Science News Thread (for articles that don't relate to ongoing discussions)

[DDE]

9 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Dear God... How did I miss this absurdity? 

Please tell me this is some kind of fiction? 

Are you telling me this was just arson and not a nuclear attack?

/s

 

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

Are you telling me this was just arson and not a nuclear attack?

I would say, Ayvazovskiy had painted this in 1851, and the descriptions thoroughly avoid the proton torpedoes (or nuclear-powered missiles), depicted on it.

This makes to think that the painter was drawing what he was said to, including the mysterious artifacts to distract the public attention from some real things, using the fake 1812 nuclear war (together with the XIX Global Flood and buried city building storeys) as camouflage.

P.S.
A funny fact: in Russian "yadro" means both "atomic nucleus" and "cannonball", so "yadernaya" ("nuclear") is a wordplay "cannonball artillery" / "nuclear artillery".

As they had no idea about atomic nuclei till 1910s, the wordplay could be constructed not earlier than in mid-XX.
(Personally I was joking so in 1970s/1980s school).

Related audio:

Spoiler

In Russian

 

In probably English

 

(Btw, on the coming UFO visit topic also.)

Edited August 14, 2023 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

P.S.
A funny fact: in Russian "yadro" means both "atomic nucleus" and "cannonball", so "yadernaya" ("nuclear") is a wordplay "cannonball artillery" / "nuclear artillery".

I was going to mention that pun. Many cannonballs were indeed exchanged that year.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

16 hours ago, DDE said:

Are you telling me this was just arson and not a nuclear attack?

/s

 

Photon Cannon balls? 

The above was caused by one of the first confirmed alien incursions 

 

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

 

 

The rare non-spherical space cow?

[steve9728]

Watched a video by Chinese National Geography about the biologists have discovered a new wild population of giant salamanders in Jiangxi, China - that is genetically pure and with a stable breeding ground. Science reprinted their article last May.

Spoiler

If you want to practice your Chinese, here's their video: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1sF411Z74r/?spm_id_from=333.337.search-card.all.click

[steve9728]

DJI launched a new delivery drone. It looks a lot more serious than the drones that some delivery companies in China have been assembling for themselves for a while now.

 

Meanwhile in the UK: UK's first drone mail service begins in Orkney

Spoiler

From my experience with Royal Mail, I believe they would send an annoying red little square card rather than the parcel itself.

"Sorry we missed you. Your items..."

Can you please knock my door gentlemen?

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by steve9728

[steve9728]

Xinhua: Chinese scientists achieve de novo artificial synthesis of hexoses from CO2

The paper itself: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2095927323005510?via%3Dihub

"The reaction time of the whole set of experiments was about 17 hours. Compared with the traditional method of extracting sugar from crops such as sugar cane, the duration of sugar acquisition has made the leap from 'years' to 'hours'."

[DDE]

Are the problems with SRB-based LVs and human rating fundamental or particular? Is it possible to build a crew LV using chiefly solid-propellant rockets?

[Terwin]

3 minutes ago, DDE said:

Are the problems with SRB-based LVs and human rating fundamental or particular? Is it possible to build a crew LV using chiefly solid-propellant rockets?

Aborting a solid rocket motor is difficult to impossible.

As such, at a minimum, your LES must be able to pull your capsule away from your launch system at the same time the launch system just got lighter and faster because it lost it's payload.

Solid rockets are not adjustable or restartable, and I am not aware of any way to light one after leaving the launch mount.

Even  gimbaling a solid rocket is very difficult, so a pure solid launch system would offer little to no ability to correct for atmospheric changes or anything else that is not 100% known before launch, including the solid fuel not burning 100% evenly.

As such, I do not see anything akin to our current solid boosters being able to get human rated without a liquid stage burning at the same time to provide those adjustments.

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, DDE said:

Are the problems with SRB-based LVs and human rating fundamental or particular? Is it possible to build a crew LV using chiefly solid-propellant rockets?

Wan Hu.

Watch Strange Angel for video.

7 hours ago, Terwin said:

Even  gimbaling a solid rocket is very difficult

All solid-fuel ICBM are gimballed. It's easier, due to the absence of fuel pumps.

7 hours ago, Terwin said:

Aborting a solid rocket motor is difficult to impossible.

They are aborted in the end of burning, by pyrotechnicaly opening windows at the rocket stage top.

7 hours ago, Terwin said:

so a pure solid launch system would offer little to no ability to correct for atmospheric changes or anything else that is not 100% known before launch

Solid SLBM like Trident even don't know, where they are, on equator, or at North Pole.

They just auto-adjust.

***

The Shuttle had very bad for humans lateral position of the SRB, with tops above the lateral ship, which made them a killer feature.

In case of classic scheme, they are just impractical fore anything but emergency launch (like ICBM and SLBM), and they are more expensive.

The only sense in using them is feeding your military rocket manufacturers.

Edited August 19, 2023 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

Now you're thinking with portals.

Spoiler

Felt like crap this morning and this cheered me up domrhow. Sorry that I had to share.

 

[darthgently]

9 hours ago, DDE said:

Now you're thinking with portals.

  Hide contents

Felt like crap this morning and this cheered me up domrhow. Sorry that I had to share.

 

Is there cake in that railroad dining car?

[steve9728]

Alright, the worst ever science news: Japan started discharging the nuclear wastewater in Fukushima RIGHT NOW 

As a Chinese who has elders in the family who were the victim of WW2 like many other Chinese, you can imagine what I want to curse. Since ancient times, Japan has been a civilization closely linked to the fishing industry. I really can't understand why they would choose to do that. Maybe in a while, we will see irresponsible b**t like "the Japanese of the past are the Japanese of the past, and the Japanese of the present are also the victims".

I don't hear any "How dare you" from Western media. But I'm not a bit surprised.

[kerbiloid]

They have to feed Godzilla with isotopes to calm it.

P.S.
I remember the lectures in the school and on Soviet TV, about Fukuryu Maru #5...

Edited August 24, 2023 by kerbiloid

[darthgently]

7 hours ago, steve9728 said:

Alright, the worst ever science news: Japan started discharging the nuclear wastewater in Fukushima RIGHT NOW 

As a Chinese who has elders in the family who were the victim of WW2 like many other Chinese, you can imagine what I want to curse. Since ancient times, Japan has been a civilization closely linked to the fishing industry. I really can't understand why they would choose to do that. Maybe in a while, we will see irresponsible b**t like "the Japanese of the past are the Japanese of the past, and the Japanese of the present are also the victims".

I don't hear any "How dare you" from Western media. But I'm not a bit surprised.

What will be the increase above existing natural radiation sources in ocean water once this discharge has diluted with the entire Pacific Ocean?  Or even 1/10 of the Pacific Ocean?  Honest question.  Significance matters.  My understanding was they have been filtering out radioactive solids and using other treatments for years on this stuff while its activity has been naturally decreasing and the residual water, while not entirely safe in its concentration in the tanks, poses extremely low risk to the much vaster ocean environment.  If released slowly over time the impact is below measurable. I very well could be missing something and welcome correction

[steve9728]

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

What will be the increase above existing natural radiation sources in ocean water once this discharge has diluted with the entire Pacific Ocean?  Or even 1/10 of the Pacific Ocean?  Honest question.  Significance matters.  My understanding was they have been filtering out radioactive solids and using other treatments for years on this stuff while its activity has been naturally decreasing and the residual water, while not entirely safe in its concentration in the tanks, poses extremely low risk to the much vaster ocean environment.  If released slowly over time the impact is below measurable. I very well could be missing something and welcome correction

How long it takes will those things arrive in Shanghai and San Diego? Here's a 2021 article: Discharge of treated Fukushima nuclear accident contaminated water: macroscopic and microscopic simulations

When they started to discharge it was 12:00 pm China time today - I was having lunch. I saw one of the reporters who was on the Fukushima coast carrying a Geiger counter, standing right there and not moving any. As 12 o'clock passed, the counter which had been at 0μSv/h for past at least 5 minutes, slowly rose to 0.5, then reached 0.7.

I sincerely hope it's just the radioactive dust blowing up because of the sea breeze rather than the seawater actually having something else strange in it - it's perfectly safe as the Japanese government thinks.

And, this discharge will last for 30 years. The good news is that this planet's oceans are large enough that the water will inevitably dilute this nuclear-contaminated waste. The bad news is that we've all learnt the common sense of biological food chain truism: this stuff will gradually enrich as it moves up the food chain. 

Edited August 24, 2023 by steve9728

[Terwin]

The oceans already have 500 times the known land-based uranium reserves, and water is a great buffer for radiation(roughly 1/10 the effectiveness of a similar depth of lead, but ionizing radiation just converts H2O into h2o2 which rapidly breaks back down to water, making it much safer long-term)

'cooling pools' where they have used radioactive fuel rods filling the bottom 1/3 of a 12m deep pool, are lower radiation environments for the first third of their depth than the normal background radiation.

Deep parts of the ocean would actually be good places to dump radioactive waste in slow-release containers if not for the risk of rogue actors collecting them for use in dirty-bombs, and legal issues with guarding a patch of international waters.

[steve9728]

13 hours ago, Terwin said:

Deep parts of the ocean would actually be good places to dump radioactive waste in slow-release containers if not for the risk of rogue actors collecting them for use in dirty-bombs, and legal issues with guarding a patch of international waters.

If there are physicists, chemists, customs and food control authorities in marine life, with no ocean current, of corse.

IAEA make a online website shows some data making it feels like real-time. But actually, nope. The last time they analyzed the results of the water in the ALPS pools before discharge was June 22. And it was the 1000 nuclides that were reduced to 210, then went to 62, and only measured 29 of this finally. Currently, the data that IAEA only showing is the upstream impoundment and only testing the tritium - forget those 29 nuclides people! And it’s just a sample test, with only 0.5L of several hundred tons of water tested.

And they haven’t measured those since June - I don’t know that much about radiation, but I still know how long it takes from June to August 

Every second of the entire Fukushima incident, from the time it hadn’t affected by the tsunami to the present, has been filled with greed, irresponsibility and cover-ups. From the local people, to normal Japanese people, it’s now just a matter of trying to deceiving all mankind and dragging the whole world down with them.

“If this water is safe, there’s no need to discharge it into the sea, and if it isn’t, it should not be discharged into the sea”

Edited August 25, 2023 by steve9728

[SunlitZelkova]

20 hours ago, darthgently said:

What will be the increase above existing natural radiation sources in ocean water once this discharge has diluted with the entire Pacific Ocean?  Or even 1/10 of the Pacific Ocean?  Honest question.  Significance matters.  My understanding was they have been filtering out radioactive solids and using other treatments for years on this stuff while its activity has been naturally decreasing and the residual water, while not entirely safe in its concentration in the tanks, poses extremely low risk to the much vaster ocean environment.

If they released it all at once there would be a problem, but they are doing it over 30 years so there is virtually no effect.

17 hours ago, Terwin said:

Deep parts of the ocean would actually be good places to dump radioactive waste in slow-release containers if not for the risk of rogue actors collecting them for use in dirty-bombs, and legal issues with guarding a patch of international waters.

Nuclear plants around the world often already release water treated for everything but tritium. So long as the release is not carried out all at once, there is little extraordinary about the plan.

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20230824_36/

4 hours ago, steve9728 said:

Every second of the entire Fukushima incident, from the time it hadn’t affected by the tsunami to the present, has been filled with greed, irresponsibility and cover-ups. From the local people, to normal Japanese people, it’s now just a matter of trying to deceiving all mankind and dragging the whole world down with them.

But South Korea is saying it’s fine and consistent with safety protocols and international standards.

I agree that TEPCO and the government are not to be trusted. But I don’t think the South Korean government, and especially not the IAEA, would lie.

4 hours ago, steve9728 said:

“If this water is safe, there’s no need to discharge it into the sea, and if it isn’t, it should not be discharged into the sea”

The reason they are discharging the water is because H2O is being continuously used to cool the molten fuel from when the reactor was damaged.

They only have a limited amount of space to store the water. They are closing to running out, so if they don’t release it, they will have no choice but to release untreated water into the ocean.

It is still not known how they are going to get rid of the molten fuel- if ever- and therefore it is imperative to make more space for water so it can be at least treated before release.

———
https://www.iaea.org/topics/response/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-accident/fukushima-daiichi-alps-treated-water-discharge/faq

FAQ on the water release from the IAEA. It covers things pretty well I think.

My main thoughts on this though are best described by the words of the Sakamoto Masanobu, the head of a Japanese fishery association- “scientific safety and the public’s peace of mind are different matters”.

I feel very bad for the fishermen who are having this forced on them.

[steve9728]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I feel very bad for the fishermen who are having this forced on them.

Yep.

The good news and only for Chinese people is, that western China has large areas of saline soil, and a good part of that is due to the fact that hundreds of millions of years ago this was an ancient ocean. That means that if it's true that the oceans can no longer provide seafood that people can feel comfortable with, we can still ration the water by ourselves in the right proportions for inland mariculture in these places where nothing can be grown nowadays. And the experiments for this have been proven successful.

But the innocent fishermen who have been affected or will be affected have no choice, none at all. And that is happening in Japan.

Edited August 25, 2023 by steve9728

[steve9728]

If there had been a few years ago, I would have agreed with South Korea. But you see, time is change. 

OK, I hear the alarm. Just stop this right there.

IAEA wouldn't lie because:

Quote

The information and data on this webpage are provided by Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, Incorporated (TEPCO). The Agency will monitor the status and operation of installed equipment as part of its continuous presence at the site.

https://www.iaea.org/topics/response/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-accident/fukushima-daiichi-alps-treated-water-discharge/tepco-data

They also don't have choices lol

[Jacke]

On 8/24/2023 at 11:42 AM, darthgently said:

What will be the increase above existing natural radiation sources in ocean water once this discharge has diluted with the entire Pacific Ocean?  Or even 1/10 of the Pacific Ocean?  Honest question.  Significance matters.  My understanding was they have been filtering out radioactive solids and using other treatments for years on this stuff while its activity has been naturally decreasing and the residual water, while not entirely safe in its concentration in the tanks, poses extremely low risk to the much vaster ocean environment.  If released slowly over time the impact is below measurable. I very well could be missing something and welcome correction

Despite many accidents over the years, the largest sources of threatening radioactive exposure remains the same:

• Radioactive material going up the flu of coal-burning plants (which exceed what's allowed for nuclear power plants because it's "natural" radioactivity).
• In some regions, radon gas leaching from the ground from the radioactive decay of uranium ores in some locations.

The problem with Fukushima is TEPCO went cheap on risk management when they did their threat assessment and didn't build a high enough sea wall.  The Tohoku Electric Power Company didn't skimp when they designed the Onagawa nuclear power plant and it was even closer to the landfall of the tsunami.

https://thebulletin.org/2014/03/onagawa-the-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-that-didnt-melt-down-on-3-11/

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

I always enjoy stories like this that mix a little science with art and real world stories. 

This is about lightning 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-science-and-art-of-lightning/

 

The interesting part for me is how technical she is with sensors and whatnot.  Back when I lived in AZ I would occasionally take pictures of distant (or nearby) storms with an SLR.  My technique was to fiddle with the settings and then with the camera on a tripod and a short cable hold the shutter open until I saw lightning. 

Wasted a lot of film - but when I did get a good shot it was glorious! 

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

This is about lightning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catatumbo_lightning