Geoengineering

More
18 years 8 months ago #16984 by Mikko
Replied by Mikko on topic Reply from Mikko Penttilä
I' not qualified to comment on the question itself but i think anyone posting an opinion should be required to state WHY they hold that opinion.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 8 months ago #17103 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Not knowing hours of less serious accidents, I converted Greenwich syzygy dates, to dates at accident sites. The Rochester accident was eliminated because syzygy was four minutes before midnight. The Tomsk and Three Mile Island accidents were eliminated because for them, syzygy was about two hours on the wrong side of midnight (although Three Mile Island occurred only six hours after syzygy). Thus three syzygy accidents were lost and none gained by this correction. As a reasonable compromise, only two will be subtracted.

One of Allen Lutins' accidents was redundant. These corrections altered the grand total to five of 34, on dates of syzygy.

From the Wikipedia list of military nuclear accidents, I excluded those almost surely non-nuclear in origin, such as "plane crashed, onto warehouse containing nuclear material". I included those possibly nuclear in origin, such as "plane containing unarmed atom bombs (without cores but possibly with tampers) crashed & burned, faulty fuel cell blamed" or "radioactive object/material dumped by plane/ship, carelessness blamed".

The Wikipedia military list added two to the USSR nuclear submarine tally, one of which was on a new moon. This devastating 1986 accident probably was reliably reported because it happened near Bermuda, included a large explosion, and was reported almost immediately by Chairman Gorbachev to President Reagan. This brings the USSR nuclear submarine tally to one of twelve.

The remainder of the Wikipedia military list added 25 accidents, two on dates of syzygy. Inclusion brings the grand total to 8 of 61 (4.1 expected). The binomial significance of this is p=0.05.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 8 months ago #14596 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
The character of the syzygy accidents was:

Manhattan Project '44: explosion of UF6 gas
Idaho '55: partial core meltdown
Sellafield '57: reactor overheated and caught fire
US '64: accidental criticality during uranium recovery processing
Puget Sound '78: radioactive water released
Bermuda '86: explosion in submarine's nuclear missile tube
St. Petersburg '05: smelter splash

The three that were almost on a syzygy date:

Three Mile Island '79: partial core meltdown
Rochester '82: spill from breakage of steam generator pipe
Tomsk '93: explosion in chemical reaction vessel containing U, Pu

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 8 months ago #17303 by PhilJ
Replied by PhilJ on topic Reply from Philip Janes
It might be more accurate to say that GPS demonstrates a lack of measurable local variations in the velocity of aether relative to Earth. This can probably be extended to include Earth’s path around the Sun. If you had GPS in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri, you could compare it to that of Earth and perhaps detect anomalies that would suggest non-uniform movement of the aether. You theoretically cannot detect any uniform movement of aether, but if there are aether storms at some vast scale, you might detect them. Perhaps there are aether movements on a tiny scale—like inside a neutron or near the event horizon of an alleged black hole. We have no better chance to detect those than we do of detecting intergalactic aether drift.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 8 months ago #16985 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Thanks for the post, PhilJ!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 8 months ago #14598 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Let's define "Category A" as meltdown (even if "explained"), near-meltdown, fire due to core overheating, or dangerously and unexpectedly high yield. "Category B" would be accidental criticality, anywhere, excluding Category A. Category C would be explosion likely caused by radioactive material, and excluding Categories A and B. Assigning these categories required a few "judgment calls".

Of the 61 accidents above, two of 16 Category A accidents were on (and one very near) syzygy dates. One of 7 in Category B was on syzygy. Three of 14 in Category C were on (and one very near) syzygy. Overall, six of 37 were on syzygy (expected 2.5).

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.627 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum