s the issue here, you need to do some more research before making such statements.

▲

ImPostingOnHN a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Exactly what I said

Actually, it's exactly what I said. Here's the quote:

>It is largely in cooling pools and piling up in empty lots around nuclear power plants, waiting for safe, secure storage to appear.

See? Exactly.

> Yes it is.

No it isn't.

> I mean, if you’re going to dispute my point without providing any evidence

lol, you never provided us with any in the first place! Why would I waste more time and effort disproving some claim of yours, than you spent trying to prove the original claim in the first place? That'd be falling for gish gallop.

Until you produce sufficient evidence to convincingly prove that your original claim is true, we can safely assume it is not. So, onus is on you: It's up to you to prove your own point, nobody else. If you’ve got data, let’s see the data.