|
Maybe he meant like, his favorite sample of the stuff?
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:So I have another set of questions about the Fukushima radiation levels. The latest radiation estimate is up to 650sv/h. This, I guess, means that part of the corium is close to the robot doing the detecting. I'm wondering why it is that researchers can spend a few seconds within feet of the corium deposit known as the "Elephant Foot" in Chernobyl, while the 650sv/h at Fukushima could kill a person in less than a second of exposure? 1) protective clothing/lead lined boxer shorts  , which stop alpha/most of beta2) time, because the super radioactive stuff decays down into a bunch of long lived stuff which while still radioactive enough that you shouldn't sit on it for too long is not radioactive enough to kill you if you walk around it for a bit
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
blowfish posted:1) protective clothing/lead lined boxer shorts For 1) I suggest the Ajax model Mountibank Lead Codpiece
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:Am I wrong about any of this? I am totally open to that possibility! If I am educate me--I already told you that science and I have a dangerous relationship. Yes quote:I don't mean to challenge you here, but it depends on the nature of the contamination. How long something is "unliveable" would depend on variables, like the nature of the accident and the contaminating material, and what you are calling "habitable". Most of the Chernobyl area is uninhabitable in the same way that the ground beneath a fly ash spill would be uninhabitable; a bunch of heavy metals and poo poo, some of it radioactive, wound up in the soil and now it's not good to be living in the area. The two things are very comparable. But "I don't want to live there" is not the same as "no one can live there"; people live with far higher concentrations of toxic metals and far higher levels of background radiation than what's present in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. quote:However, it could have been much worse. Had the corium made it to the pooled water below the reactor the resulting explosion would have sent the corium (not just the lid and the burning graphite) straight into the air, and we would have lived in a much different world. No, this is completely wrong; the official estimate is only 3000 years, and even that is based on flawed overly-conservative reasoning. There are people living there right now and there are thousands of people who regularly work in the exclusion zone every day. The typical radiation level in the Chernobyl area is about 0.1-1.0 uSv/hour; you get roughly the same amount by spending an hour in Denver. There are some spots with about 10x higher exposure, such as the Pripyat graveyard (because locals don't want to simply unearth the graves there, so relatively little cleanup is being done). The real risk isn't simply the higher-than-average background radiation but the regular ingestion of radioactive particles, but as I'll point out in a moment this isn't as much of a risk as you think. quote:The real problem would be if you had a nuclear reactor disaster where the poo poo hit the fan, or the corium escaped containment in it's hot stage and the result was a flash steam explosion. If this were to happen you are exposing the environment to things that are highly radioactive with very long half-lives in abundance, including (depending on reactor type) highly transuranic elements like plutonium-239 (24k year half-life) or neptunium-237 (2 million year half-life).  There is no such thing as a highly radioactive substance with a long half-life If a substance is highly radioactive, then that means that it has a short half-life, by definition. The substances that we'd really worry about are those with a middling half-life in the 1e3 to 1e5 range, such as Pu-239 (which you have pointed out has a half-life of 24k years). Examining Pu-239 specifically, it is an alpha emitter and only really dangerous if inhaled/ingested in very large quantities. But it's actually somewhat difficult to pull this off; in test animal studies Pu-239 is so heavy that it tends to clump up and fall without getting inhaled at all. And in a disaster of the kind that you're describing, a small amount of Pu-239 would be distributed over a very large area, significantly blunting its physiological impact. It's still a toxic substance that you don't want to be around, but the amount of Pu-239 released in a typical nuclear disaster is both very small and spread out over a large enough area that the "uninhabitable for 10k years" label is way overblown For more information, here is the Los Alamos guide to Plutonium health risks, which has a lot of nice information + sources. quote:I am not sure how one could argue that this type of disaster would not cause effected areas to become uninhabitable for thousands of years. That's not how radiation works. You'd have to put significant effort into accomplishing that, not simply having a nuclear disaster but literally salting the earth with significant quantities of Pu-239 and the like. The toxic compounds released in a nuclear disaster are comparable in concentration and deadliness to the toxic compounds released in a coal fly ash disaster. Hell, they're comparable to what's released daily in the stack shadow of a coal plant. quote:I beg to differ. Yes, nuclear power generation has high safety standards; however, we: 1. We do; on-site storage is a long-term waste storage plan. 2. You vastly underestimate US nuclear safety regulations. Economics obviously plays a big role, but we don't let people just build whatever the gently caress they want. quote:loving agreed! Coal is terrible, but in a round about way you're pointing back to my softly spoken critique about power generation for profit, which in turn is a softly spoken critique about a socio-economic order whose foundation is the exploitation of people and the planet for profit. What if I just want to save the planet? Unless you want to simply cull most of the population, nuclear power is probably the way to slow the effects of global warming. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
In other news South Australia had rolling blackouts, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-08/sa-heatwave-forces-rolling-blackouts-angering-government/8252512 Combination of a heat wave, heavy reliance on wind (34% of electricity production) and a windless day and a few transmission issues all met up. Its almost like such a scenario was extremely likely and unexpected....
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
That's Po-214 not 241. 241 is way beyond the neutron drip line. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:In other news South Australia had rolling blackouts, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-08/sa-heatwave-forces-rolling-blackouts-angering-government/8252512 You forgot to mention the bit about them not switching on the backup generation unit at pelican point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:On the time scale of 1000s of years we're not really worried about the radiation anymore. We're basically just worried about heavy metal toxicity at that point, in which case you'd want to take the same kind of precautions that you take with any dangerous industrial waste product. We know how to deal with all kinds of dangerous waste products, and we already do a pretty good job of dealing with nuclear waste; we don't need to seal it away inside of a giant mountain or launch them into the sun. In fact, spent nuclear fuel actually still has a lot of usable energy content in it, so ease-of-access is actually a desired feature of any storage solution. I mostly agree that the danger after several thousands of years is mainly chemical for the bulk of nuclear waste, but the radiation of core components is still in the double digits of mSv/h after 1000 years. This is not really a neglectable amount and is a good reason to think really hard about how it should be handled. The best option would naturally be to reuse and process the most dangerous waste further to convert it to more manageable compounds and then store the resulting waste long term in sealed vaults as many European countries do, but as I understand it the US is not too big on this? In addition the difference between coal waste and nuclear waste is that the really hazardous and radioactive nuclear waste is highly concentrated, which is very important distinction in terms of safety. This is all somewhat moot though as the main danger/public health issue with using coal is not its radioactivity. Finally, the radiation from coal burning is 100 times higher in the surrounding area of a plant, not in general and assumes safe non disturbed nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:I mostly agree that the danger after several thousands of years is mainly chemical for the bulk of nuclear waste, but the radiation of core components is still in the double digits of mSv/h after 1000 years. Assuming it somehow all stays in place for 1000 years despite being exposed to the elements in such a way that it's dangerous to people. Which is a pretty weird assumption to make, and would require rather unusual weather conditions to persist for 1000 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
NPR Journalizard posted:You forgot to mention the bit about them not switching on the backup generation unit at pelican point. I am very curious about what actually happened here. Electricity prices would be at record highs, the perfect time to turn on that generator to make all the profit. Why didn't that happen? At the moment I am going with that the local politicians are covering their assess by redirecting blame and that technical/maintenance or scheduling issues were most likely the reason that plant wasn't generating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I am very curious about what actually happened here. Electricity prices would be at record highs, the perfect time to turn on that generator to make all the profit. Why didn't that happen? At the moment I am going with that the local politicians are covering their assess by redirecting blame and that technical/maintenance or scheduling issues were most likely the reason that plant wasn't generating. Not 100% sure. Apparently AEMO are preparing a report which should give us more information. To the best of my knowledge the unit cant be switched on unless a bunch of conditions are more *or* the minister in charge tells them to switch it on. My gut tells me that he didnt order it switched on so the libs can point to the rolling blackouts as yet another problem with renewables and we should build more coal plants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Assuming it somehow all stays in place for 1000 years despite being exposed to the elements in such a way that it's dangerous to people. Which is a pretty weird assumption to make, and would require rather unusual weather conditions to persist for 1000 years. A major risk is not only leakage but also intentional misuse, for example future actors digging up waste and making dirty bombs. Given the timescales potentially involved this is a serious problem. Also, with human induced climate change being a very real and ongoing thing, unforseen and detrimental weather patterns should almost be taken for granted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Whoever invested capital into that peaking plant wants to make a profit. And the conditions for profit making *were perfect*. It was literally in everyone's best interests for that plant to run. I guess its "possible" that the libs somehow interfered so that it couldnt be turned on but technical issues seem overwhelmingly more likely. Maybe we will find out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:A major risk is not only leakage but also intentional misuse, for example future actors digging up waste and making dirty bombs. Given the timescales potentially involved this is a serious problem. No it isn't. If I want to make a dirty bomb, literally all I have to do is buy a bunch of smoke detectors. Or, I could break into any of the thousands of hospitals worldwide that do radiation treatment and steal their radioactive material. Or I could straight up order radioactive material off Amazon. Or I can get some from any of the poorly guarded physics laboratories at various universities out there. Or any combination of these methods. Remember that the only actual purpose of a dirty bomb is to be scary, they inherently aren't very useful at long term contaminating a place or anything. That's probably why no one has ever actually deployed them despite the fact any one who can make a bomb can make a dirty bomb. Zudgemud posted:Also, with human induced climate change being a very real and ongoing thing, unforseen and detrimental weather patterns should almost be taken for granted. No, crazy dude, changes that create lack of weather are extremely unlikely. Any exposed material is going to get washed away and eroded away over hundred year plus timescales, dispersing it into the environment to the point you'll barely be able to detect it above background radiation, especially over the 1000 years you said we needed to worry. fishmech fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Whoever invested capital into that peaking plant wants to make a profit. And the conditions for profit making *were perfect*. It was literally in everyone's best interests for that plant to run. As an American this is always my first assumption if there are constraints beyond literal momentary capacity or power services. As soon as we get into the "oops it was 32F and we couldn't start the plant" or other excuses, I assume someone was told to find a reason not to start the plant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:A major risk is not only leakage but also intentional misuse, for example future actors digging up waste and making dirty bombs. Not really. The danger of a dirty bomb is vastly overstated and one would be very unlikely to produce mass casualties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:In addition the difference between coal waste and nuclear waste is that the really hazardous and radioactive nuclear waste is highly concentrated, which is very important distinction in terms of safety. Otherwise, the solution would be to strap the waste to a block of C4, or spray it out of a 747, and spread all of the waste out (which is what coal burning essentially does).
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
South Australia Pelican peaking plant. They have actually released these media statements. http://engie.com.au/media/UploadedDocuments/News/Pelican%20Point%20-%20Media%20statement%203.pdf http://engie.com.au/media/UploadedDocuments/News/Pelican%20Point%20Second%20Unit%20-%20Media%20statement.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelican_Point_Power_Station From what I can put together it goes a little like this. Because of how wind generation recieves preferential treatment or lower operating costs or for some reason, the natural gas peaking plant is becoming uneconomical to run so its been running at half capacity since March 2013. And for some reasons due to market rules and regulations it couldn't just up and run the 2nd generator to meet the demand. But this statement is telling: quote:There is no commercial rationale to operate the second Pelican Point unit in the current market environment in SA for a small number of days across the year. So it appears the rules and regs have pushed their peaking plant to be uneconomical to run and now South Australia cries when it can't bail them out. Its loving stupid policy is what it is. The peaking plant has to have an economic reason to exist. The on demand characteristic that some power plants have is worth a lot of money and needs to be paid for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:From what I can put together it goes a little like this. Because of how wind generation recieves preferential treatment or lower operating costs or for some reason, the natural gas peaking plant is becoming uneconomical to run so its been running at half capacity since March 2013. And for some reasons due to market rules and regulations it couldn't just up and run the 2nd generator to meet the demand. But this statement is telling: Holy poo poo, just nationalize the damned thing in that case. e: Conveniently, if the thing isn't profitable, the market price should be about 0 and Australia can get a great deal. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Holy poo poo, just nationalize the damned thing in that case. That's generally considered stealing and is frowned upon in most first world countries. AreWeDrunkYet posted:e: Conveniently, if the thing isn't profitable, the market price should be about 0 and Australia can get a great deal. If it isn't profitable, no one will want to buy it. The point is, if we want peaking plants to be on constant standby in case we need them, we have to pay for that service. If the price isn't right they won't exist and we might get blackouts. The solution is to make the peaking plant profitable through market pricing structures and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:That's generally considered stealing and is frowned upon in most first world countries. It's actually a perfectly legal thing to do in most first world countries as long as the owners are compensated at market prices. BattleMoose posted:If it isn't profitable, no one will want to buy it. Or, the government can run them directly. There's no reason power generation needs to be a private industry in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Or, the government can run them directly. There's no reason power generation needs to be a private industry in the first place. I think power generation should all be under government control. Privatisation of something so important is just stupid. But I don't know the rules and regs but having the government running just some small fraction of the power grid could run into some anti-competition or competition issues. By definition that power plant would be run at a loss (or private companies would be running it). Its only a 160MW plant, its small. If the South Australian government really wanted to, they could just as easily build their own. But because they have such a hard on for wind, there will probably just be more blackouts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:South Australia Pelican peaking plant. I think the relevant quote is quote:The second unit (240MW) at Pelican Point is not able to provide a market response under the current rules of the National Electricity Market, (NEM) unless directed by the market operator. So AEMO could have directed pelican point to fire up, but they didnt for *reasons*
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:In addition the difference between coal waste and nuclear waste is that the really hazardous and radioactive nuclear waste is highly concentrated, which is very important distinction in terms of safety. This is all somewhat moot though as the main danger/public health issue with using coal is not its radioactivity. In addition to the other points raised, I'll mention that when we're talking about waste products, the apples to apples comparison is to compare the normal mechanisms for waste disposal: that's dispersal into the area around the coal plant vs storage in a cask near the nuclear plant. The radiation risks from either are very low, but if you're worried about the radiation emitted from nuclear waste then it's worth pointing out that the radiation emitted from coal waste is much greater than that, therefore you should be more concerned about coal waste. That was what the discussion was about, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I think power generation should all be under government control. Privatisation of something so important is just stupid. quote:Its only a 160MW plant, its small. If the South Australian government really wanted to, they could just as easily build their own. But because they have such a hard on for wind, there will probably just be more blackouts. A hard on for wind does not mean more blackouts. The last set was after a massive storm damaged transmission lines at the same time as the inter-connector to victoria was down for upgrades (upgrades that will prevent this sort of thing happening in the future), and we arent sure why this lot happened, except that there was backup power generation available but not utilised. Neither of these situations are 100% the fault of wind generation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:South Australia Pelican peaking plant. After reading the links, the plant didn't come online because it was uneconomical to do so, it simply didn't have a gas contract and so it couldn't bid to supply electricity. The policy in question is a simple policy of "can you guarantee the supply of the electricity you are bidding to supply" which is a pretty reasonable policy to have for a plant that is bidding in a category that should have the ability to easily guarantee that. Also, I think its important to point out that the pelican power plant is NOT a peaking power unit. Its a combined cycle plant, which means its purpose is to supply large amounts of electricity at a cheap price. Its a baseload generator which no longer has a baseload to generate electricity for due to the large integration of wind energy reducing the amount of baseload.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 07:59
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:I hope you cited this as a pro-nuclear point? Highly concentrated waste is about as good as it gets - easiest to transport and most efficient use of storage. Would having 10 1-ton casks of diluted but still deadly waste to store for 1000 years be better than having just one 1-ton cask of more deadly waste to store for 1000 years" I don't cite it as pro anything, I think the discussion of nuclear vs fossil fuels is pretty thoroughly in favor of nuclear in short to long term. I cite it simply to highlight the very real problem of storage that some people here somehow ignore. In terms of ease of handling yes definately, but in terms of potency for damage its concentrated nature presents other challenges, especially since it will require exceptionally long term safe storage. As mentioned before the radiation hazard from coal burning is wholly insignificant, mostly because it is so dilute. QuarkJets posted:In addition to the other points raised, I'll mention that when we're talking about waste products, the apples to apples comparison is to compare the normal mechanisms for waste disposal: that's dispersal into the area around the coal plant vs storage in a cask near the nuclear plant. The radiation risks from either are very low, but if you're worried about the radiation emitted from nuclear waste then it's worth pointing out that the radiation emitted from coal waste is much greater than that, therefore you should be more concerned about coal waste. That was what the discussion was about, anyway. As mentioned above it is not as simple as comparing apples to apples because one of the apples basically do not exist due to its dilute nature (and different composition etc), while the other apple do exist and needs to be dealt with accordingly. fishmech posted:No it isn't. If I want to make a dirty bomb, literally all I have to do is buy a bunch of smoke detectors. Or, I could break into any of the thousands of hospitals worldwide that do radiation treatment and steal their radioactive material. Or I could straight up order radioactive material off Amazon. Or I can get some from any of the poorly guarded physics laboratories at various universities out there. Or any combination of these methods. The problem of international or accidentally release by future generations are serious enough for all end storage plans to include them so I don't really see what is so controversial about that. And when you talk about weather slowly eroding and diluting exposed waste to harmlessnes this assumes 1. the location of storage allows for efficient natural dispersion, 2. the storage is undisturbed during this time, 3. the nature and composition of the waste allows for slow sustained release and not release in big bursts, 4. human activity is not performed immediately downstream of any gradual release big enough to pose a health risk. You are naive if you think these are easy to predict and manage on the timescales involved. I'll totally give you that dirty bombs are crap as effective weapons though, and there are much better but less dramatic ways for intentional misuse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 09:11
|
|
|
NPR Journalizard posted:Wait what. Just because the government runs something doesnt mean it runs at a loss. The government is better equipped than any private enterprise to say "Run this utility at breakeven". And it doesn't really matter if it does run at a slight loss. No matter what hyperbole short sighted conservatives throw around. The benefits to society and commerce of having uninterrupted power which is capable of handling surges, like heat waves, is so large that having extra power generation capacity in reserve just makes sense. The government may lose money on the power plant, but it makes it back and then some through taxes on all the industries using that power. So, looking at the big picture, the government is running in the black even if the plants are in the red.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It's actually a perfectly legal thing to do in most first world countries as long as the owners are compensated at market prices. "Legal" doesn't mean "wise." Foreign capital investment to industries in countries where the government has a habit of nationalizing industrial facilities tends to dry up pretty quick. See, for example, Venezuela.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:
That's not a real problem, is the thing. When you've degenerated to "well maybe in 500 years a terrorist will raid the ruins of the nuclear power plant to nuke the lizard people" in order to be mad at nuclear power, ask yourself why you feel the need to go to these lengths to be mad at it? And once again, dude, if the things aren't exposed to be eroded, then they're not exposed, period. As in there will be no radiation getting out of them since they're still sealed, so they won't be dangerous. If the things are exposed so that people can get radiated by them, then they will be exposed to the elements to be eroded and washed away, which will make the location ever less radioactive over time beyond the natural decline of radioactive breakdown. It's insanely easy to predict and manage this stuff, so long as you aren't a panicky loon about the whole thing. The behavior of all the materials at stake is well understood.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
So a dam is starting to go in California... http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Oroville-Dam-spillway-hole-erosion-water-reservoir-10920358.php quote:Story update Feb. 10 at 7 a.m.: The massive crater in the main spillway of Oroville Dam continued to grow Thursday as state officials released more water from Lake Oroville to keep up with the stormwater and snowmelt filling up the reservoir. The hole is now about 45-feet-deep and 300-feet-wide by 500-feet-long, according to KCBS. quote:Construction of the underground Edward Hyatt Pump-Generating Plant was finished shortly after the completion of Oroville Dam. At the time, it was the largest underground power station in the United States,[14] with three 132 megawatt (MW) conventional turbines and three 141 MW pump-generators for a total installed capacity of 819 MW. Whups.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Pander posted:So a dam is starting to go in California... It's not the dam that's going, it's the spillway that's getting wrecked. The dam itself is in great shape and the primary problem with the spillway beign all hosed up is that they can't control the water level as well. It's bad, but it's not "entire reservoir empties out and washes away poo poo downstream" bad. Here's an aerial photo of the complex in better times:  The red highlighted area is the emergency spillway they mention. The yellow highlighted area is the normal spillway, which is currently damaged. And the dam itself is off to the side. Edit: essentially, this is going to completely wreck all the habitat on the hillside, in all likelihood. And it's probably going to reduce the effective capacity of the reservoir for many months to years, as they'll have to build the top of the area where the emergency spillway is back up after all the erosion. fishmech fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Pander posted:So a dam is starting to go in California... The spillway is being damaged but there's no actual risk of a dam failure. The hole in the spillway is pretty impressive:  But speaking of damage that sounds more impressive than it is, there was a fire at a French nuclear plant: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/french-nuclear-plant-fire-comes-amid-industry-turmoil/
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:No, this is completely wrong; the official estimate is only 3000 years, and So...same order of magnitude but somehow way overblown?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
ulmont posted:So...same order of magnitude but somehow way overblown? You might die in 10 years or 90, not sure which, same order of magnitude though so whatevs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
ulmont posted:So...same order of magnitude but somehow way overblown?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
If the EU wants to meet its Paris accord targets, it needs to shut down every single one of its coal plants in the next 12 years: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/09/eu-must-shut-all-coal-plants-by-2030-to-meet-paris-climate-pledges-study-says Good luck with that. Bonus quote: quote:Coal accounted for 80% of Dong’s fuel supplies a decade ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
twodot posted:Is there a reason you care about a precise definition of "way overblown"? The land is unusable over a significant number of human lifetimes. The different between 3000 and 20000 (or 1000 and 3000) is irrelevant to us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The land is unusable over a significant number of human lifetimes. The different between 3000 and 20000 (or 1000 and 3000) is irrelevant to us. Oh, well hell then, just say 100,000,000 years then, it's irrelevant to us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
ulmont posted:The land is unusable over a significant number of human lifetimes. The different between 3000 and 20000 (or 1000 and 3000) is irrelevant to us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 19:29
|
|