The man, James E. Lee, had been protesting the programing of the Discovery Channel and its other networks, including programs which documented children and families.   These include reality tv shows like “Kate Plus 8” and “19 Kids and Counting.” You can read more in this LA Times Article.

What is especially disturbing about this incident is the motivation of Mr. Lee, which he made very clear on his website savetheplanetprotest.com Lee had previously protested at the building and elsewhere and had been arrested for disorderly conduct related to his protest activities.

There’s a good liklihood that the website will be taken down in the near future, so I am copying the entirety of the site, which consists of one page of text.   The page is titled “My Demands”

The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY:

1. The Discovery Channel and it’s affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn’s “My Ishmael” pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done, by people building on each other’s inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order. Perhaps also forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human overpopulation. Do both. Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS and is reversed! MAKE IT INTERESTING SO PEOPLE WATCH AND APPLY SOLUTIONS!!!!

2. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.

3. All programs promoting War and the technology behind those must cease. There is no sense in advertising weapons of mass-destruction anymore. Instead, talk about ways to disassemble civilization and concentrate the message in finding SOLUTIONS to solving global military mechanized conflict. Again, solutions solutions instead of just repeating the same old wars with newer weapons. Also, keep out the fraudulent peace movements. They are liars and fakes and had no real intention of ending the wars. ALL OF THEM ARE FAKE! On one hand, they claim they want the wars to end, on the other, they are demanding the human population increase. World War II had 2 Billion humans and after that war, the people decided that tripling the population would assure peace. WTF??? STUPIDITY! MORE HUMANS EQUALS MORE WAR!

4. Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is. That, and all its disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed. Broadcast this message until the pollution in the planet is reversed and the human population goes down! This is your obligation. If you think it isn’t, then get hell off the planet! Breathe Oil! It is the moral obligation of everyone living otherwise what good are they??

5. Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)

6. Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don’t build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!

7. Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!

8. Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies! You’re the media, you can reach enough people. It’s your resposibility because you reach so many minds!!!

9. Develop shows that will correct and dismantle the dangerous US world economy. Find solutions for their disasterous Ponzi-Casino economy before they take the world to another nuclear war.

10. Stop all shows glorifying human birthing on all your channels and on TLC. Stop Future Weapons shows or replace the dialogue condemning the people behind these developments so that the shows become exposes rather than advertisements of Arms sales and development!

11. You’re also going to find solutions for unemployment and housing. All these unemployed people makes me think the US is headed toward more war.

Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what’s left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture.

For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human’s lifespan! THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! All human procreation and farming must cease!

It is the responsiblity of everyone to preserve the planet they live on by not breeding any more children who will continue their filthy practices. Children represent FUTURE catastrophic pollution whereas their parents are current pollution. NO MORE BABIES! Population growth is a real crisis. Even one child born in the US will use 30 to a thousand times more resources than a Third World child. It’s like a couple are having 30 babies even though it’s just one! If the US goes in this direction maybe other countries will too!

Also, war must be halted. Not because it’s morally wrong, but because of the catastrophic environmental damage modern weapons cause to other creatures. FIND SOLUTIONS JUST LIKE THE BOOK SAYS! Humans are supposed to be inventive. INVENT, DAMN YOU!!

The world needs TV shows that DEVELOP solutions to the problems that humans are causing, not stupify the people into destroying the world. Not encouraging them to breed more environmentally harmful humans.

Saving the environment and the remaning species diversity of the planet is now your mindset. Nothing is more important than saving them. The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.

The humans? The planet does not need humans.

You MUST KNOW the human population is behind all the pollution and problems in the world, and YET you encourage the exact opposite instead of discouraging human growth and procreation. Surely you MUST ALREADY KNOW this!

I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so. I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it.

These are the demands and sayings of Lee.

I find events like this very disturbing. There is a very powerful and vocal political and social lobby which is pushing a message that could lead to more individuals taking up arms. The message is anti-technology, anti-humanity and anti-freedom. We are repeatedly told that the world is teetering on the brink of doomsday due to the actions of mankind, whether it be pollution, overpopulation or consumerism. We’re being told that the only way to save the planet from our species is to forcibly stop these offensive behaviors by whatever means necessary.

At the same time, organizations are breaking the law and even committing acts of violence, while avoiding prosecution. They’re wrapping themselves in the banner of environmentalism in order to validate these actions as being just, honorable and proper. The message is clear – there is a war brewing for the future of the planet and all tactics are fair. It is, if anything, surprising that there have not been more fertile minds buying into this rhetoric to the point of committing such acts of violence.

Via the Associated Press:

Older activists, younger crowd team to fight nukes

DES MOINES, Iowa — It’s been 33 years since Raye Fleming’s arrest outside Southern California’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, near the height of the anti-nuclear power furor.

That was the first arrest of many and, Fleming believed, such actions paid off as a generation of Americans turned against nuclear power.

“It was just the correct, moral thing to do,” said 66-year-old Fleming.

But after years of believing they had won the fight against nuclear energy, activists suddenly feel the battle is starting all over again. And they’re trying to figure out how to win in an era of Facebook and Twitter as well as get the younger generation involved in the movement.

Lately, the option for nuclear energy has gotten more popular.

President Barack Obama has backed billions of dollars in federal loan guarantees to build two nuclear reactors in Georgia. If approved, they would be the first nuclear power plants in the U.S. to begin construction in almost three decades. Political support for nuclear power has grown, especially after the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico highlighted risks of fossil fuel production. And people are more open to nuclear energy.

For those like Fleming, that change is hard to understand.

“A call for more nuclear power plants,” sighed Fleming, of Arroyo Grande, Calif. “It’s still not safe, there’s still no solution to the waste storage and it’s costly.”

For many, the issue isn’t as simple as it once was. Concerns about global warming have left several environmentalists unsure about what really is the “green” side of the issue, and it’s been more than 30 years since the last high-profile accident in the U.S.

To begin with, the article seems to start off with the premis that nuclear power will be opposed (and perhaps should be opposed) as a given. There’s no real justification for *why* it’s a bad thing, other than the obligatory nod to the “waste and safety” issues. There is the assumption that it is somehow moral to oppose nuclear energy. It sounds a lot like a washed-up hippie fighting a losing cause over an issue she doesn’t even fully understand.

It has been 30 years since Three Mile Island, but I still am left scratching my head over the significance of that incident. Although it is often cited as the “Worst Nuclear Accident in US History,” Three Mile Island didn’t kill, injure or even endanger a single person and no property outside the plant’s containment structure was damaged in any way.

The article goes on to say:

Some, like Patrick Moore, have simply changed their minds. He was once a leader in the anti-nuclear movement, and now he’s co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports the expansion of nuclear power.

“I personally believe that because we were so focused at that time on the threat of all-out nuclear war and the emotional aspect of that, we were a bit blinded and included nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons as if everything nuclear was evil,” he said.

“The bottom line is, I believe we made a mistake,” he added, noting that while construction costs for nuclear plants are high, operating costs are low. He also contends nuclear energy is a safe and valuable resource.

I’m glad they included Patrick Moore. He’s been a huge thorn in the side of Greenpeace and the “Green” mainline since he parted ways with the organization several years ago. Patrick Moore was one of the founding members of the organization, which originally was focused primarily on the environmental impacts from nuclear weapons testing. At the time, France was still conducting atmospheric tests and the US had conducted one of the largest underground tests at Amchitka Island. The group quickly expanded to include protests against nuclear energy in general.

Patrick Moore now considers it a mistake to make this association and to fall into the knee-jerk antinuclear policy of Greenpeace and organizations like it. The group is much different than it was at its founding. It’s become very rich and powerful and has managed to preform numerous high profile stunts, while continuing to rake in enormous donations and grants.

As an environmentalist, Patrick Moore simply seeks a power source that is low impact and can provide the energy society needs. That is why he is all for nuclear energy.

The article continues:

“It’s 2010. It’s not 1979. It’s a different generation. There are different styles,” said Michael Mariotte, a longtime opponent of nuclear power who heads the Maryland-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service. “The whole idea of mass marches and that kind of thing doesn’t have the same kind of resonance as back then.”

Mariotte’s group alerts members to big issues via Facebook, links to anti-nuclear stories through Twitter and posts videos on YouTube.

For one group in Georgia, it’s the newer crop that really has brought those technological skills to the table and a passion to educate others via the Internet, said Glenn Carroll, the coordinator with Nuclear Watch South, which opposes the proposed reactors in Georgia.

Funny, it doesn’t seem to me like it’s changed that much. Horror stories, scare tactics and overblown claims about Three Mile Island or Chernobyl are still the cornerstone of many of these groups. Trying to paint nuclear as being too scary and dangerous to let near you (or your CHILDREN) is a mainstay that never died.

The media has changed, of course. Online media has taken over from mailed newsletters and Facebook and Twitter have replaced college radio stations and megaphones. The message is still the same tired old one that has been used for decades. But then again, what more is there do say? Appeals to fear certainly do work, at least when people are uneducated enough on an issue.

And Finally:

Jane Magers of Des Moines, Iowa, has fought nuclear power for nearly 40 years. She senses a change, a feeling that “we’ve got to have energy at all costs.”

But Magers said she’s confident that the increased support for nuclear energy will melt away when utilities announce where they intend to build. No one, she said, wants to live near a nuclear plant.

“The groundswell (against nuclear power) will come when they announce where the sites are,” she said.

Ah yes, the old appeal to NIMBY (Not in My Backyard). Basically the idea that while the public may support nuclear power in general, if enough attention can be focused on the community where a plant is to be built, then fear and a belief that the plant may hurt property values can always be leveraged to try to deny each and every location to the nuclear power plant.

Of course, it’s hard to blame someone for not wanting a huge industrial facility of any kind in their back yard. Personally, while I would have no problem living near a nuclear power plant, I’m willing to say that I’d want it to be far enough away that the hum of the turbines does not keep me awake at night.

NIMBY has its limits, though. Plenty of people live near coal power plants and a nuclear power plant would be a huge upgrade in their situation. This is why I propose making a specific point of replacing coal burners with nuclear plants in the same region. A good example would be Bellefonte, which, if opened, would mean the nearby Widows Creek dirt burner could be shut down.

In the end their arguments are as tired and washed up as these old hippies. 30 years is a lot of time to learn some things. Too bad so many choose not to.  Ultimately, the movement is one of a lot of aging has-beens who are struggling to stay relevant as knowledge of nuclear energy moves forward.  In the post-Cold War era, people are no longer obsessed with the fear of being vaporized by nuclear weapons and making the connection to peaceful energy is harder.   The internet has also empowered a great deal of pro-nuclear grass-roots activism.  If the old movement is to stay alive, they will need to recruit more young and naive pawns.  While there’s no shortage of those, there are also many educated individuals who are willing to oppose their nonsense.

One nitpick: Phil can’t actually shoot rays of energy out of his eyes. If he could, I’m pretty sure I would have been zapped by now.

Via The Associated Press:

3 arrested in Moldova in uranium smuggling plot
CHISINAU, Moldova — Two former policemen and another person were arrested in Moldova on suspicion of trying to sell four pounds (nearly two kilograms) of uranium on the black market, authorities said Wednesday, although the amount was too small to be used in a nuclear warhead or a “dirty bomb.”

Officials identified the material as uranium-238 and said it had a value of euro9 million ($11.35 million).

Uranium-238 can be enriched into the fissile material of nuclear warheads or converted into plutonium, also used to arm nuclear missiles. Both processes are complex and need much more of the material than the amount reported seized, which also was much too little to be used for a “dirty bomb.”

Interior Ministry officials said the traffickers were trying to sell the uranium, which was kept in the garage of a former policeman, to people from unspecified countries.

U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner congratulated Moldova’s government for the break up of what he called a uranium smuggling ring and said an FBI team had assisted Moldovan authorities with “technical analysis.”

Moldovan authorities have sent the uranium to a German atomic center to establish the percentage of enrichment and country of origin.

The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna declined immediate comment on the case.

“We congratulate the Moldovan Ministry of Interior for its work in thwarting what was a serious smuggling attempt,” Toner told reporters in Washington. “Preventing nuclear smuggling is a priority for this administration, and the U.S. government continues to work with partners worldwide to thwart nuclear smuggling cases.”

I’m really stunned to see such fear and ignorance-based responses at the highest levels of the government. “serious smuggling attempt”???   Where the hell does this come from?

Also, where the hell do they get the value of $11.35 million from?   I am assuming the value of the uranium is an error on the part of the Associated Press, or possibly based on the price that the “criminals” were asking for the uranium, which was reported to be about nine million Euro. Honestly, if anyone is willing to pay that much, they’re an idiot and getting hosed badly, because I can get you that much U-238 for considerably less.   In any case, that may be the asking price, but it sure as hell is not the “value.”

The reports (and there are many) are not entirely clear on whether this is natural or depleted uranium.   Both natural and depleted uranium are composed primarily of U-238.  In the case of natural uranium it’s about 99.3% U-238, with most of the remaining being U-235.  Depleted Uranium is less than .3% U-235.   The article mentions that the uranium could be enriched (although you would get very little enriched uranium from two kilograms of unenriched uranium.)  That would seem to imply it is natural, although depleted uranium is sometimes suitable for “re-enrichment” to recover that remaining .3% or less of U-235.

I believe the uranium is most likely of the depleted variety.   This photo was published in several news outlets and reports to show the uranium in question.  It appears to be some kind of counter-weight or possibly a plug from a shielded cask – both of these being common uses of depleted uranium.   The source of the uranium is unknown, but it may have been scavenged from a junked aircraft or from a scrap metal yard.

So is this dangerous?
Absolutely, unequivocally and unquestionably NO.  It’s not dangerous – at least no more so than a chunk of lead of equal size.  You could possibly drop it on someone’s head, but that’s about the worst you could do with this uranium.

Despite numerous published reports claiming that this could be used in a so-called “dirty bomb,” it presents negligible radiation danger.   For a dirty bomb to have any potential at all for radioactive hazard, it would have to use large amounts of something much more potent than U-238.   Cobalt-60 or Cesium-137 might do the trick (if you had a real real lot of it), but even then, the effectiveness is questionable.  That, however, is another topic entirely.   In any case, the potential for using this in a dirty bomb is zero.

Is it a even crime?

I have to admit that I’m not an expert on the laws in Moldova, but unless this item was stolen outright then I don’t even see why this would be considered a crime.  The material itself is not especially hazardous.  It’s less radioactive than high grade uranium ore, which can be found just laying on the ground in many places in the world.   It’s less toxic than lead.  It’s not really suitable for any kind of “terrorist” use.

In most circumstances, depleted uranium is not regarded as a material that requires much regulation for radiological hazard.   In the United States, for example, any person may possess, transfer, buy or sell up to fifteen pounds (a little less than 8 kilograms) of depleted uranium with no need for a license or permit of any kind.   Larger quantities may be subject to regulation, depending on the circumstances.   In general, uranium found in consumer products that are either approved or pre-date current regulations are exempt from permit requirements.   Approved counterweights, instrument shielding and other products manufactured within applicable regulations are generally also exempt.  Of course, uranium in its mineral form is not covered by nuclear materials regulations.

However, the NRC and Federal Government does have the right to seize radioactive substances, even those which are not generally subject to regulations, if they are deemed a hazard.   There are certainly circumstances where this might be necessary – for example, if a huge number of radium clocks and aircraft dials are being improperly disposed of, it may be necessary to step in and take action, even though these items would normally be exempt from regulation by virtue of the fact that they are consumer products that predate the current regulatory framework.

Unfortunately, this kind of breathtakingly idiotic panic and fear-mongering can be a very dangerous thing when combined with fact that the government can seize items deemed dangerous.    This is the exact kind of idiocy that can lead to large areas being cordoned off when a small piece of depleted uranium is found or to hazmat teams raiding homes to confiscate Fiestaware plates or antique Vaseline glass sculptures.

While I do not know what the regulations are outside the US, I’d assume that they are probably similar.  Most countries maintain the right to declare items or areas to be hazardous.  Uranium is not generally regulated as highly radioactive substances of other types are – if it were, many common rocks and minerals would be illegal – not to menti0n the products ranging from aircraft counterweights to glazed pottery.

Is it so outlandish that authorities could be spooked by reports of uranium-glazed china to swoop in and declare their efforts a “raid against terrorist material?”     Well, the US State Department seems to think that a tiny amount of U-238 is reason to dispatch a “technical assistance” team to another country, and we live in a society where schools are closed down and cordoned off because someone broke a mercury thermometer and where major universities worry about radioactivity in buildings which, nearly a century ago, stored polonium-210, which has a half-life of 138 days.

The NRC denied their petition, which is no surprise at all.

Via the Battleboro reformer:

NRC says VY temps within limits
BRATTLEBORO — Anti-nuclear activists were denied a petition by the Nuclear Reactor Commission’s Petition Review Board Friday.

In a June 7 letter addressed to William Borchardt, executive director for operations at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, consultants for the New England Coalition, Mark Leyse and Ray Shadis, requested that the commission lower the limit of the peak fuel cladding temperature at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon.

Zirconium alloys used in Vermont Yankee’s cladding, which are also commonly used at other nuclear plants across the country, are designed to contain the plant’s reactor fuel, consisting of uranium dioxide ceramic pellets, Shadis said.

“Everything about nuclear safety has to do with containing those pellets,” he said. “The cladding has to retain its integrity to ensure fission products, like strontium-90, never get into the environment.”

The fuel cladding temperature set by the NRC, 2,200 degrees, is far too high to ensure the public safety, according to Leyse and Shadis.

Shadis told the NRC that lowering the temperatures could help ensure an accident similar to the partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island in March 1979, or even worse, won’t occur again.

Experiments and studies conducted in Germany have shown that rapid oxidation, an exothermic reaction where the reaction is self sustaining and generates more heat as the process continues, can occur as low as 1,832 degrees.

“Once rapid oxidation begins there’s nothing you can do about it,” Leyse said. In the experiments, it took only 60 seconds for the temperatures to reach 3,300 degrees because of the runaway oxidation.”

Trying to combat it with water would only make it worse, Leyse added, because the process would just drain the oxygen from the water, rising in temperature.

Based upon the nuclear plant’s analysis, Vermont Yankee is well within the NRC accepted criteria at 2,060 degrees, Entergy spokesman Larry Smith said.

The NRC agreed, which is why the petition was dismissed.

Leyse said the NRC constantly states its purpose is public safety and that it is overly conservative in those measures.

“To be truly conservative, the temperature limits should be lowered to well below the 1,832,” he said.

He estimates that the temperature should be below 1,700 to avoid rapid oxidation.

Leyse said that although the petition was denied, it was passed along to the NRC’s rule making branch for further study and analysis and could be considered for the regulations that govern all the U.S. nuclear plants.

Note: The above article uses the Fahrenheit temperature scale for degrees.

Some background on fuel cladding:

The cladding of most PWR fuel is composed primarily of zirconium.   Zirconium alloy fuel cladding typically contains about 98.5% zirconium, with the remaining 2.5% consisting of either tin or a combination of tin, chromium, iron, nickle and other minor components. Up to 5% niobium. is used in the zircalloy used in some Russian reactors.

Zirconium-based alloys have been the primary type of cladding used in reactors since the 1950’s.   There are numerous reasons for the use of zirconium, including its high resistance to corrosion and relatively transparency to neutrons.  Zirconium has a melting point of 1855 °C / 3371 °F.   This is considerably higher than the normal operating temperatures of PWR reactors, providing a good margin of safety in the case of excessive heat.

At extremely high temperatures, zirconium can oxidize.  Indeed, zirconium is flammable under the right conditions.  As is the case with most other flammable metals (such as aluminum), solid zirconium metal will not ignite easily.  If you hold a match to a solid piece of zirconium, it’s not going to catch fire.   However, if it is heated to high enough temperatures, provided with an accelerate or ground into small grains it will burn.

There has been some concern over the flammability of zirconium used to clad spent fuel.   If very fresh spent fuel were removed from the cooling water it is immersed in, it’s possible that the convection of air would not be enough to keep the fuel rods at a safe temperature.  They would become hotter and hotter until eventually the cladding could potentially catch fire.   Of course, this would take multiple catastrophic failures to happen and it pertains only to very fresh spent fuel.  As spent fuel decays it rapidly becomes less and less radioactive.   Cooling with water still helps to keep the fuel at a low temperature and to shield workers from it, but only fuel that is less than a few weeks or, at most, months, has this potential, and even if it did catch fire, only the cladding would burn (the ceramic fuel pellets would still contain most of the material) and contamination would be relatively low and localized and entirely contained within the plant structure.

What Shadis is suggesting, however, is not really the normal type of fire.   For the zirconium to burn in the conventional sense it needs air (or at least oxygen).   It can’t burn when it is immersed in water in a sealed vessel, as is the case in a pressurized water reactor.   What Shadis is claiming is that the fuel could undergo a violent reaction with the water, oxidizing the cladding and producing hydrogen gas in the process.

Something like this happened at Three Mile Island in 1979.   The number two reactor suffered a cooling failure, which due to a combination of  operator error and systems failure caused the core of one one the reactors to lose coolant.  Fuel bundles became partially exposed as water levels dropped and as temperatures increased, a portion of the cladding oxidized and was compromised.

But could this happen in an operating reactor if the temperature went a bit too high?

The book Zirconium in the Nuclear Industry (which can be viewed on Google Books) explains why it cannot.  Without getting overly technical, what happened at Three Mile Island was the result of fuel cladding being exposed to an area in the reactor that was not filled with water, as it always should be.   The oxidation reaction happened when the fuel was in direct contact with low pressure steam and gaseous hydrogen.  (Hydrogen is injected into reactor coolant loops to alter the redox chemistry of the coolant in order to maintain a low-corrosion environment and may also be created by radiolysis) Subsequent experiments with cladding have shown that only in this unique environment will such a reaction occur.

(The image to the left shows the damaged fuel rods in the Three Mile Island reactor)

We can therefore be sure that rapid oxidation of the zirconium alloy cladding will not occur during normal operations when the fuel bundles are surrounded by water in the pressure vessel of the reactor.    Even if the normal operating temperature is exceeded, the cladding will maintain its integrity.

Real World Experimental Data on Cladding at High Temperatures:

Zirconium alloy has been the choice for fuel cladding since the 1950’s.   In all those years, there has never been a case of the fuel cladding bursting into flames during operation of a reactor, nor has rapid oxidation proven to be a major source of concern in PWR’s, even when temperatures higher than those of Vermont Yankee occur.

In addition to the decades of experience with fuel cladding at the temperatures achieved by PWR reactors, there have been a number of experiments conducted to determine the exact effects of higher than normal temperatures on nuclear fuel and cladding.  The LOFT (Loss of Fluid Test) Reactor was operated at the Idaho National Laboratory in the United States from 1963 to 1985.   LOFT was designed to use a scaled-down core representative of commercial PWR reactors.   The LOFT facility was used to bring these cores to temperatures far beyond their designed operating levels, even to the point of meltdown in order to study the effects of cooling failures on reactors and improve safety.

The PHEBUS facility in France is yet another facility which tests fuel and cladding for nuclear reactors at temperatures beyond normal operations.  At PHEBUS, fuel elements are placed in an isolated channel where they are irradiated by a separately-cooled “driver” reactor.   The coolant within the channel can be brought to much higher pressures and temperatures than would occur in a reactor during normal operations.  It can even be drained completely to simulate a complete loss of coolant.

Thanks  to PHEBUS, LOFT and the numerous power reactors that have been running for many many years, we don’t need to rely on theoretical speculation on how cladding might react to various situations in a reactor.  We can be certain of the properties of the fuel cladding and its reaction to heat.

But.. what if there’s another Three Mile Island???

As state above, it is possible for cladding to be compromised in the abnormal circumstance of a complete loss of primary coolant.   This would never happen in a reactor during normal operations, but it is what happened at Three Mile Island in 1979.   A loss of coolant like what happened at Three Mile Island is about the worst thing that can happen to a pressurized water reactor.

Since 1979, a great deal has been changed in order to avoid another incident like Three Mile Island from occurring.  Still, it’s impossible to be absolutely certain that an accident of this type will never happen again.   Since PWR’s use water to keep the fuel bundles at a safe temperature and remove decay heat, there’s always the remote possibility that, if enough water was lost, the rods could become exposed and another event like Three Mile Island could occur, including compromise of cladding.

But lets not lose context here.  Not only are the chances of such an event remote, but at worst, it would lead to heavy internal damage but no danger outside the reactor.   Engineers know that reactor vessels could face the stress of uncooled and even molten fuel and design the reactor accordingly.    This is why none of the solid material and only a small portion of gaseous fission products ever left the confinement area at Three Mile Island.    Nobody died at Three Mile Island; nobody was injured; no property outside the plant was damaged.   The reactor vessel was a right-off, but that’s the only damage that happened.

That is about the only circumstance where the rapid oxidation of zirconium alloy cladding might be an issue.   If such an event happened at Vermont Yankee or any other PWR, it would not be a disaster – except perhaps for public relations.

I’ve been thinking it’s about time someone made an ad to promote real natural detox.

Best to just flush it when done though.   Some quacks actually recommend drinking it (the logic is lost on me, since it’s something your body is trying to get rid of).   Don’t do that though.  For one thing, it’s just nasty.

This, however, is not…

Moonlight, by the way, is almost entirely composed of sunlight that is reflected from the moon, with negligible amounts coming from starlight or lights from the earth.   It’s not a perfect reflection like a mirror, but rather it’s a diffuse reflection, like you get when you illuminate something that is opaque but not shiny.   Because the moon is basically devoid of color, the light it reflects back is also basically white.   The fact that the moon sometimes appears red or orange is entirely due to the earth’s atmosphere.

It has no health benefits.  Sorry.   In fact, your body can’t tell the difference between moonlight, sunlight and the light from a good full-spectrum source of artificial light. Moonlight does not in any way dictate your body’s rhythms. Your daily cycle is largely governed by light, but what tells your body it’s time to sleep is not the presence of moonlight but rather the lack of sunlight. Of course, artificial light can interfere with this. If this is the case, the best advice is to stop staying up late and keeping large electric lights on late at night. Moonlight will do nothing to help.

Moonlight has long been given mystical powers by various folk tales and religions.  This includes such things as stories of werewolves or claims that the moon has some kind of astrological significance.  The fact is moonlight is just like any other light.   There’s nothing special about it.

The maker of this vehicle states:

Specifications HC Imagine_PS™
* PHEV plug-in hybrid e-vehicle
* V2G Compatible
* Full body biometric input
* BodySteer™ Patented Chassis
* more than 100 mpg equiv.
* SyncGuideway™ compatible
* Street legal low mass vehicle
* Mobile power station 110 A/C

* Hills
* Corners
* Start-up (power-up) sequences
* Traffic

This car is beautiful and it handles like a dream. It’s fast, sexy, makes you ultra healthy and oh yeah, saves
the planet. Welcome to the future.

(apparently I’ve been using a different definition of “sexy”)

At first glance, you might assume that this vehicle is simply powered by a mechanical linkage driven by the passengers pumping levers up and down.   If this were the case, it would at least be a fairly efficient, simple and inexpensive method of propelling the vehicle.    However, it would not be anything new…

Yes, at one time handcars were fairly common as a means of transporting maintenance personnel and tools short distances on railroads.   However because handcars are slow and can leave the crew exhausted before even arriving at a work site, they have been replaced by motor-driven vehicles and are now generally relegated to museums and Western films.

Human-powered transport, however, is still very much alive.   In addition to walking, bicycles are a highly successful means of transportation that many environmentalists seem to like to ignore while pushing their own version of complex and convoluted version of transportation.   Bikes are cheap, simple and small enough to bring indoors for apartment dwellers.  They’re easily capable of providing transportation within a few miles or less, and in cities, bicycle transport can be faster than driving due to the ability to navigate around traffic.

The complex, convoluted, human-electric drive system:

The most obvious departure from most other human-driven vehicles is that this “car” does not use rotating peddles but rather a pumping/rowing motion with the arms to generate power.   This is a curious setup as it provides more work to the upper body than to the stronger and more endurance-capable leg muscles.   It also makes the system more mechanically complex and complicates steering.   The pumping motion may also cause greater back strain and reduce the accessability of the vehicle to those with less than perfect physical health, such as back problems.

The website states the following reason for the unorthodox system:

The search for a useful human power interface for vehicle use began with several test devices that could measure the force available from various muscle groups. It was clear that a bicycle type mechanism, while quite successful as a thigh and calf interface, would not meet the needs of a full-body work out, so early design focused upon a rowing-like motion.

This seems to be very typical of this vehicle.   The designer appears to have difficulty deciding on exactly what this thing is supposed to be.   Is it meant to be a practical means of locomotion or an exercise machine?   The two needs have very different demands.   If it’s meant to get you where you want to go then it’s more important to have an efficient and high-endurance power system, but if its for human exercise then that’s a totally different story.    As it stands, this vehicle does not appear to be especially good in either capacity.

Yet if that’s not a complex and confusing enough conundrum, the designers take it one step further by making the vehicle electric and adding rechargeable batteries.   That would seem to defeat the entire purpose of exercise and turn it entirely into a hyper-expensive electric golf-cart.   Actually the vehicle is some kind of “hybrid” that is supposed to also be capable of static power generation.  In going with an electric-based design, things are not only made more complex and expensive, but much of the human power is lost in the conversion.

And if that’s not enough, it’s also supposed to work as a static power generator for homes or as a portable power plant by teaming numerous units together.

But it gets worse…

If that was not complex and convoluted enough, the maker of this vehicle also wants to make it the cornerstone of a new transportation system called the “SyncGuideway.“   Basically these vehicles are supposed to eventually join up and travel along a monorail-like system that provides power and guidance to them.

If the whole concept was not expensive enough, now they want a complex system of centralized infrastructure built just for this thing.   It would not be compatible with existing vehicles, but is seen as addressing the issues of traffic compatibility that the HumanCar introduces.

Other major issues with the vehicle:

• It’s expensive – really really really expensive.  At $15,500, this vehicle is as expensive as a full-fledged car and yet has far less utility.  Compared to bicycles, scooters, golf carts and any number of other vehicles, it’s ridiculously expensive.
• It’s clearly a “fair weather” vehicle.  It’s absolutely useless if there is precipitation and provides no protection from the cold or heat.
• With no roof and very limited protection and no security to speak of, the vehicle can’t be stored outdoors, yet it’s far too big for bringing indoors, like a bike can be.   Thus it will require its own dedicated garage space.
• Safety is, at best, questionable.  It lacks any major protection for the passengers.   It’s also very low to the ground, making it difficult to see and increasing the risk of collision.
• The claims of speeds of 60 mph are questionable.   According to the page this was achieved while traveling down hill.  It’s very questionable whether such speeds could be maintained for any period of time.

How much power can a human actually generate?

If this vehicle is actually going to derive a significant amount of energy from human muscle, and if it is to be used as a static power generator, it’s important to consider just how much power a human being can produce.  As it turns out, it’s not all that much.

The average physically fit human can produce upwards of one kilowatt of total power while exercising rigorously, but only for a relatively short period of time, less than few minutes.  Such power output is a major workout and would leave a person, at the very least, very winded an covered in sweat.  This is the amount of power a healthy adult would generate if you asked them to peddle a bicycle or pump a rowing machine has quickly as they possibly could.

A more reasonable amount of power output would be something like 200-240 watts. That’s the kind of power you’d generate while taking a slow jog or while riding a bicycle at a reasonably fast pace. A person in good physical health could keep it up for a while, but it’s still a significant workout and leave most breaking a sweat  after ten minutes or less, but could probably keep it up for a period of hours if absolutely necessary.

About the most power a healthy adult could be expected to produce continuously, comfortably, would be less than 150 watts .   That’s the kind of power a human is generating while taking a walk at medium speed, a hike over reasonably smooth terrain or a leisurely bicycle ride.

Of course, elite athletes can generate quite a bit more.   The maximum amount a human is likely to be able to generate for any significant period (more than an hour) of time is about 30o-500 watts.   That’s the kind of power a cyclist  is putting out during the more demanding portions of the Tour De France.    Such athletes can also generate upwards of two kilowatts of power, but only for a very brief period of time.

However, it’s important to remember that this is the total power output by a human, NOT the amount of electricity generated by a human-driven generator. All electrical generators have some losses, and the small generators that would be used in a human-driven system are far less efficient than the larger utility scale generators.   In addition to this, they would be driven at variable speeds, unlike utility generators that can be kept at a constant rotational speed.  This further reduces efficiency by introducing the need for internal voltage regulation and the use of batteries to buffer the current.    The lower voltages used by small generators also increases internal loss.   Thus, while power plant generators can be upwards of 98% efficient, the small generators (alternators) used in automobiles and to power things like bicycle lamps are about 50-75% efficient.

Human Power Generation is NOT NEW AT ALL

For the reasons listed above, most human-driven electrical generators top out at an output of under 200 watts and generally are used to produce less than 50 watts.   There are many such generators around and they’ve been used for many years for applications where relatively low amounts of power are needed in remote areas where fuel is not available.

The military has long employed human-driven generators to power things like field telephones and radio transmitters.  Hand-cranked generators were commonly used by both sides to power man-portable radio systems during the Second World War.  The military still fields hand-cranked generator units for communications systems to this day, although thanks to better batteries, they are now less common than in years past.  Modern units can output up to 65 watts, when powered by a physically fit soldier rigorously cranking the unit.  However, such output can only be maintained briefly, although levels of about 25 watts can be maintained for a much longer period of time.    Such units are thus limited in application to relatively low-power systems.

During the Cold War, the United States built numerous Civil Defense fallout shelters, many of which were equipped with human-driven power generators.   One of these was the “Fallout Shelter, Packaged Ventilation Kit.” It consisted of a tandem stationary bicycle which powered a fan that ventilated the shelter through an inflatable duct. (presumably filtration would be employed if an actual nuclear detonation occurred). Some of these units also were equipped with electrical generators to power small emergency lights and shortwave radios.  These systems were envisioned for use in public shelters, such as those build in Cold War era schools and municipal buildings.   Therefore, there would be a number of people who could be rotated on the machine as they tired out.

Potential as a power plant:

The developer of this vehicle also states that such devices could be teamed in order to create a human-driven power plant.   This is not the first time that human-driven electrical generation has been proposed.   If we apply the most optimistic case for humans generating power, assuming that the system uses extremely efficient generators powered by elite athletes at a back breaking pace, it’s possible that a total of about 250 watts per person might be achieved.   A more reasonable, though still optimistic estimate would be about 100 watts per person.

If this kind of power plant were to be operated in the United States, the minimum hourly wage for the workers is $7.25, resulting in a generation cost of between $29.00 per kilowatt hour for the most optimistic scenario to $72.25 per kilowatt hour for the more realistic scenario.   Of course, this does not include other costs, such as the upkeep of the equipment or the workers compensation for all the injuries at such a job.    By contrast the average retail cost of electricity in the US is about 8.6 cents per kilowatt hour.

Clearly such a way of generating electricity is not going to be economically feasible with paid workers.   It just might be feasible with slaves, however.    Slaves would still need to be fed, but considering that they could be fed cheap animal feeds, the economics begin to look up.   Slaves also can be made to generate power more rigorously than standard employees by employing whipping.

So how can this be?

Via WebMD:

Study Links Zinc Nose Sprays, Loss of Smell

Zicam Zinc Nasal Products Removed From Shelves Last Year
July 19, 2010 — Just over a year ago, the FDA warned that zinc-containing intranasal cold remedies might cause loss of sense of smell.

Now a researcher who has long argued that the sprays were harmful says he has scientific evidence to back up the claim.

Last summer, the FDA warned consumers to stop using three zinc-containing Zicam products: Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel, Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs, and Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs for kids. The federal regulators cited 130 reports of loss of sense of smell among users of the products.

Zicam manufacturer Matrixx Initiatives pulled the three products from the shelves, but the company maintains that there is no link between their use and loss of smell.

In the newly reported analysis, researchers applied a statistical method used to establish a cause-and-effect link between an environmental exposure and development of a disease in an effort to confirm that zinc-containing nasal products can cause loss of sense of smell, known medically as anosmia.

University of California, San Diego professor Terence M. Davidson, MD, says the analysis supports the hypothesis.

He adds that the effectiveness of zinc-containing products for preventing or shortening the duration of colds has never been proven.

“Given that they do absolutely no good for colds and given that there is potential for harm, I see no point in putting any zinc gluconate products in the nose,” Davidson tells WebMD.

But… Zicam is homeopathic, right? Well, no, not really. In this case, the product is being sold as “homeopathic” and in doing so managed to avoid all the scrutiny, testing and regulation that over-the-counter drugs normally would receive. However, the dilution of the zinc in Zicam is only x2, meaning about one part per 100 parts of solvent. This is generally not what you find in homeopathic remedies, which are diluted to 30x or more (one part per 10^30.)

So what happened here? Simply put, the makers claimed that since the active ingredient was dilute it qualified as being homeopathic and simply by calling it homeopathic they avoided all regulation.   They just fudged the definition of how much “dilution” the zinc compound, zinc gluconate, need to be homeopathic, and since homeopathic groups are pretty dishonest to begin with, nobody raised any objection.

As it turns out, the concentration of zinc gluconate in the remedy – which may or may not have any effect on the cold virus – can most definitely have an effect on the scent receptors in the nose.  Worst still, the damage may be permanent, making it impossible for a person to enjoy the smells of fresh cut grass, apple pie or perfume and also preventing them from being able to detect odors like the smell of smoke or leaking gas.  And since taste relies heavily on smell, those with damaged senses of smell lose all but the most basic ability to taste food, being able to tell if the food is salty or sweet, but not being able to discern more complex flavors.

There is one bit of good news here, though.  It seems that the company that makes Zicam is large enough and has enough asserts to make it worth going after in civil court.  They’ve already settled quite a few lawsuits, but more are on the way. I hope they get taken to the cleaners, because it’s about time some of these fraud operations were made into examples.    Perhaps if enough attention is given it could actually lead to regulatory changes, which are so sorely needed!

Of course, there are a few that are very dangerous and a product called “Miracle Mineral” has recently been cited for its extraordinarily dangerous formula.   Doctor David Kroll at Science Based Medicine called it “one of the most egregious and obscene product cases I have seen in 15 years of teaching on botanical and non-botanical products.”

The product is one of those cure-alls, which claims to cure everything from cancer to AIDS.
The page for the product states:

The answer to AIDS, hepatitis A,B and C, malaria, herpes, TB, most cancer and many more of mankind’s worse diseases has been found. Many diseases are now easily controlled. More that 75,000 disease victims have been included in the field tests in Africa. Scientific clinical trials have been conducted in a prison in the country of Malawi, East Africa.

Separate tests conducted by the Malawi government produced identical 99% cure results. Over 60% of the AIDS victims that were treated in Uganda were well in 3 days, with 98% well within one month. More than 90% of the malaria victims were well in 4 to 8 hours. Dozens of other diseases were successfully treated and can be controlled with this new mineral supplement. It also works with colds, flu, pneumonia, sore throats, warts, mouth sores, and even abscessed teeth (it’s the only thing that controls and cures abscessed teeth).

But what sets this product apart is what it is. Basically, they’re selling a form of sodium chlorite, at a concentration of 28% by some reports.  Sodium chlorite is an oxidizer which is used as an industrial bleaching agent and occasionally for disinfection.  It’s quite toxic, with a potentially lethal dose being only about 15 grams. It’s basically a form of chlorine bleach, although slightly different from the normal household variety.

The product instructs users to mix it with acidic fruit juices, such as citrus juice. This will produce a chemical reaction that generates chlorine dioxide, an even more potent and toxic chemical. Chlorine dioxide is a highly toxic, water-soluble gas that is also very corrosive and can irritate skin and eyes, even at fairly low concentrations. It’s extremely reactive and a powerful oxidizer. It also readily decomposes to produce chlorine gas, which is also highly reactive and extremely toxic.

Chlorine dioxide is used as a biocide for the prevention of biofouling of water in cooling towers and other industrial applications. It’s also used, in some circumstances, to disinfect water. Of course, when used for such purposes, it is used in fairly limited concentrations and is subject to strict safety rules for handling and transportation.

Thus far there are no reports of deaths.  Given the quantities used, it’s more likely that use of this product would result in injury or irritation, including chemical burns.   However, fatal reactions are certainly possible if enough is used.

The extreme toxicity and potential danger of this product has caused the FDA to issue a very stern warning – something it does not do nearly as often as it should:

FDA Warns Consumers of Serious Harm from Drinking Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS)
Product contains industrial strength bleach

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning consumers not to take Miracle Mineral Solution, an oral liquid also known as “Miracle Mineral Supplement” or “MMS.”  The product, when used as directed, produces an industrial bleach that can cause serious harm to health.

The FDA has received several reports of health injuries from consumers using this product, including severe nausea, vomiting, and life-threatening low blood pressure from dehydration.

Consumers who have MMS should stop using it immediately and throw it away.

MMS is distributed on Internet sites and online auctions by multiple independent distributors. Although the products share the MMS name, the look of the labeling may vary.

The product instructs consumers to mix the 28 percent sodium chlorite solution with an acid such as citrus juice. This mixture produces chlorine dioxide, a potent bleach used for stripping textiles and industrial water treatment. High oral doses of this bleach, such as those recommended in the labeling, can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and symptoms of severe dehydration.

MMS claims to treat multiple unrelated diseases, including HIV, hepatitis, the H1N1 flu virus, common colds, acne, cancer, and other conditions. The FDA is not aware of any research that MMS is effective in treating any of these conditions. MMS also poses a significant health risk to consumers who may choose to use this product for self-treatment instead of seeking FDA-approved treatments for these conditions.

The FDA continues to investigate and may pursue civil or criminal enforcement actions as appropriate to protect the public from this potentially dangerous product.

The FDA advises consumers who have experienced any negative side effects from MMS to consult a health care professional as soon as possible and to discard the product. Consumers and health care professionals should report adverse events to the FDA’s MedWatch program at 800-FDA-1088 or online at www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm.

You can read more about this disturbing case of dangerous quackery from our friends at Science Based Medicine. The Science Based Medicine article goes into further detail about the outlandish claims of this product’s “inventor,” including that AIDS patients should stop taking their medication and start using the Miracle Mineral Solution and that it “only kills the harmful bacteria” and not the beneficial ones.