>> ^Quboid:

What does the professor write on the board at the end?


he wrote -OH and ...H

it's a hydroxyl group and a hydrogen atom. he treated the zorro "z" as if it was a carbon structure (butane), with each corner representing a carbon. in this case it'd be butanol. but he should have written one more "...H" on that corner, since carbon has four valence electrons. or he could have omitted the single "...H" as they are implied to fill out the remaining carbon structure.

see here!

What about reactors that can't melt down? What about Ford Pintos that exploded when you hit them from the rear, that isn't a story of why all cars are dangerous, only Ford Pintos. What about a plane lands on a city and kills thousands, or the super dome and 10s of thousands? What if what if what if. 50 million people is a little showing of being irrationality scared. Even in the worst designed reactor incident in history, it wasn't as bad as that. If you looked closely, as well, the chart shows that nuclear has historically been safer that solar and wind (and hydro if you include the Banqiao Dam incident).

With that said, I do wish to see old light water reactor technology phased out and new, walk away safe reactors phased in. Engineered safety is less preferred than intrinsic safety that many of the new reactors have. Also, lets not forget, most of the navy is nuclear...meaning they feel safe enough to be in war time situations with current reactors, so engineered safety can indeed be very safe.

I have irrational fears as well, I hate to fly even though I know statistically it is safer than driving. I would suggest that your fear of nuclear is of the same nature. The only way you can kill millions of people with current or future nuclear technology is with bombs, not reactors. The only way reactors can "explode" is from a steam explosion or a hydrogen explosion...so about as bad as a fuel plant exploding, most likely several orders of magnitude less. IE, reactors explode chemically, not via fission, making no more or less dangerous that that other kinds of tech, with the exception of the fission byproducts. The good thing about most of the new nuclear tech is the fuel burn up rates are very very high, meaning there is less fuel involved in most cases.

At any rate, don't take my word for it, there is lots of data out there to look over. For my part, I think nuclear is the cleanest, safest bet for energy needs. I submit that nuclear is only scary because of it was first developed as a fearsome weapon. But the even more fearsome weapon are thermonuclear weapons, which are actually fusion/fission hybrid bombs. I would imagine for whatever reason you aren't super scared of fusion, and would wager that if thermonuclear bombs were called fusion bombs, the world at large would have a different mindset towards it...irrationally.

But I leave you with the facts, nuclear has been the leading sources of clean power which has also caused the least amount of deaths than other technologies. There are many factors in that, including massively engineered safety that continues to improve, as well as highly trained crews that watch over them. Coal miners die all the time, pipelines explode, oil platforms explode, people fall off roofs, or fall off wind farm towers, or get electrocuted...but none of these deaths cause the downfall of those technologies. Nuclear still has more drama in our minds, so plays out much differently when something goes wrong, which isn't very often ( 6 fatal occurrences since 1961) .

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html


I'm sorry are you comparing death rates between Coal and Nuclear Reactors? What if there's a meltdown or a terrorist attack and suddenly there's 50,000,000 people dead? It only takes one reactor outside of LA to do catastrophic damage you cannot compare the two NOW when we don't have a Fuckton of Reactors near population centers.
Comparing the two at this point in time is just ridiculous, the numbers are so skewed it's not even funny.

Maybe party balloons should be filled with hydrogen. Could be way more exciting than helium balloons.

edit: guess I should have finished the video before posting.

Most fuel cell vehicles get hydrogen from natural gas = emissions (though less than gasoline vehicles).

However, another problem is that fuel cell vehicles are incredibly inefficient, in the ways of 47%. As a comparison, gasoline vehicles are about 37% efficient while electric vehicles are 99% efficient.

It's certainly no magic bullet, but it's better than the shit we have now, that's for sure.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Glow, sticks, Diethyl Phthalate, hydrogen peroxide' to 'Glow sticks, Diethyl Phthalate, hydrogen peroxide, nurdrage' - edited by xxovercastxx

Is this where all the real chocolate went?

Wikipedia: In the United States, some large chocolate manufacturers lobbied the federal government to permit confections containing cheaper hydrogenated vegetable oil in place of cocoa butter to be sold as "chocolate".

yum

What I do for a living and what I do in my bedroom are polar opposites...

>> ^AgentSmith:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
I don't understand how this works. I read the articles and I am a little skeptical. I've designed fMRI and DTI algorithms for years and I don't see why they keep talking about fMRI and brain waves. fMRI is an activity map that is related to the hot spots in the brain where the hydrogen protons aligned by the magnetic field resonate to the frequency of the emitter (TR/Echo Time) and only show consumption of glucose (hydrogen protons motility) during a designed paradigm, which in this case would be having the subject watch a video. Diffuse Tensor Imaging will help map the neurons going there in case a surgical procedure is necessary, and that's about it. Extrapolating fMRI (a very coarse k-space reconstruction) to brainwaves (an EEG signal) and images sounds very suspicious to me, and nothing published so far explains how this is technically done. I understand the excitement and it certainly would be possible in the future, but under the current state of the art, I don't see how this is possible, especially with fMRI or Fractional Anisotropy.

...says "MonkeySpank", lol! Really, thank you for the insight, but the association between your well informed comment and your avatar is what did it for me.
This is what led me to believe that E = MC² --LoudBelcher78

>> ^MonkeySpank:

I don't understand how this works. I read the articles and I am a little skeptical. I've designed fMRI and DTI algorithms for years and I don't see why they keep talking about fMRI and brain waves. fMRI is an activity map that is related to the hot spots in the brain where the hydrogen protons aligned by the magnetic field resonate to the frequency of the emitter (TR/Echo Time) and only show consumption of glucose (hydrogen protons motility) during a designed paradigm, which in this case would be having the subject watch a video. Diffuse Tensor Imaging will help map the neurons going there in case a surgical procedure is necessary, and that's about it. Extrapolating fMRI (a very coarse k-space reconstruction) to brainwaves (an EEG signal) and images sounds very suspicious to me, and nothing published so far explains how this is technically done. I understand the excitement and it certainly would be possible in the future, but under the current state of the art, I don't see how this is possible, especially with fMRI or Fractional Anisotropy.


...says "MonkeySpank", lol! Really, thank you for the insight, but the association between your well informed comment and your avatar is what did it for me.

This is what led me to believe that E = MC² --LoudBelcher78

I don't understand how this works. I read the articles and I am a little skeptical. I've designed fMRI and DTI algorithms for years and I don't see why they keep talking about fMRI and brain waves. fMRI is an activity map that is related to the hot spots in the brain where the hydrogen protons aligned by the magnetic field resonate to the frequency of the emitter (TR/Echo Time) and only show consumption of glucose (hydrogen protons motility) during a designed paradigm, which in this case would be having the subject watch a video. Diffuse Tensor Imaging will help map the neurons going there in case a surgical procedure is necessary, and that's about it. Extrapolating fMRI (a very coarse k-space reconstruction) to brainwaves (an EEG signal) and images sounds very suspicious to me, and nothing published so far explains how this is technically done. I understand the excitement and it certainly would be possible in the future, but under the current state of the art, I don't see how this is possible, especially with fMRI or Fractional Anisotropy.

>> ^mintbbb:

>> ^ant:
music
Is it hard to clean up that mess?

Should not be. It is hydrogen peroxide, (which breaks down into oxygen and water), colored liquid soap (or soap and food coloring) and a little bit of catalyst (like potassium iodide). Basically you just have a lot of soapy foam with a bit of chemicals in it. As long as you don't try to slurt it up. mebbe wear gloves and hope the food coloring doesn't leave stains


Thanks.

>> ^ant:

music
Is it hard to clean up that mess?


Should not be. It is hydrogen peroxide, (which breaks down into oxygen and water), colored liquid soap (or soap and food coloring) and a little bit of catalyst (like potassium iodide). Basically you just have a lot of soapy foam with a bit of chemicals in it. As long as you don't try to slurt it up. mebbe wear gloves and hope the food coloring doesn't leave stains

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Actually, the FDA did not make the changes. >> ^blankfist:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
From Wikipedia:
In 2007, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association in the United States, whose members include Hershey, Nestlé, and Archer Daniels Midland, lobbied the Food and Drug Administration to change the legal definition of chocolate to let them substitute partially hydrogenated vegetable oils for cocoa butter in addition to using artificial sweeteners and milk substitutes.[8] Currently, the FDA does not allow a product to be referred to as "chocolate" if the product contains any of these ingredients.[9][10]

Oh snap! Thanks wonderful FDA for helping corporate douchebags to make American chocolate the worst in the world. We the people thank you.



Well then thanks American corporations for single-handedly making American chocolate the worst in the world. Hershey's blows.

Actually, the FDA did not make the changes. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
From Wikipedia:
In 2007, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association in the United States, whose members include Hershey, Nestlé, and Archer Daniels Midland, lobbied the Food and Drug Administration to change the legal definition of chocolate to let them substitute partially hydrogenated vegetable oils for cocoa butter in addition to using artificial sweeteners and milk substitutes.[8] Currently, the FDA does not allow a product to be referred to as "chocolate" if the product contains any of these ingredients.[9][10]

Oh snap! Thanks wonderful FDA for helping corporate douchebags to make American chocolate the worst in the world. We the people thank you.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

From Wikipedia:
In 2007, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association in the United States, whose members include Hershey, Nestlé, and Archer Daniels Midland, lobbied the Food and Drug Administration to change the legal definition of chocolate to let them substitute partially hydrogenated vegetable oils for cocoa butter in addition to using artificial sweeteners and milk substitutes.[8] Currently, the FDA does not allow a product to be referred to as "chocolate" if the product contains any of these ingredients.[9][10]


Oh snap! Thanks wonderful FDA for helping corporate douchebags to make American chocolate the worst in the world. We the people thank you.

From Wikipedia:
In 2007, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association in the United States, whose members include Hershey, Nestlé, and Archer Daniels Midland, lobbied the Food and Drug Administration to change the legal definition of chocolate to let them substitute partially hydrogenated vegetable oils for cocoa butter in addition to using artificial sweeteners and milk substitutes.[8] Currently, the FDA does not allow a product to be referred to as "chocolate" if the product contains any of these ingredients.[9][10]