Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
Coming soon

What if they are actually people, with rights. Do they not have to subscribe to our form of government and abide by our laws, then? Could we even get them to adhere to our society? If we cant' make them, then why should anyone have to participate, what makes them so special that they don't have to get jobs and pay taxes? Add to that the need to show the public that they are under control, the revenue of the national parks that would be at stake, the endangered species policies that would have to show their populations, risks, how much acreage of forest that would shut down to not only public, but private access. Oil, uranium, logging, natural gas. Add to that the conflict to religion, which for a long time has been a tool to help control people. It could cause histeria as a lot of world views are shattered. There's many potential reasons why they would cover it up.

see more

There are people within the government that would like to shut down those industries as it is, and I assure you if they knew bigfoot existed they’d be shut down already. They wouldn’t keep it a secret, they’d shout it from the rooftops.

This is grainier than the PG footage my dude. J/K looks fun and cool pic!

This is absurd. The delay is for the clearing house, and they trade the money BEFORE the transaction (aka with deposits, except for margin requirements)

Good lord.

see more

It’s amazing that people think it’s a bad thing that there’s an intermediary handling these transactions. For some reason they seem to think it’s voodoo and some fat banker with a cigar and top hat is cackling and tossing their money in the air. Same goes for OP- like the Waltons are literally holding your money when you make a return at Walmart. Christ Almighty.

91 points · 18 days ago

The anchor crushes its way through the coral and then generally sits still, but an anchor chain will drag and scrape along the coral and moves a lot more with the boat. An anchor isn't much use without a chain so I'd hope they ban both anchors and anchor chains in the same move.

see more

Wouldn’t it make more sense to ban dropping anchor near a reef than to have boats drifting willy nilly all over the ocean?

2 points · 21 days ago

Yeah, and meanwhile the Soviet union was already crumbling apart without their interference...yay...

see more

What do you mean by interference? The mujahideen? Afghanistan was attacked and occupied preemptively by the Russians because they thought we were going to use it as a strategic location, I don’t think they needed much encouragement to fight back.

Wow great source

see more

I don’t know why this is downvoted from the “I need at least three sources from peer-reviewed scientific journals to back up the claim that Captain Crunch cuts the roof of your mouth” community.

I’ve been slaying them this year on beaded hare’s ears! Nice fish

see more
Original Poster1 point · 21 days ago

Thanks! Was mostly fishing streamers and occasional dries. Decided I’d dedicate this season to nymphing and its definitely paying off.

Got some stocker browns, but been doing more bass. You seem to be doing well??

see more
Original Poster2 points · 21 days ago

Haven’t been out as much as I’d like but I’ve been doing ok. Doing a lot more nymphing this year and starting to get the feel for it

Load more comments

Eh, I'm not too upset. I'm pretty sure if you polled Democrats you could find that they had a higher opinion of some dictator than of Donald Trump.

see more

Especially if they polled right after Un called Trump a dotard. That was a pretty good week for him.

Have an upvote, kid. Good luck on your height.

This is very cool! Please keep updates coming!

Original Poster1 point · 1 month ago

Nothing yet - no email, no phone call, no text. :(

see more


It's something birds do.

see more

This is the correct answer

That’s pretty much the consensus. Hell, even Moneymaker called him a hoaxer, and that was before the muppet videos

If Moneymaker says he's a hoaxer, does that mean he's legit?

see more

Heh fair point. The only thing more important to Matt than calling everything a squatch is boosting his own ego.

Load more comments

*reads title

*still tries to click on video to play it

*reads title again

why am I like this

see more

I didn’t see it at first so it was more like “this is dumb wtf are they talking abou... ooh it’s a video!”

How does anyone fall asleep like that

see more


1.5k points · 1 month agoGilded4 · edited 1 month ago

People keep bringing it up because they have no concept of what nuclear waste actually is, nor do they have a good way to judge an industrial scale of material and weigh it against industrial-scale benefits.

So I made this post a bit ago that a lot of people seemed to find helpful in conceptualizing the magnitude of the 'problem'.

But we have no idea what to do with the waste.

That's not correct. Or rather, the implication is incorrect.

I'm going to California next month. I have 'no idea' how I'm going to get from the airport to my friend's house. I could take a bus, or a taxi, or call an Uber, or maybe he can get off work and pick me up. It also doesn't make sense to make a decision right now, since lots of things can change in a month.

So too it goes with nuclear waste. We have 'no idea' how to deal with nuclear waste, not in that we have all this stuff with zero viable plans of how to deal with it, but in that we have many possible options, with no certainty yet on which the best option will be, and also no incentive to make the decision before we have to.

This is Cook Nuclear Power Station.

Look at the scale on the map, and look at the nuclear plant on the coast of Lake Michigan. Consider for a second how small the plant is. The footprint is about 800ft x 400ft. For a 2GW power plant. If you covered that in solar panels, you'd get about 2MW of equivalent power generation.

If you look to the east of the Plant, you will see a giant concrete slab that makes up the transformer yard, which steps up voltage on the power coming from the plant to deliver it to the grid.

If you look a bit back to the west from that large slab, you will see a smaller rectangular concrete slab with a bunch of circles on it. You may have to zoom in a bit to see the circles.

Those circles are the spent nuclear fuel in dry-cask storage, sitting on those faint square-outlines that are about 4m to a side.

If you count up the circles, there are about 30 casks sitting there.

Now Cook nuclear plant, which is in no way an exceptional plant, generates about 2GW of power and has been running for about 40 years. Additionally, NRC regulations require that spent fuel spend 10 years in cooling ponds before being put into dry cask storage.

So those 30 casks outside represent about 30 years of 2GW power generation. or about 2GW-Years of energy each.

The United States grid runs on 450GW-500GW of power. Nuclear energy has made up about 20% of that power for the last 40 years. Or the equivalent of running the entire grid for 8 years.

8 years at 500GW equals 4000GW-years of energy from nuclear power. And one cask equals 2GW.

So the entirety of waste from commercial power production is about 2000 of those cannisters.

Looking again at the faint square outlines on that concrete slab, you see that there is room for rows of 16 casks. If you were to square out that rectangular slab, it would hold 256 casks.

Zoom out the tiny amount necessary to fit 8 such square concrete slabs. That would be about 1 and a half times the area of the transformer-yard slab.

That's the entirety of our 'nuclear waste crisis'. If you stacked them together the entirety of it would fit inside a high-school football stadium.

And that's just unprocessed waste sitting right there. If we used the PUREX process - a 40 year old, mature reprocessing technique used by France, and Russian, and Japan, and Sweden, it would reduce the mass of the nuclear waste to about 3%.

So zoom back in, count up those 30 casks, double it to 60, and that's the area that all of our waste from the past 40 years could fit in. That's 8 of those casks per year to run the entire US electrical grid.

This 'waste' is not green liquid sludge waiting to leak out, but solid ceramic and metal that is moderately radioactive, and will be more or less inert (apart from the Plutonium) in about 300 years. Those dry casks are designed to last for 100 years (~70 in salty-air, after which the spent fuel is just put in a new cask) and survive any feasible transportation accident should it need to be moved.

The Plutonium, and other transuranics, which constitutes about 2% of the mass in that spent fuel, will indeed last for 10,000 or 100,000 years, depending on your standards of safety. Much ado is made about 'having no place to safely store it for 10,000 years.'

And I agree. I think the idea that we can safeguard or guarantee anything over 10,000 years is silly. But I can also guarantee that even if we were to bury it in Yucca mountain, it'd only have to last 20 to 200 years before we dig it back up, because the Plutonium, along with most of the rest of the inert mass, is valuable, concentrated nuclear fuel. We can burn that plutonium up in a reactor. Seems a lot better than letting it sit there for 10 millennia.

In fact, if you look back to one of those dry casks, the plutonium and unbred-U238 inside holds 24x as much energy as we got out of the fuel originally.

Put another way, without mining another gram of Uranium, we have enough nuclear fuel in our 'waste' to power the entire US grid for 200 years.

If you consider that 3/4ths of the U-238 was already separated away as depleted uranium to enrich the fuel in the first place, the number is closer to powering the entire US for 800 years using only the Uranium we've mined up to today.

I could go on, but I hope this demonstrates what a generally small non-problem nuclear waste is. There's no safety or financial incentive to do anything and pick a certain route (geological storage, burner reactors, volume-reduction reprocessing) because it's simple and safe to keep the waste sitting there on a glorified parking lot inside concrete casks.

if I told you I could power the entire world for 1000 years, and it would produce one soda-can-sized super-deadly indestructible evil chunk of darkmatter, I would hope you would agree it is an entirely worthwhile tradeoff. Even if we need to package it inside 30 meter cube of lead and bury the cube a kilometer into the Earth. Compared with the industrial-scale of benefits, that's no cost at all.

Nuclear waste may not be quite that compact. But it's still so low in quantity compared with what we get from it, that safe storage is not an issue. The quantity is simply too small.

see more

Great post. Regarding the plutonium and spent uranium that still holds all that energy, why aren’t we already using it?

While we had some successful prototyping, breeder reactors are significantly more complicated due to some of their requirements. Current designs use Molten sodium because it's transparent to neutrons and the breeding efficiency is important to maintain.

Electricity from nuclear plants costs about 6 cents/KWH to produce, and is sold to consumers for 10 to 15 cents per KWH (including the grid to deliver it to them). Of that 6ish cents, only about 1 to 2 cents is the cost of the fuel.

So reducing fuel costs by using the fuel 100x more efficiently really isn't going to change the overall cost of operation, or cost to the consumer. At best it'd shave a penny per kwh off their bill. In exchange for a much more complicated reactor.

So the short answer is: economics.

There are some designs for a type of breeder reactor using the thermal spectrum, with thorium, though some of the specifics haven't been fully prototyped yet. The reactor itself works as a burner reactor, but they never made a version designed to breed beyond unity. But that's where I'd put my money on the first commercial breeder design.

see more

Thanks for reply!

what was the suggestion? Use smaller imitations?

see more
Original Poster2 points · 1 month ago

Yep! And it worked.

Another question just to make sure my knowledge is as good as it can be on this, if I refer to an Am chord as A Db E, how could it be confused with another chord? I was under the impression that sharps and flats only matter in scales, but even then I’m not sure how each one is used and when to use it.

see more

Ok, so a couple things here. First, throwing proper notation out the window, that would actually be an A major. And this is a good example, because you have to think about chords here. A major or minor chord made of 3 notes uses the first, third, and fifth notes of the scale. For an A, that would be A-C-E. So when you name the middle note a D, it isn’t the third, it’s the fourth. This would be confusing to someone like me especially, who knows a bit of theory but not a ton. Is this some chord I’m not familiar with? An inversion? Now I’m counting notes to try to figure out what the hell is going on.

Furthermore, if you look at the flat keys in the second diagram here , you’ll see that a natural A would not normally occur in a key with a Db. More confusion.

So to repeat what has been already said by others, is really about the context, and making it easier for other musicians to understand what is going on.

Original Poster6 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

I know that FB isnt everyone's favorite and I just enjoy watching it / listening to it as a guilty pleasure. By installing the Animal Planet app and putting in your cable providers info you can go in and watch every episode from Season 1 to 11.

Edit: Down voted already. Smh. This sub really has gone to shit hasn't it?

see more

Me and my dad watched this show every Sunday it was just entertaining. Glad we are going to see at least one more new episode.

-16 points · 1 month ago

burnt one's. Its

burnt ones*

Why are you trying to make a plural by adding an apostrophe? Engish doesn't work that way. Don't do that.


it's = it is

: /

see more

I’m not mad at you.

108 points · 2 months ago

Dont smoke crack or cigarettes, work out, dont drink too much, dont have kids until you can afford a Nanny, the list goes on.

see more

Can confirm: Smoke cigs, no crack. Don’t work out but have a fairly physical job. No kids and none coming. 39 and don’t look a day over 37. Winning, I guess.

Comment deleted2 months ago

Haha truth. Everyone likes to shit on Keith Richards but he’s old AF. Not supposed to look good.

Load more comments

Original Poster5 points · 2 months ago

Again, within a few months time, biologists were able to obtain clear, close photographs of the only wolverine in CA. It was, incidentally, in prime BF country of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

see more

How exactly do they know it’s the only wolverine in CA? Seems like a pretty unscientific claim.

Hey, strangebone71, just a quick heads-up:
untill is actually spelled until. You can remember it by one l at the end.
Have a nice day!

The parent commenter can reply with 'delete' to delete this comment.

see more

You can remember it by that’s how it’s spelled! Helpful tip, dudebot.

Cake day
April 18, 2017
Trophy Case (2)
One-Year Club

Verified Email

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.