Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 3/14/2022 2:15 PM, carl eto wrote:
>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-8,
>>> carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you seen photos of the ISS taken from the earth?
>>>
>>> https://mashable.com/article/space-station-moon-transit-phot
>>
>>
>> I did not know that the ISS is orbiting the MOON!
>
> Why did you conclude that? The image is a (beautiful!) picture of the
> ISS in front of the moon.  Which is exactly what you'd expect if the ISS
> was orbiting the earth (not moon) but transiting in front of the moon.

Given the level of stupidity of all "carl eto" and "thor stoneman"
(both being sock puppet of someone posting from Humboldt State
University) posts it is likely that he is a pure troll.

Several abuse reports have been sent to abuse@humboldt.edu.

On Tuesday, 15 March 2022 at 16:37:56 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 3/14/2022 2:15 PM, carl eto wrote:
> >> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-8,
> >>> carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Have you seen photos of the ISS taken from the earth?
> >>>
> >>> https://mashable.com/article/space-station-moon-transit-phot
> >>
> >>
> >> I did not know that the ISS is orbiting the MOON!
> >
> > Why did you conclude that? The image is a (beautiful!) picture of the
> > ISS in front of the moon. Which is exactly what you'd expect if the ISS
> > was orbiting the earth (not moon) but transiting in front of the moon.
> Given the level of stupidity of all "carl eto" and "thor stoneman"

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend a wise one.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

Psychotic deluded imbecile Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 March 2022 at 16:37:56 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2022 2:15 PM, carl eto wrote:
>>>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-8,
>>>>> carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you seen photos of the ISS taken from the earth?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://mashable.com/article/space-station-moon-transit-phot
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did not know that the ISS is orbiting the MOON!
>>>
>>> Why did you conclude that? The image is a (beautiful!) picture of the
>>> ISS in front of the moon. Which is exactly what you'd expect if the ISS
>>> was orbiting the earth (not moon) but transiting in front of the moon.
>> Given the level of stupidity of all "carl eto" and "thor stoneman"
>
> Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
> and trying to pretend a wise one.
> Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
> a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
> See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
> it has to be formulable in the language of the
> theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
> that, poor stinker?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> In the meantime in the real world, Peano arithmetics
> is a theory of numbers, not about theories. Godel's
> theorem isn't a part of it. Godel has concocted a brandly
> new theory, but somehow he has forgotten to
> specify its assumptions.
> There are some other reasons why his theorem has no
> value, but they're all too muchg for [...]

If you really want your confusion and misconceptions about
Gödel's theorems to be addressed, please explain what assumptions
"Gödel somehow forgot to specify" according to you, as well as the
"other reasons why his theorem has no value" on sci.logic.

Maciej, you filthy dog rubbing your dirty dick on every leg
around this place, you'll get NOTHING more that a kick in
the ass, as you deserve.

On Tuesday, 15 March 2022 at 16:37:56 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 3/14/2022 2:15 PM, carl eto wrote:
> >> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-8,
> >>> carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Have you seen photos of the ISS taken from the earth?
> >>>
> >>> https://mashable.com/article/space-station-moon-transit-phot
> >>
> >>
> >> I did not know that the ISS is orbiting the MOON!
> >
> > Why did you conclude that? The image is a (beautiful!) picture of the
> > ISS in front of the moon. Which is exactly what you'd expect if the ISS
> > was orbiting the earth (not moon) but transiting in front of the moon.
> Given the level of stupidity of all "carl eto" and "thor stoneman"

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend a wise one.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 2:22:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > > Are you saying that the GAIA is not a telescope?
> > No, Where do you get that idea?
> > GAIA has two built in telescopes, with a common focal plane.
> > These are used to measure stellar positions.
> > (to an accuracy that is far greater than its optical resolution)
> >
> > Jan
> Then please when you have time to spare answer this question that you seem
> to be reticence to answer.
>
> How can the GAIA have a resolution of .1 millarcsecond (which you
> have stated) which is three order more powerful than the Hubble
> (.1 arcsec) when the Hubble has a larger mirror?

No quote mining please.
That 0.11 milliarcsecond came up as the standard deviation in the
measurement of the parallax of the Pole Star (by Hipparcos)
As quoted in <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris>

You really should rid yourself of the idea
that the precision of astrometry is somehow limited
by the resolution of a telescope,

Jan

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 1:15:35 PM UTC-5, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Have you seen photos of the ISS taken from the earth?
> >
> > https://mashable.com/article/space-station-moon-transit-phot
> I did not know that the ISS is orbiting the MOON!

https://www.pyramidinternational.com/assets/img/products/PPR45534_2

Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 3:59:34 PM UTC-7, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> > How can the GAIA have a resolution of .1 millarcsecond (which you have
> > stated) which is three order more powerful than the Hubble (.1 arcsec)
> > when the Hubble has a larger mirror?
> >
> https://public.nrao.edu/ask/which-telescope-better-higher-resolution-hubble-or
-vlba/
>
> Hubble has a resolution of 0.03 arcsec... please write this down so you
> don't forget it...

And Hubble has a pointing accuracy of 0.007 arcsec.
Nice puzzle for carl eto: how is it possible that the Hubble telescope
has a pointing accuracy that is 4 times better than its resolution?

Jan

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 1:15:35 PM UTC-5, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-8, carleto4...:
> > >
> > > > Have you seen photos of the ISS taken from the earth?
> > >
> > > https://mashable.com/article/space-station-moon-transit-phot
> > I did not know that the ISS is orbiting the MOON!
>
> https://www.pyramidinternational.com/assets/img/products/PPR45534_2

And we also know from photographs that occasionally
a 747 can orbit the moon. For example:
<https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/flight-silhouette-over-moon-planes-flying-front-full-moves-across-196037430.jpg>
Google yields many more.

Space travel is easier than NASA wants you to believe,

Jan

https://www.pyramidinternational.com/assets/img/products/PPR45534_2

On 3/17/2022 2:58 PM, thor stoneman wrote:
> https://www.pyramidinternational.com/assets/img/products/PPR45534_2

Are you claiming that ET was orbiting the moon in the movie?

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 5:41:34 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 11:45:40 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 11:15:35 AM UTC-7, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-8, carleto4...:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Have you seen photos of the ISS taken from the earth?
> > > > >
> > > > > https://mashable.com/article/space-station-moon-transit-phot
> > >
> > > > I did not know that the ISS is orbiting the MOON!
> > > Your huge ignorance is showing again... did you read the article? Did
> > > you not see where the ISS was at an altitude of 450 km at the time of
> > > the photo? Is that anywhere near the moon?
> > >
> > Then it looks photoshoped since you cannot possibly focus the ISS and the
> > Moon's surface in the same picture.
> They are both 'at infinity', as far as your camera is concerned,
> (distance much larger than focal length)
>
> In a previous posting I wondered
> if you had ever looked through a telescope.
> Now I am beginning to wonder if you have ever worked with a real camera.
> (with a lens, with a focussing ring, so not just some phone)
>
> Jan

You are patently incorrect, the ISS is much closer to the observer and the Moon. The photograph was photoshoped.

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 2:14:32 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 2:22:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > > > Are you saying that the GAIA is not a telescope?
> > > No, Where do you get that idea?
> > > GAIA has two built in telescopes, with a common focal plane.
> > > These are used to measure stellar positions.
> > > (to an accuracy that is far greater than its optical resolution)
> > >
> > > Jan
> > Then please when you have time to spare answer this question that you seem
> > to be reticence to answer.
> >
> > How can the GAIA have a resolution of .1 millarcsecond (which you
> > have stated) which is three order more powerful than the Hubble
> > (.1 arcsec) when the Hubble has a larger mirror?
> No quote mining please.
> That 0.11 milliarcsecond came up as the standard deviation in the
> measurement of the parallax of the Pole Star (by Hipparcos)
> As quoted in <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris>
>
> You really should rid yourself of the idea
> that the precision of astrometry is somehow limited
> by the resolution of a telescope,
>
> Jan

The standard deviation or resolution (uncertainty) is the resolution (uncertainty) of a telescope which still begs the question:
How can the GAIA have a resolution of .1 millarcsecond------- (which you have stated) ------which is three order more powerful than the Hubble (.1 arcsec) when the Hubble has a larger mirror? You cannot simply change the name of something to justify it.

You are patently incorrect, the ISS is much much closer to the observer then to the Moon. The photograph was photoshopped. Example, I cannot view a mountain 250 miles away than turn the telescope toward the moon, without making any adjustments, and have a focused view of the moon.

JJ what you want and wish is different than what is.

I want to lick Taylor Swift's face and pet her cats but I have never met her. So, in reality, it would not be physically not be possible to accomplish the said activities.

On Monday, March 21, 2022 at 1:15:37 PM UTC-5, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> You are patently incorrect, the ISS is much much closer to the observer then to the Moon. The photograph was photoshopped. Example, I cannot view a mountain 250 miles away than turn the telescope toward the moon, without making any adjustments, and have a focused view of the moon.

Suppose that you have a camera with a 1000.000 mm focal length
telephoto lens.

To focus on the Moon, the distance between lens and CCD array
should be 1000.000 mm.

To focus on a mountain 250 miles away, the distance between lens
and CCD array theoretically should be increased to 1000.002 mm.

In practice, a couple of microns makes no difference in the quality
of focus.

You've GOTTA be trolling.
NOBODY can be as stupid as you are pretending to be.

On Monday, March 21, 2022 at 3:24:04 PM UTC-7, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 21, 2022 at 1:15:37 PM UTC-5, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You are patently incorrect, the ISS is much much closer to the observer then to the Moon. The photograph was photoshopped. Example, I cannot view a mountain 250 miles away than turn the telescope toward the moon, without making any adjustments, and have a focused view of the moon.
> Suppose that you have a camera with a 1000.000 mm focal length
> telephoto lens.
>
> To focus on the Moon, the distance between lens and CCD array
> should be 1000.000 mm.
>
> To focus on a mountain 250 miles away, the distance between lens
> and CCD array theoretically should be increased to 1000.002 mm.
>
> In practice, a couple of microns makes no difference in the quality
> of focus.
>
> You've GOTTA be trolling.
> NOBODY can be as stupid as you are pretending to be

You cannot be serious. Are you saying the focus of a telescope at 250 miles is the same as 250,000 miles?!!!

Where did you get this GAIA resolution of .1 millarcsecond or point uncertainty as you call it.

Gaia DR2 Overviewhttps://www.iau.org › science › divisions › BrownPDF
Oct 27, 2018 — Angular resolution limited to 0.4–0.5 arcsec ... binaries that are in principle resolved by Gaia ... Astrometric performance Gaia DR2.

https://tubitv.com/movies/543987/parker?start=true&utm_source=google-feed&tracking=google-feed

On Monday, March 21, 2022 at 5:53:29 PM UTC-5, thor stoneman wrote:
> On Monday, March 21, 2022 at 3:24:04 PM UTC-7, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, March 21, 2022 at 1:15:37 PM UTC-5, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > You are patently incorrect, the ISS is much much closer to the observer then to the Moon. The photograph was photoshopped. Example, I cannot view a mountain 250 miles away than turn the telescope toward the moon, without making any adjustments, and have a focused view of the moon.
> > Suppose that you have a camera with a 1000.000 mm focal length
> > telephoto lens.
> >
> > To focus on the Moon, the distance between lens and CCD array
> > should be 1000.000 mm.
> >
> > To focus on a mountain 250 miles away, the distance between lens
> > and CCD array theoretically should be increased to 1000.002 mm.
> >
> > In practice, a couple of microns makes no difference in the quality
> > of focus.
> >
> > You've GOTTA be trolling.
> > NOBODY can be as stupid as you are pretending to be
> You cannot be serious. Are you saying the focus of a telescope at 250 miles is the same as 250,000 miles?!!!

As I said, *** NOBODY *** could be as stupid as you are pretending to be.

You just want to waste our time.

I Am really stupid! So, please explain it to me in that case I would not have to waste anymore of you extremely precious time and I would be as smart as you precious. Wouldn't that be wonderful which would allow me to ask the bus driving today. "Bus driver----- does this bus go to school" then I would be able to have that wonderful lunch at school with the square meat chunks and think how when I get smart I can eat all the square meat chunks that they put in the stew on stew day which is my favorite day since I can savior the meat chunks and not waste any of your important time since I can tell that you jerk off with that porn star that says she want to marry you and have babies. So please excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuze me.

Maybe all that stuff has made you blind. I think she what's to eat your little chunks while they are hot and tender. Maybe you need glasses or a new set of porn with some chunky meat which would not be a waste of time and less expansive than that cam.

The most important thing that you will ever do in your small and miserable life is the communication on this post or any of my other posts. Unless you can communicate with Elvis, God or Allah.

This article will analyze the safety of a nuclear power plant. The fuel of a nuclear plant is uranium that is radioactive and extremely toxic. The uranium is a metal that is mined from the earth then the uranium ore is refined into pure uranium that is shaped into metal rods that have an approximately length of 12 feet and a diameter of 9 inches. A single rod is emitting gamma rays that are massless and can penetrate the adjacent rods resulting in a fission reaction. When the rods are placed closed together the rods interact via gamma ray emissions which result in the rod to resonate and heat until glowing hot which is where the power of a nuclear power plant originates. Water is used to control the intensity of the glowing hot uranium rods that steam generated runs turbines that produce electricity. If the system is not cooling properly, the rods melt down and the melted uranium melts through the steel structure of the reactor and cement floor then after interacting with ground water or existing cooling water the high temperature of the melted uranium results in the formation of hydrogen gas that reacts with the melted uranium producing a small nuclear explosion which results in the part of the melted uranium to be dispersed into the air forming nuclear fallout.
The problem is that after six years the 200 uranium rods become spent since the outer surface of the rod that interact with the gamma rays decay and must be replace with new rods. These spent rods are still extremely dangerous since the inside of the rods are still extremely active and are at least 80% as radioactive as the original rods. The spent fuel rods are stored in cooling pools since the rods are still active and can melt down. The rods are submerged in water to keep the rods cool. If the rods storage in cooling pond are not cooled properly with water, the spent fuel will melt and cause a nuclear explosion if the water leaks out of the pond or water is not continuously added to the ponds since the spent fuel rods are continuously radiating heat that evaporates the water. If the spent fuel rod can melt down then the spent fuel can be used as fuel; consequently, these fuel rod should be used until they cannot melt down. If the spent rods can melt down, they can still run the turbines. Nuclear physicists will say that neutrons of the spent fuel rod inhibit the use of the spent fuel rods but neutrons that have mass cannot penetrate a single piece of paper without a hole where massless gamma rays can penetrate the metal surface of the uranium rods causing the fission reaction.
There are 440 nuclear power plants in the world that store there spent fuel rods in ponds on the site of the nuclear power plant which is extremely precarious situation. The safest way to store the spent fuel is to encase the rods in glass or cement, as the French did or still do and the USA says that they do, which purpose is to ensure that the rods are separated since the closeness of the fuel rods cause the rods to heat up and potentially melt down (fission) resulting in a nuclear catastrophe but it would be safer to use the fuel rod until the rods cannot melt down in the reactor. My guess is that it is more profitable to use new rods to produce more energy than to used spent rod that produce less energy. The cement or glass encased fuel rod can then be stored without using cooling ponds and cannot melt down since the melt down of spent rods require the proximity of the rods that is eliminated by the cement or glass enclosure. The gamma rays emitted by the rods is causing the nuclear reaction. The cement or glass enclosures eliminate the proximity element. The US nuclear regulatory commission is implying that the spent fuel rods are encased in cement and stored outside the reactor in nuclear storage site but only a small amount of the spent fuel is being stored in these sites (less than 3%). The majority of the spent fuel is stored on site in ponds that allows more rod in a smaller area.

A nuclear reactor uses 200 rods that last for 6 years; therefore, a thirty year old plant contains approximately 1,000 rods. The safest method is to build nuclear storage site in the desert away from the nuclear power plant and to bury the spent fuel rods in the desert where they originated from. Doing this would reduce the potential risk by 80%. The USA is an example, if you are going to use nuclear power you must be consider safety first. One cannot be reliant on the nuclear regulatory commission since Fukushima nuclear plant built a cooling pond directly on top of the reactor core and the plants were designed by General Electric and are monitored by the NRC yet Fukushima was allowed to build cooling pool directly above the reactor’s core where the rods are undergoing fission. In addition, the Fukushima rectangular building surrounding the reactors caused the nuclear explosion that produced most of the nuclear contamination since the hydrogen gas caused by the interaction of the melted uranium and water was trapped in the building’s structure. In addition, the cooling pools should be situated outside or with only a roof and no sides to allow the hydrogen gas to disperse in the air since the interaction of the hydrogen gas with the melted uranium caused the nuclear explosion that resulted in the fallout in the Fukushima area. The explosion at the Fukushima nuclear power plant was a nuclear explosion which is the reason for the enormous amount of nuclear fallout. A simple hydrogen explosion would not have caused the enormous amount of nuclear contamination. Furthermore, the present nuclear plants must be refitted by allow external pumps to run the cooling system in case the power system fails. Example, a fire engine pumps could be used to produce the minimum pressure to cool the core of a nuclear power plant that is run but lost power, and, an another system where automobiles’ wheels could be used to generate energy to run external pumps connected to the coolant system.

There are 440 nuclear power plants in the world that store there spent fuel rods in ponds on the site of the nuclear power plant which is extremely precarious situation. If all 440 nuclear power plants and there respective spent fuel ponds were to melt down all life on earth would terminate which may be the reason for all these holocaust movies. The potential is there and can be eliminated. The safest way to store the spent fuel is to encase the rods in glass or cement, as the French did or still do and the USA says that they do, which purpose is to ensure that the rods are separated since the closeness of the fuel rods cause the rods to heat up and potentially melt down (fission) resulting in a nuclear catastrophe but it would be safer to use the fuel rod until the rods cannot melt down in the reactor. My guess is that it is more profitable to use new rods to produce more energy than to used spent rod that produce less energy. The cement or glass encased fuel rod can then be stored without using cooling ponds and cannot melt down since the melt down of spent rods require the proximity of the rods that is eliminated by the cement or glass enclosure. The gamma rays emitted by the rods is causing the nuclear reaction. The cement or glass enclosures eliminate the proximity element. The US nuclear regulatory commission is implying that the spent fuel rods are encased in cement and stored outside the reactor in nuclear storage site but only a small amount of the spent fuel is being stored in these sites (less than 3%). The majority of the spent fuel is stored on site in ponds that allows more rod in a smaller area.

This article will analyze the safety of a nuclear power plant. The fuel of a nuclear plant is uranium that is radioactive and extremely toxic. Uranium is a metal that is mined from the earth then the uranium ore is refined (sulfuric acid) into pure uranium that is shaped into metal rods that have an approximately length of 12 feet and a diameter of 9 inches. A single rod is emitting gamma rays that are massless and can penetrate the adjacent rods resulting in a fission reaction. When the rods are placed closed together, the rods interact via gamma ray emissions which results in the rod to heat until glowing hot (fission) which is where the power of a nuclear power plant originates. Water is used to control the intensity of the glowing hot uranium rods that generated steam that runs turbines which produces electricity where the water prevents the uranium rods from melting down. If the system is not cooling properly, the rods melt down and the melted uranium ---- melts through the steel structure of the reactor core and cement floor then after interacting with ground water or existing cooling water, the high temperature of the melted uranium results in the formation of hydrogen gas that, if trapped, reacts with the melted uranium producing a nuclear explosion that disperses uranium into the air forming nuclear fallout.
After six years of fission that produces the energy of a nuclear power plant, the 200 uranium rods, contained within the core, become spent since the outer surface of the rod that interact with the gamma rays decays and must be replace with new rods. These spent rods are still extremely dangerous since the inside of the rods are still extremely active and are at least 80% as radioactive as the original rods. The spent fuel rods are stored in cooling pools (swimming pools containing water) since the rods are still active and can melt down. The rods are submerged in water to keep the rods cool. If the rods stored in cooling pond are not cooled properly with water, the spent fuel will melt and cause a nuclear explosion. If the water leaks out of the pond or water is not continuously added to the ponds since the spent fuel rods are continuously radiating heat that evaporates the water, the spent fuel rod can melt; consequently, these fuel rod should be used, in the reactor core, until they cannot melt down which would solve the spent fuel problem. Nuclear physicists claim that neutrons of the spent fuel rod inhibit the use of the spent fuel rods but if the spent fuel rod can melt down then the spent fuel rod can be used until they cannot melt down. My guess is that it is more profitable to use new fuel rods to produce more energy than to used spent rod that produce less energy.
There are 440 nuclear power plants in the world that store there spent fuel rods in on site ponds which is extremely precarious situation. If all 440 nuclear power plants and their respective spent fuel ponds were to melt down all life on earth would terminate which may be the reason for all these holocaust movies. The potential is there and can be minimized; in case of a world catastrophe that subjugates the electrical power grid. The safest method to store the spent fuel is to encase the rods in glass or cement, as the French did or still do and the USA says that they do, which purpose is to ensure that the rods are separated since the closeness of the fuel rods cause the rods to heat up and potentially melt down (fission) resulting in a nuclear catastrophe. The French know how to keep their asses clean. Congratulations to the French. The cement or glass encased fuel rod can then be stored without using cooling ponds and the rods cannot melt down since the melt down of spent rods require the proximity of the rods that is eliminated by the cement or glass enclosure but it may be possible to eliminate the fusion capacity of the rods by keeping the rods in the core longer (neutralization). The gamma rays emitted by the rods is causing the nuclear reaction. The cement or glass enclosures eliminate the proximity element that causes the nuclear fission (glow hot metal) if the rod are not neutralized. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is implying that the spent fuel rods are encased in cement and stored outside the reactor in nuclear storage site but only a small amount of the spent fuel is being stored in these sites (less than 3%). Most of the spent fuel is stored on site in ponds (cheap).
A nuclear reactor uses 200 rods that last for 6 years; therefore, a thirty-year-old nuclear plant contains approximately 1,000 rods or five times the necessary uranium. The safest method is to build nuclear storage site in the desert away from the nuclear power plant and to bury the spent fuel rods in the desert where they originated from. Doing this would reduce the potential risk by more than 500%. One cannot be reliant on the NRC for guidance since Fukushima nuclear plant engineers built a cooling pond directly on top of the reactor core and the plants were designed by General Electric and was monitored by the NRC. In addition, the Fukushima rectangular building surrounding the reactors caused the nuclear explosion that produced most of the nuclear contamination since the hydrogen gas caused by the interaction of the melted uranium and water was trapped in the building’s structure. The trapped hydrogen gas caused the nuclear explosion of Fukushima which is indicative of the fallout since an atomic bomb uses liquid hydrogen as the oxidizer. In addition, the cooling pools should be situated outside or with only a roof and no sides to allow the hydrogen gas to disperse far from the melted uranium that interaction caused the nuclear explosion. The explosion at the Fukushima nuclear power plant was preventable. A simple hydrogen explosion would not have caused the enormous amount of nuclear contamination. Furthermore, the present nuclear plants must be refitted by allow external pumps to run the cooling system in case the power system fails. Example, numerous fire engines pumps could be used to produce the pressure to cool the core if the electrical power were lost, and, in another safety system, automobiles wheels could be used to generate energy to run external pumps connected to the core coolant system or provide electrical power to the fire engine pumps.