Tv Prices The Same After The Super Bowl

small

Fukushima

The accident is very stable and now the news has shifted to the radioactivity has escaped, and probably still leaking. If the nuclear plant operation is complex to explain in a couple of minutes, the basic concepts of radioactivity are impossible. But this is the time to care which will grant you the media and their audiences.

The radioactivity is measured is a units that are rare, and this makes them tend to avoid the precise values \u200b\u200band in turn relate in proportion to a given reference "normal", "the legal limit "or something like that (see headlines 1 , 2 or 3 ). Since the biological effects of low doses of radioactivity are very rare and can only be established statistically, the information conveyed by these headlines it is terribly misleading.

If we consider small or moderate exposure to radioactivity (after I put numbers to these adjectives) which produces radioactivity is an increased likelihood of developing cancer in the future, a future of about 8 or 10 years for leukemia and 20 for other tumors. So how much is that likely? Calculation is difficult, since not much data available there is no choice but to extrapolate results from higher doses (from Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl in particular). But it's even harder to get a correct perception of the calculated data.

Bridging the gap is the same with the snuff. Smoking increases the chance of getting cancer, especially lung, but not exclusively. Perhaps the daily contact with the snuff counterintuitive allows us to analyze the effects of very small probabilities. Does smoking 6 cigarettes a day doubles the chances of getting cancer from smoking about 3? Would almost certainly say no, chances are the same and very small in both cases, indistinguishable from the likelihood of cancer but not smoking anything at all. On the other hand smoking 4 packs a day if we would think that increases the risk of cancer far more than smoking a pack ... well, that's assuming that they may be sustained for some time, several years at least. Does smoking a pack a day for 10 years doubles the likelihood of cancer who smoked a pack for 5 years? probably not. We understand that the risks (increased likelihood of getting cancer) associated with these events are very very small, and that in these ranges can not be applied directly arithmetic (double time or double the dose does not double the risk).

Still, smoking is prohibited by law in many places (most recently in all enclosed public places), it is forbidden to sell snuff to minors, restrictions on the advertising of snuff, etc. The authorities try to minimize risks population, even though these very small now.

The same goes for radioactivity. We live in an environment with a constant background level of a given value, generally small and variable from place to place. "Doubling the dose doubled the risk of getting cancer? Probably not even multiply by 100 (see this exciting display dose and the phenomena that cause them). This does not mean you have to go around playing with radioactive material as the "boy plutonium, but not be alarmed because the sea water near the plant" if it exceeds 300 times the legal limit "or because were to be found Pamplona radioactivity from Fukushima "increasing by 50% the background level." The latter has not happened yet, but would not rule in the coming weeks.

The Imagna is taken here.

Candy Striped Dolphin Shorts

Appearances in the media, and reliable means

I told a friend yesterday that resemble the nuclear Esteban Bethlehem, and not without reason, for me these days are calling all the local media. I have not said no to anyone. I think I should take advantage of opportunities that you have to give a technical view, realistic and set of facts, especially when there are other "colleagues" they are doing just the opposite ... In the end, then let the media appearances of which have reference, and then sources I consider reliable information to deepen the accident Fukushima and nuclear technology in general.

Navarra interview on Channel 4, Tuesday, March 15 night (I'm not physically "nuclear", but if I worked three years in Energy Systems Westinghuse Spain):

Statements channel 6 Navarra , Tuesday 15 March. I recorded a longer interview and cut three pieces, are at minute 5:15 in this VIDEO :

Opinion article in Diario de Navarra, Friday 18 March (see previous entry) Interview

back Diario de Navarra, Sunday, March 20 (held on Friday 18)

Radio National Radio 5 on Friday March 18, 19:10 (look for the audio to see if it is)

Onda Cero, Monday, March 21 13:40

Radio Euskadi, 19:20 Monday, March 21

UPNA Roundtable on "Myths and Realities nuclear " (Monday, 21 March). Will be in UPNA-TV:

March 30: in ETB (live at 16:30), a disaster ...
In Channel 4 in "A Room with a View" interview with Tasio Rubio. Molado this if you have to see if the link appears. April 1

Radio Universidad de Navarra (between 17 and 18) The audio is HERE , down to 17:00, the "Quicksand", the second hour. April 4
RNE R5, interview between 12:05 and 12:15 April 4
Chat Navarra Astronomy Association
April 8 Recording RNE R5 "listener response" dobre nuclear fusion.
April 12 interview on RNE R5 the accident report at 7, between 12:05 and 12:15 April 24
RNE R5 (Canary Islands) Living Planet Radio, see here, the program No. 133 ---------

----- Sources of documentation (which I consider reliable)

(not an exhaustive list, besides the will update):

- MIT Nuclear NSE
information hub - energy Corner Manuel Fernandez Ordoñez (and tweet )
- Yuri Slate, very detailed accident sequence with references to original sources of information.
- IAEA
- Office of the Prime Minister of Japan (Tuite English)
- Nuclear Science and Technology, in Midian + D
- how radiation affects the human body . Shora
RTVE - Viewing radioactive dose of xkcd

Where To Buy Crestwhite Strips In Singapore

I too agree

As you know, I really enjoy cooking and learning new recipes, and fortunately my husband, we love to eat good things and discovering new places, and do have a blog together that do reviews restaurants and food stalls in the region, it can be seen at: thepraegustator.blogspot.com but really was not going to talk about it today, rather I would assume this delicious dinner that I made my husband, what you see above are rice cakes with grilled eggplant, mozzarella cheese, tomatoes, cherries and spice, something simple and rich.

In fact, my husband always tries to do something good and healthy when he played cooking, and this time was no exception.

Student Discount Invisalign

nuclear risk

This text is published today (March 18) in Diario de Navarra

Pamplona is a city known worldwide for the running of their parties, an event in which young men risk their lives having fun in the transfer of the bulls from the corral to the square. No doubt that this activity entails a risk, a risk of death than runners voluntarily assume change is enjoy them. From a technical point of view you can define risk as the probability of harm, in this case death or serious injury. Moreover, the perception of risk does not correspond directly with the calculated probability. One of the most typical examples is the risk of death due to transportation, is well known that the probability of dying in a plane crash almost a thousand times less than in a car crash and yet the perception does not correspond to the data. Almost no one fears get in the car and many people fear the plane. Fear does not have to match the risk probability understood as art.

The accident at Japanese nuclear plant in Fukushima, the population has woken up in nuclear fear, but not only in the population can reasonably be affected by the event, but in the world. As they say the fear is free, but more details about the risks we face can help us better sobrellévalo.

When we think of nuclear energy, the risk we face is the risk of death from radioactive contamination. With the name of radioactivity we refer to a set of radiation with enough energy to affect the ionized matter. Radioactivity is a natural phenomenon with which we live every day, the sun, cosmic rays, rocks, soil and atmospheric gases bombard our body with radiation. In the case of radioactivity apply the aphorism that no poison but doses. People who receive a very high dose of radiation suffer widespread cellular damage leading to multiple disorders and rapid death, as were the "liquidators" that mitigated the Chernobyl accident at its peak or that of Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian exespía Wall in 2006 poisoned by radioactive polonium. Between this level so terrible and natural radioactivity in which we live every day what can we expect if Fukushima?

The accident is still evolving, and weather conditions also play an important role, but I think we risk a scenario in which roughly three different areas. A central area close to, say, about 5 km, in which the radioactivity is, it seems that it already is, very intense and should be avoided at all costs. A second perimeter of high radioactivity that if these people remain long times would be affected so that the likelihood of cancer throughout his life in a clearly noticeable increase. The extent of the area is heavily dependent on the details and not less than 20 km (bearing days and evacuated) nor more than 150 km Further exposure to radioactivity would generate a slight increase in risk of the likelihood of cancer throughout life. What is mild, 2, 15, 35 times? Do not think anyone can answer at this time, and depend very much on the details.

how you perceive the risk of increasing the likelihood of a cancer is a very personal matter, and the efforts to be done to help compensate each other in different ways. This explains the different approach of governments Japanese, French or American about the affected population.

And the risk of living to 180 km Garoña? The risk of death consequently be calculated by multiplying the probability of a severe accident at the plant by the consequences of that distance, without elaborating the result is extremely low. But advanced societies we are concerned about small risks, as evidenced by the recent law banning smoking in bars. Calibrate the tolerable level of each risk is a complex issue, but we must agree that closures and prohibit them run knowing that none of them are risk free because there is zero risk.

Posterior Prolapse Discs

Among

how much is being written these days about nuclear accidents I find much misinformed tabloid material and some articles with more technical detail than is useful for many people. After the previous article, I decided to write some notes on an intermediate level, avoiding details and numerical values. To see how I get.

From a normal operational nuclear power plant considered an initiating event: a breakdown, breakdown, etc. Start an accident. The aim of the operation in the management of the accident is to maintain the integrity of the barriers that close the nuclear fuel is more radioactive material is in the plant. Key to this is there to keep the core cooled. The core produces heat, and if it is not disposed of at the same rate as the temperature rises. This phase of the operation is very Procedures, the operations to be performed are determined by the readings of different instruments to collect data on the plant.

There are a series of postulated accidents, scenarios that are considered the worst thing that can happen in a plausible (albeit very unlikely), and emergency operating procedures are central to a secure long-term situation in all cases. In these scenarios it is assumed that the operator has a certain amount of support systems available to the plant, pumps, valves, pipes, motors, etc. That amount could be estimated at the half of which is the normal operating plant.

In Fukushima earthquake and tsunami have had to disable too many support systems, and has not provided the technical capacity to mitigate the initiating events.

If the management of accident is not successful in this first phase the nucleus is damaged. From that time called "severe accident." By producing more heat than it is evacuated its temperature rises steadily reaching its melting point. Both the nuclear fuel rods in which content will start to deform and finally merge. This situation has been analyzed theoretically and by simulation computer many times, but in reality has happened three times: at Three Mile Island (1975), where the core damage was quite limited, Chernobyl (1986), where the core is completely melted and Fukushima, where it is safe damage to the core but do not yet know the extent of it (not over and will not be the same in each reactor of the 4 that there are problems).

severe accident management I know much less than the previous phase, but to pursue the same goal: to keep the radioactive material contained everything possible. At this stage the available systems will be less than before and there will be areas of central operations contaminated difficult manuals. The decisions you make are no longer Procedures and the imagination of engineers comes into play more directly.

fuel rods must always be submerged in water, this is the minimum requirement for cooling. If you are in the air for some time, even partially, there are two sources of explosion. On one hand the material surrounding the fuel is decomposed to produce hydrogen, which will accumulate in the highlands and, mixed with oxygen in the air, can explode. On the other hand, fuel-air temperatures reach very high, and if you add water on them suddenly, the sudden evaporation produces a vapor explosion can be as destructive as those of hydrogen. Needless to say that these explosions will jeopardize, if not destroy, the structures that contain nuclear fuel, radioactive products released into the environment which we should avoid to the maximum.

At about this point is where Fukushima at this time. To further evaluate what is happening is very detailed, not enough data are available. It is not the same as the "injury" in a structure are a few cracks that its virtual disappearance. It is not the same as the kernel is based entirely or is deformed but almost solid.
news
If we see there is talk of more. There are additional problems, no doubt. Next to the reactor building is situated a swimming pool where spent fuel is stored in previous years for the plant. This pool also has to be kept filled and chilled (although the heat is greatly less than evacuate in the case of the kernel). If not cooled too overheated, boiled water and can damage the spent fuel, releasing radioactive material abroad. In comparison with the case of the nucleus, the amount of radiation is much smaller (and different type, make other isotopes).

From this point we should shift the focus to the environment of the plant. The plant is a source of variable intensity radioactive material (and currently quite low, thankfully), and it will be for a long period of time. (Continued)

modifcado The image I found from here

When Your Vision Looks Like A Kaleidoscope

few days ago appeared in the world press that a small Serbian seven years, Bogdan, had the uncanny ability to magnetically attract a few things. Your photo with the body full of spoons and some videos with impact caused by among some gullible. It is said that science had no explanation for such a particular phenomenon and Bogdan, a rechonchito with cool face, had the same quality from their earliest childhood. Even it is assumed that electrical suffer when the "child" magnetic approaches.

As in the ship did not believe any nonsense to us, we go where Benjamin Radford, editor of Skeptical Inquirer and author of numerous books including "Media Mythmakers" and "Tracking the chupacabras", that he and experience tell us what the hell happened with Bogdan. Radford kindly agreed and some of his statements were published in the Journal Latest News on Friday, February 25 .

"Little Bogdan is only the latest in a long list of people who say they have this ability. I've seen dozens of people like this, but almost none have been tested scientifically, "said Radford part. "The key to understanding this phenomenon lies in magnetism or some kind of mystical ability, but in the physics of friction. The skin is very elastic and tends to fit the shape of objects with which it comes into contact. This is especially evident on hot days when the skin sticks to leather or plastic. Sometimes the skin may appear adhesive for the same reasons, "added the specialist.

- What magnetism?

"This has nothing to do with magnetism. In fact, that non-magnetic material or non-ferrous as the dishes from sticking to the skin is proof. What they have in common metals, glass and plastics? All of them have smooth surfaces.

- So?

-The so-called "magnetic people" has a few characteristics in common. First, they have little hairs on their body. This is important because any hair that comes between the skin and the object will reduce friction. Second, magnetic people in the photos and videos tend to lean slightly backward, or remain more or less perpendicular to the ground. If there really some sort magnetism that will force the objects to get stuck in the body, the person should be able to bend.

-Bogdan appears without shirt. Why?

"Funny, but if the reason that the objects stick to the skin is not simple magnetism and friction of the skin, there is no reason to just stick to bare skin. The magnetic attraction also works through a role, and if the magnetism is as strong as they say, the magnetic person should be able to do the trick as well on the shirt.

- What is the mystery here?

"There is no secret or mystery, anyone who has seen a child with a spoon stuck in the nose has seen this phenomenon. "These people are cheating to find care or really believes in his powers? They actually think they have these special skills. Have to prove what I say is simple: at home, you apply a light coat of oil on the skin and see how things stick in it.

Lacrosse Slogans For A Store

Evolution of the nuclear accident nuclear accident 7 ideas

This morning has been an explosion in Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant. All Japanese nuclear plants have been seriously affected by yesterday's earthquake. Many things are being published, most inaccurate. It is not easy to know exactly what is happening, they probably would not have enough information (or analysis capability) to know of so imminent. Yet there are some things worthy of comment to see what we can expect and what the point of no return. In the 3 years I worked at Westinghouse Spain, one of the things we did was simulated nuclear accident with a very good simulator. See if the following lines I can summarize the main ideas of the case, by way of headlines:

1 .- Nuclear plants never produce "nuclear explosions" as the atomic bomb. For the construction itself never achieved the conditions for this situation.

2 .- When the integrity of the core remains, that is not blown, we are at a level of accident while it may free up a lot of radiation to the outside and be severe, is controllable and will be corrected in the medium term.

3 .- If the core melts category change. This is what is called a "severe accident", and the ability to manage the situation will be much more limited, even in the long term. The release of radioactivity to the outside is inevitable, large and durable.

4 .- At the beginning of the accident chain reaction ceases. The concern from there is the residual heat. Spent fuel is highly radioactive, is naturally fissile generaldo hundreds of MW (megawatts). Management accident has to focus on core cooling, evacuating the residual heat to prevent hot enough to melt.

5 .- In addition to cooling the core is to maintain the integrity of the barriers that keep radioactive material contained. This is already very variable depending on the type of plant, there are both barriers and strategies for their maintenance. In any case, if the core melts lost the main barrier contains spent fuel, which is the most radioactive of all.

6 .- there are still no precise diagnosis of what it occur, it operates according to some "emergency operating procedures" that will indicate what needs to be done algorithmically, based on measurable symptoms in indications of safety instrumentation. These procedures were generated from the accident at Three Thousand Island, and is to refine and verify that there have been thousands of simulations of accidents.

7 .- If the core melts, mass produce nuclear fuel and other materials (rods, part of the vessel) paste, which produces its own heat which specialists call "corium" and we can see as lava volcano, just not cools, produces its porpio heat. The only case that occurred at Chernobyl really was, and still there medioenterrado a "sarcífago" cement.

information I get from Japan will not let you know how close the possible occurrence of a meltdown. Somewhere I read that many hours have been a total loss of electrical power (diesel or even batteries). If this were so, it certainly could have approached this situation. But neither the official notes of the company or other sources guarantee that end. Moreover, the explosion may have occurred in an auxiliary building and not in the reactor ... Let's wait. In any case, radioactivity in the environment will be safe, like smoke in the vicinity of the refineries that are burning. Is the extent we can not calibrate.

The source more "serious" I'm following is THIS , which they say is well proven and technically sound ... but little change is updated. Between an update and another on Twitter and have read several atomic bombs.

DISCLAIMER: Throughout the text "fusion" refers to change of state, to liquefaction. In any case nuclear fusion. As if there was any doubt.

Church Welcome Letter To New Members

The status of the Nobel Prize PDI

I leave a meeting where union representatives tell us about their position in negotiating the "statute of PDI, a document which seek to collect the rights and duties of university teachers.

Last night I had the opportunity to attend live event , a little media, in which three gurus of science (so called today Diario de Navarra ) ramble on a bit about where we are today and where we might go with nanotechnology. There were also interesting drifts on the social responsibility of researchers (subject of concern for the Nobel Prize Harold Kroto) on the social role of science or the ridiculousness of unscientific teaching issues (such as creationism or intelligent design USA). Scientifically not entered into almost any detail, but it was very entertaining. With a sympathetic tone, very in tune with the public and answer them without losing rigor motley questions or interest.

The clash between the two views was too much for me. Will be true about the multiverse and both events have taken place in parallel universes.

From a trade union view is good teaching career split (and officials) in 6 stages, having to "consider" in all cases. These reviews should include every conceivable aspect to which it may legitimately give a teacher, and be considered algorithmically, even to the self. We must greatly facilitate internal promotion, and hinder mobility, both between universities and between them and the company ("the end of the civil servants are" sic). So it is assumed that others are called inbreeding since the public has asked that what they are for the entrance examinations if you are already enabled. Anyway, now I understand and share much more J. article Adolfo de Azcarraga in El Pais few days ago. In fact I'm tempted to join the signatories (over 1600 now) of manifesto against the status of PDI , if it were not I am radically opposed to the motions of censure purely destructive; gladly sign an alternative text, but of course for that you need to write first.

By definition faculty are scientists, each discipline (although one of them is a little confusing the term). I can not imagine how the application of a statute like the one intended (or any other document that shares the same "values") could lead to people like the speakers last night. That vision misunderstood union protects mediocrity (which in itself is not bad) by way of attack and discourage excellence. In this way we will not award Kroto Nobel as Harld out of our universities, let alone being hired after receiving the award.

Incidentally, it should care very little even to our academic authorities, because no one appeared at the public yesterday, or any other, nor the summary of press UPNA relevant that a Nobel Prize visit our university ... Where will your priorities our current leaders?

How To Hook Up Dua Receiver From Dish

The hum of fluorescent Calculate

In my office at the University of lighting consists of fluorescent tubes. A few months ago broke a and changed, so badly that buzzes a bit. When you're talking to alguine barely noticeable, but in silence is very disturbing. Sitting in the chair, if I move to the left or right increases or decreases the buzz almost canceled. Is that possible or is an illusion of some sort? I have no good pictures of the scene, but I have taken steps, and come to be those shown in the figure below. The fluorescent tube is about five feet above my head, right there is a wall a meter, and the maximum difference in sound (from maximum to minimum) occurs when I move horizontally about 30 cm. The latter is what it purports to represent in the scheme with two ears.

Suppose that the sound reaches my ears in two ways, first straight line, and another bouncing off the wall on the right. Then the two waves "interfere" in the point where they are maximum and minimum will be canceled, while where there are two peaks will be double the sound intensity. Just the topic of wave interference, as we cited in the previous entry (especially to illustrate that is not the same understanding that compute ).

I have fun in doing the exercise in trigonometry that calculating the paths of sound waves. The difference between the vertical path and bounced off the wall are 210 cm, while in the case of displaced orja 30 cm, the difference between direct and reflected path is 36.2 cm.

To finish we need to check the matter a fact, the frequency of tinnitus. The electric current to power the fluorescent, as any European power network, is alternating current at 50Hz. The sound is likely due to magnetizing current to any part that moves against another right at the same frequency, 50 Hz is also reasonable because it is an audible hum (the human ear from 20 to 20,000 Hz) quite serious. Almost all electrical appliances that make it hum at 50 Hz

If the sound is moving at 340 m / s in a cycle network (such that there are 50 in each second, which is what the 50-Hz) travel 340/50 = 6.8 m. So a full wave, one wavelength is 6.8 m. Between the maximum and zero crossing is a quarter wavelength, thus 170 cm.

do not know if my attempt to explain the thing saving drawings and formulas will have been even more confusing, but the end result is that it is consistent, that a shift in the ear of 30 cm is compatible with a range of 1 / 4 wavelength, a clearly audible difference.

Although everybody wave interference, a priori does not seem easy to find in everyday life, is that we find in the hum of electrical appliances when heard under certain conditions (not so rare).

Why Does Your Body Ache After You Drink

not is to understand

Leo a tweet today in which a student is glad to have read a popular book before starting with the issue in his career (of Physics). A couple of weeks I consulted a high school student did not understand the topic of wave interference. His notes began, "are two waves of the same frequency and amplitude and same phase." Perhaps the waves of different frequencies do not interfere? Could put many examples the same phenomenon: the illusion figure, regardless of whether they really understand the phenomenon that one calculates. A problem affecting the teaching of science (at least in physics). Well, I find a problem, may come from any conception of teaching that propagates only from the ability to formulate mathematically a phenomenon and operate with ease this representation is called the phenomenon. If there is disagree with it.

In my opinion there are three steps well separated that there would never be forgotten: (i) The natural phenomenon, (ii) the model is the phenomenon and (iii) the mathematical formulation model (and subsequent calculations.)

The real question before was, I was the student the "waves of different frequencies interfere? The answer is that yes, of course interfere, but it is much more difficult to calculate the formula that gives the amplitude of the wave at every point and instant. Well, that answer is not clearly gave his teacher, confusing the calculation with the phenomenon (at that time at least, probably in another context clearly understood the difference.) The class of the fascinating subject (to my truth that I find beautiful) interference of waves was limited to "prove" the formula of interference in one dimension the case of same frequency and same amplitude. From there to do a couple of academic problems, which can be done with a formula as a particular case. How will generate scientific vocations to the teaching approach? Today is especially bloody, because there is no need to mount complex experiments to enjoy the events, you can find all events in the network.

Indeed, the topic of wave interference seemed very instructive the following video, in less than 4 minutes presents the experimental system, the basic phenomenon and its statistics in a range of situations (well over which can be easily calculated).