Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
Absolutely right conclusion. But I am afraid that Australia's future is not really decided now and here but there.
So many may think that Australia could serve perfectly as a nuclear waste dumpsite. Since Australia already provides free of charge services like tax and royalty-free supply of gas, coal, and mineral why not extend this service to free nuclear dump?
In order to do so, you need to build a small dummy nuclear plant then design dumpsite under Uluru or similar and then Europe and US could breathe relief. Now there is a place where the whole world could dump their nuclear waste free of charge. Obviously there is not a single reason for Australia to engage into nuclear reactors beside that one above.US have history of light-hearted discarding the most beautiful places in the world into no go zones - nuclear dump sites for thousand years = look at some atolls now discarded from Google Maps tourist destination = at least for next 10,000 years to come.
Bikini may seem ideal for some to dump the waste, but for others, it seems to be too small to accommodate millions of tones of nuclear waster. Bigger Island like Australia is needed, almost uninhibited seems to be next, the ideal goal
You've got plenty of space in the middle of the outback.
How much high level nuclear waste is produced in a nuclear reactor?
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency a nuclear reactor which would supply the needs of a city the size of Amsterdam - a 1000MW(e) nuclear power station - produces approximately 30 tonnes of high level solid packed waster per year if the spent fuel is not reprocessed. In comparison, a 1000MW(e) coal plant produces 300,000 tonnes of ash per year.
nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeWasteFromNuclearPower
PS. you won't ever get a bomb-like explosion out of a nuclear reactor. The fuel can never physically attain criticality.
Select to expand quoteIFocus said..
The only reason to go nuclear is to build a bomb other wise pointless, given the rise of China could be a good idea.
Australia has no means of enrichment to achieve that pick a number in years to achieve that.
Then pick another number to build the over all cost would be huge thats before you get to waste and whos back yard you build it in.......never ever going to happen but great ramp idea for those fck-witt politicians that have no idea.
Absolute and utter nonsense.
So you build it. Iraq managed to do it, right under the noses of multiple inspection teams.
All power stations are expensive 
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..IFocus said..
The only reason to go nuclear is to build a bomb other wise pointless, given the rise of China could be a good idea.
Australia has no means of enrichment to achieve that pick a number in years to achieve that.
Then pick another number to build the over all cost would be huge thats before you get to waste and whos back yard you build it in.......never ever going to happen but great ramp idea for those fck-witt politicians that have no idea.
Absolute and utter nonsense.
So you build it. Iraq managed to do it, right under the noses of multiple inspection teams.
All power stations are expensive
W....T....F?
Iraq never built a nuclear bomb, nor got anywhere near it. From memory ,they never even started to build one.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said...So you build it. Iraq managed to do it, right under the noses of multiple inspection teams.
So you think Iraq built a nuclear bomb?
LOL, no credibility.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Kamikuza said...So you build it. Iraq managed to do it, right under the noses of multiple inspection teams.
So you think Iraq built a nuclear bomb?
LOL, no credibility.
Did I say "built a bomb"? LOL
No I said "build the refinement infrastructure" like Iraq did. Right under the noses of weapon inspectors.
www.armscontrol.org/act/2008-09/us-removes-uranium-iraqi-nuclear-site
I'm sure if you google it yourself 
you'll get more hits from different sources, if you don't like my top hit.
500 tons of yellow cake means the enrichment program was successful.
...what was that you were saying about credibility? 
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Macroscien said..
Absolutely right conclusion. But I am afraid that Australia's future is not really decided now and here but there.
So many may think that Australia could serve perfectly as a nuclear waste dumpsite. Since Australia already provides free of charge services like tax and royalty-free supply of gas, coal, and mineral why not extend this service to free nuclear dump?
In order to do so, you need to build a small dummy nuclear plant then design dumpsite under Uluru or similar and then Europe and US could breathe relief. Now there is a place where the whole world could dump their nuclear waste free of charge. Obviously there is not a single reason for Australia to engage into nuclear reactors beside that one above.US have history of light-hearted discarding the most beautiful places in the world into no go zones - nuclear dump sites for thousand years = look at some atolls now discarded from Google Maps tourist destination = at least for next 10,000 years to come.
Bikini may seem ideal for some to dump the waste, but for others, it seems to be too small to accommodate millions of tones of nuclear waster. Bigger Island like Australia is needed, almost uninhibited seems to be next, the ideal goal
You've got plenty of space in the middle of the outback.
How much high level nuclear waste is produced in a nuclear reactor?
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency a nuclear reactor which would supply the needs of a city the size of Amsterdam - a 1000MW(e) nuclear power station - produces approximately 30 tonnes of high level solid packed waster per year if the spent fuel is not reprocessed. In comparison, a 1000MW(e) coal plant produces 300,000 tonnes of ash per year.
nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeWasteFromNuclearPower
PS. you won't ever get a bomb-like explosion out of a nuclear reactor. The fuel can never physically attain criticality.
The explosion does happen when cooling does fail, As you should know. Reactor overheats and melt, release all radioactive material, We are not so even worry about nuclear explosion as such- may have very limited blast range but radioactive material that does travel thousands of km. Next you numbers 30 tonnes are optimistic or naive. Countries like the US and France do face now the problem of discarding mln of tones of radioactive material. Even when you dismantle the reactor and sent it to scrap everything is radioactive and toxic. Japan also will be very interested to dump their nuclear waste onto Australian soil - and that may explain your bias. Hopefully, people in Australia could still say NO to foreign powers. Small Kiwilandia said so a year ago already.
That last sentence about miners disposing of uranium onsite sounds funny for me. Sounds almost impossible but smart miners managed to hide waste nicely, till somebody will find us and then will be all our problems, Like hiding toxic waste in Melbourne warehouses.
Now it is time for Kamikaze to prove his words. Pack everything and relocate to a new city where everything will glow nicely at night. Then the prices of properties will be very affordable., After a few years, you will grow also the third set of hands, which could be very useful
Kamikuza is moving to Barndloota !
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..Kamikuza said..Macroscien said..
Absolutely right conclusion. But I am afraid that Australia's future is not really decided now and here but there.
So many may think that Australia could serve perfectly as a nuclear waste dumpsite. Since Australia already provides free of charge services like tax and royalty-free supply of gas, coal, and mineral why not extend this service to free nuclear dump?
In order to do so, you need to build a small dummy nuclear plant then design dumpsite under Uluru or similar and then Europe and US could breathe relief. Now there is a place where the whole world could dump their nuclear waste free of charge. Obviously there is not a single reason for Australia to engage into nuclear reactors beside that one above.US have history of light-hearted discarding the most beautiful places in the world into no go zones - nuclear dump sites for thousand years = look at some atolls now discarded from Google Maps tourist destination = at least for next 10,000 years to come.
Bikini may seem ideal for some to dump the waste, but for others, it seems to be too small to accommodate millions of tones of nuclear waster. Bigger Island like Australia is needed, almost uninhibited seems to be next, the ideal goal
You've got plenty of space in the middle of the outback.
How much high level nuclear waste is produced in a nuclear reactor?
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency a nuclear reactor which would supply the needs of a city the size of Amsterdam - a 1000MW(e) nuclear power station - produces approximately 30 tonnes of high level solid packed waster per year if the spent fuel is not reprocessed. In comparison, a 1000MW(e) coal plant produces 300,000 tonnes of ash per year.
nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeWasteFromNuclearPower
PS. you won't ever get a bomb-like explosion out of a nuclear reactor. The fuel can never physically attain criticality.
The explosion does happen when cooling does fail, As you should know. Reactor overheats and melt, release all radioactive material, We are not so even worry about nuclear explosion as such- may have very limited blast range but radioactive material that does travel thousands of km. Next you numbers 30 tonnes are optimistic or naive. Countries like US and France do face now the problem of discarding mln of tones of radioactive material. Even when you dismantle the reactor and sent it to scrap everything is radioactive and toxic. Japan also will be very interested to dump their nuclear waste onto Australian soil - and that may explain your bias. Hopefully, people in Australia could still say NO to foreign powers. Small Kiwilandia said so a year ago already.
That last sentence about miners disposing of uranium onsite sounds funny for me. Sounds almost impossible but smart miners managed to hide waste nicely, till somebody will find us and then will be all our problems, LIke hiding toxic waste in Melbourne warehouses.
Now it is time for Kamikaze to prove these words. Pack everything and relocate to a new city where everything will glow nicely at night.Then the prices of properties will be very affordable., After few years you will grow also third set of hands, which could be very usefull
Kamikuza is moving to Barndloota !
What is exploding? I'll give you hint: it's not nuclear because that's not how nukes work, and holy guacamole loves it.
When a reactor melts down, the "radioactive material" goes where -exactly?
Two whole swimming pools! Oh my god it's the end of civilization, mate!
This is a lovely beach spot, we frequently visit. Check out what's across the bay... No worries!
goo.gl/maps/bqE4L4qxFm8p4j468
You really need to look into how actually reactors work and especially how radiation ... radiates.
...I dunno the y'all think they'll be building these things in your neighborhood like it's the local Caltex or BP
Select to expand quotepsychomub said..Kamikuza said..IFocus said..
The only reason to go nuclear is to build a bomb other wise pointless, given the rise of China could be a good idea.
Australia has no means of enrichment to achieve that pick a number in years to achieve that.
Then pick another number to build the over all cost would be huge thats before you get to waste and whos back yard you build it in.......never ever going to happen but great ramp idea for those fck-witt politicians that have no idea.
Absolute and utter nonsense.
So you build it. Iraq managed to do it, right under the noses of multiple inspection teams.
All power stations are expensive
W....T....F?
Iraq never built a nuclear bomb, nor got anywhere near it. From memory ,they never even started to build one.
Trust google, not your memory.
Select to expand quote
Kamikuza said..
This is a lovely beach spot,
Happy swimming, Kamizuza
BTW get yourself sun cream and swimsuit made of lead at least 15 cm thick.
Alternatively, the government of Japan may consider donating this water to Australia stricken by recent draughts. A gift from the hearts to people suffering a lack of water, since Japan has plenty.NIcely bottled into plastic may sell well at discount prices of $1 per liter. The glowing effect is free of charge.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..FormulaNova said..Mr Milk said..IFocus said..
The only reason to go nuclear is to build a bomb other wise pointless, given the rise of China could be a good idea.
Australia has no means of enrichment to achieve that pick a number in years to achieve that.
Then pick another number to build the over all cost would be huge thats before you get to waste and whos back yard you build it in.......never ever going to happen but great ramp idea for those fck-witt politicians that have no idea.
Why would we have to enrich the stuff? We have the biggest endowment of the stuff on the planet, so instead of enriching it we could just put more into the bomb.
Are you just joking around? I thought/think enrichment is a different thing where it really has to be a certain purity of whatever in order to be good enough for a bomb, and not a quantity thing...?
www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-enrichment.html
That link does not go into the detail required to build my own nuclear bomb at home. Please provide additional links to help me achieve this goal.
Seriously though, it sounds like Bill Gates is onto it. Supporting development of a reactor that can use material that is otherwise useless in a conventional reactor and designed to survive cooling accidents. Until this design is commercially available...
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..mineral1 said..
Nuclear power, currently four times cost of any other conventual power supply.
Base load power plants with minimal size build, is way too large for current usage across Australia. Our city's are too far apart to even logically think one of the plants can support the current needs, city by city.
You got a source for that ridiculous figure? Google says otherwise over and over.
As I've already said, it may depend on application. I have no idea how good it would be, but maybe these guys do: www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/nuclear-power-some-facts/
Take a read. Then explain how its cost associated isn't well above the four times current generating methods
www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/nuclear-and-renewables-or-nuclear-or-renewables/11124440
And your link to nuclear power lobby group
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..
Did I say "built a bomb"? LOL
No I said "build the refinement infrastructure" like Iraq did. Right under the noses of weapon inspectors.
www.armscontrol.org/act/2008-09/us-removes-uranium-iraqi-nuclear-site
I'm sure if you google it yourself you'll get more hits from different sources, if you don't like my top hit.
500 tons of yellow cake means the enrichment program was successful.
...what was that you were saying about credibility?
Yellowcake is not enriched uranium. It is U3O8, the concentrate that comes from the processed ore.
Enrichment is the next step down the line. It requires that the yellowcake be converted to the low temperature gas UF6, which is then passed through gas centrifuges multiple times to achieve isotopic separation.
Incredible that you think otherwise, 'specially after reading the link that you posted.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..psychomub said..Kamikuza said..IFocus said..
The only reason to go nuclear is to build a bomb other wise pointless, given the rise of China could be a good idea.
Australia has no means of enrichment to achieve that pick a number in years to achieve that.
Then pick another number to build the over all cost would be huge thats before you get to waste and whos back yard you build it in.......never ever going to happen but great ramp idea for those fck-witt politicians that have no idea.
Absolute and utter nonsense.
So you build it. Iraq managed to do it, right under the noses of multiple inspection teams.
All power stations are expensive
W....T....F?
Iraq never built a nuclear bomb, nor got anywhere near it. From memory ,they never even started to build one.
Trust google, not your memory.
My memory is fine. There was never an Iraqi nuclear weapon or anything even close to one. There was an alleged nuclear programme, but that was just a lie.
You should slap whoever is telling you otherwise.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
Happy swimming, Kamizuza
BTW get yourself sun cream and swimsuit made of lead at least 15 cm thick.
But you're not worried about all the fish crap and oil spills in the ocean? The damage is in the dose.
Select to expand quotemineral1 said..
Take a read. Then explain how its cost associated isn't well above the four times current generating methods
www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/nuclear-and-renewables-or-nuclear-or-renewables/11124440
And your link to nuclear power lobby group
I searched the transcript and found nothing about the costs of building and operating a nuclear power station. Wrong link?
Here's another one: large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/wang-k2/
"The US Energy Information Administration estimated that for new nuclear plants to go into service in 2019, capital costs will make up 74% of the cost of electricity; higher than the capital percentages for fossil-fuel power plants - 63% for coal and 22% for natural gas, but lower than the capital percentages for other renewable sources - 80% for wind and 88% for solar PV."
4x the cost of natural gas, but aren't we supposed to be moving away from fossil fuel? Wind and solar, yikes.
Don't like the link? How are they wrong?
Select to expand quotepsychomub said..
My memory is fine.
There was never an Iraqi nuclear weapon or anything even close to one.
There was an alleged nuclear programme, but that was just a lie.
You should slap whoever is telling you otherwise.
If you say so.
Correct, and I never said there was.
Wrong.
The head of the program needs a slap? Harsh, bro.
www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-oct-03-fg-iraqarms3-story.html
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said
Yellowcake is not enriched uranium. It is U3O8, the concentrate that comes from the processed ore.
Enrichment is the next step down the line. It requires that the yellowcake be converted to the low temperature gas UF6, which is then passed through gas centrifuges multiple times to achieve isotopic separation.
Incredible that you think otherwise, 'specially after reading the link that you posted.
You're right, it's an intermediate step in the process of refining uranium, so the fact that Iraq had yellowcake is evidence that either
a. Iraq somehow slipped 500 tons of yellowcake into the country without the rest of the world finding out and had plans to continue its enrichment
or
b. they had infrastructure in place that was enriching uranium ore.
Which they did: www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/iraqs_fm_history.html
They didn't have a bomb. And back to my point, if they can covertly build the infrastructure for enriching uranium right under the world's nose then it wouldn't be an impossible task for Australia to do it legally with advice and aid from other nuclear-powered nations.
Should Australia so desire
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
That link does not go into the detail required to build my own nuclear bomb at home. Please provide additional links to help me achieve this goal.
Seriously though, it sounds like Bill Gates is onto it. Supporting development of a reactor that can use material that is otherwise useless in a conventional reactor and designed to survive cooling accidents. Until this design is commercially available...
Lazy bum!
Reactors are designed to "survive" cooling accidents...
www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML12093A088.pdf
It took me around an hour to get that pic Japie.
Their Data can easily be substituted for the word plastic too.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Did I say "built a bomb"? LOL holy guacamole said..Kamikuza said...So you build it. Iraq managed to do it, right under the noses of multiple inspection teams.
Sure read like that's what you were implying.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Should Australia so desire
Australia doesn't desire. Sorry.
Maybe move (back) to Japan where they know all about nuclear reactor meltdowns....you could report on the progress of decontamination and cancer rates amongst the survivors and technicians.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..FormulaNova said..
That link does not go into the detail required to build my own nuclear bomb at home. Please provide additional links to help me achieve this goal.
Seriously though, it sounds like Bill Gates is onto it. Supporting development of a reactor that can use material that is otherwise useless in a conventional reactor and designed to survive cooling accidents. Until this design is commercially available...
Lazy bum!
Reactors are designed to "survive" cooling accidents...
www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML12093A088.pdf
I actually did google it at the time and material for a bomb needs to be something like greater than 90% or 95% of u235, whereas power grade was greater than 5%... or at least thats what I remember from this morning. Any wannabee despots of 3rd world countries that want more info need to google it themselves.
As for existing reactors to survive cooling accidents, I haven't read that article yet, but the doco on the Bill Gates supported reactor said that it was intended to survive on passive cooling alone if things fail... which suggests that other designs need active cooling to avoid meltdown... but I can always be wrong.
The aim of the design was to be able to use a larger amount of the material life before it becomes waste. I think we build one, no three, at Maralinga (sorry native peoples that have moved back, but it might give you better fresh water?) to test it out, build the HVDC interconnects from SA to WA using Macroscien developments, and then we are set to use it for baseload and renewables for the rest.
Of course, the design needs to cater for relatively fast changes in load, and failing that, pump something to somewhere else or turn the extra power into petrol(!!! yeah!!!).
Do you know that Japan just build a Hydrogen Bomb! Yep, this bomb will be sailing to our shores.I wonder what is actual rating in kT of TNT?
www.ft.com/content/8ae16d5e-1bd4-11ea-97df-cc63de1d73f4
Select to expand quote
Forget traditional uranium powered nuclear plants.
That is old fashion,
Now other students from supplied by you list published blueprint of power plant running on antimatter!
Well, I am not surprised that now 7 years old prodigy could finish US university with a Ph.D. Luckily our cooking classes for foreigners at Melbourne represent a higher standard of education. At least those Standford students do not waste a paper to publish this nonsense, because online seems to be green publishing ( still a waste of computing power a bit)
That is another Truth from remote snowy volcanic island.
Just English grammar is a bit misleading here.
When it says carbon-free - it means "free to go" to the atmosphere.
Since the production of a product ordered in Japan requires an emission of 12 tonnes of carbon monoxide straight into the atmosphere for each tone of hydrogen produced from our brow coal. That 12 tonne is very optimistic and not realistic figure as liquidation of hydrogen to such low temperature requires an enormous amount of energy.
Obviously I would suggest Japan to build already another bigger ship to take that this poisonous CO to Japan and release there instead of in Australia. Funny how Japan now plans to utilize cleansed energy at the cost of Australia. All pollution from brown coal will stay here but pure hydrogen arrives to Japan.I would propose to send this new ship on a scrap yard, melt and drow conductive cable that could now transfer clean high voltage electricity to Japan without the need for hydrogen.Nice and pure electrons only from solar panels at our outback Australian land.What Australia gain when we switch the whole country to electric vehicles - stopping pumping CO from our exhaust pipes - will be replaced 10 x with dirty hydrogen production
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Mr Milk said
Yellowcake is not enriched uranium. It is U3O8, the concentrate that comes from the processed ore.
Enrichment is the next step down the line. It requires that the yellowcake be converted to the low temperature gas UF6, which is then passed through gas centrifuges multiple times to achieve isotopic separation.
Incredible that you think otherwise, 'specially after reading the link that you posted.
You're right, it's an intermediate step in the process of refining uranium, so the fact that Iraq had yellowcake is evidence that either
a. Iraq somehow slipped 500 tons of yellowcake into the country without the rest of the world finding out and had plans to continue its enrichment
or
b. they had infrastructure in place that was enriching uranium ore.
Which they did: www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/iraqs_fm_history.html
They didn't have a bomb. And back to my point, if they can covertly build the infrastructure for enriching uranium right under the world's nose then it wouldn't be an impossible task for Australia to do it legally with advice and aid from other nuclear-powered nations.
Should Australia so desire
There was nothing covert about it. Iraq bought a nuclear reactor from France in 1976. The Israelis bombed and destroyed it in 1981.
The yellowcake was known about before 1991
www.snopes.com/fact-check/have-your-yellowcake/
American troops who suggested they uncovered evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq unwittingly may have stumbled across known stocks of low-grade uranium, officials said. They said the U.S. troops may have broken U.N. seals meant to keep control of the radioactive material. The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, which has inspected the Tuwaitha nuclear complex at least two dozen times and maintains a thick dossier on the site, had no immediate comment. But an expert familiar with U.N. nuclear inspections told The Associated Press that it was implausible to believe that U.S. forces had uncovered anything new at the site. Instead, the official said, the Marines apparently broke U.N. seals designed to ensure the materials aren't diverted for weapons use or end up in the wrong hands. "What happened apparently was that they broke IAEA seals, which is very unfortunate because those seals are integral to ensuring that nuclear material doesn't get diverted," the expert said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Several tons of low-grade uranium has been stored at Tuwaitha, Iraq's principal nuclear research center and a site that has been under IAEA safeguards for years, the official said. The Iraqis were allowed to keep the material because it was unfit for weapons use without costly and time-consuming enrichment. The uranium was inspected by the U.N. nuclear agency twice a year and was kept under IAEA seal at least until the Marines seized control of the site.
Why would Australia want to enrich uranium at all? It would be much cheaper to buy it from a company and country that has expertise. And building bombs and delivery systems is off in la la land
When we thought , we have all the problems attended and solved,
we have an even bigger nut to crack
www.naturalnews.com/2019-08-30-nasa-admits-climate-change-not-caused-by-suvs-fossil-fuels.html?fbclid=IwAR1OCgL6lo2jV18nTKXft1_ON6rT_oc75Bhx9p2CogyWwC0hneV3aQNO4SQ
INstantly questions arise :
-who is at fault this time
- How are we going to fix Earth orbit now
-could we tax somebody on something new now? ie tax on space travel seems to be an obvious solution.BTW The Russians are at fault again, They did send first rockets in space and those rockets according to Newton 3rd law corrupted Earth orbit
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
That is another Truth from remote snowy volcanic island.
Just English grammar is a bit misleading here.
When it says carbon-free - it means "free to go" to the atmosphere.
Since the production of a product ordered in Japan requires an emission of 12 tonnes of carbon monoxide straight into the atmosphere for each tone of hydrogen produced from our brow coal. That 12 tonne is very optimistic and not realistic figure as liquidation of hydrogen to such low temperature requires an enormous amount of energy.
Obviously I would suggest Japan to build already another bigger ship to take that this poisonous CO to Japan and release there instead of in Australia. Funny how Japan now plans to utilize cleansed energy at the cost of Australia. All pollution from brown coal will stay here but pure hydrogen arrives to Japan.I would propose to send this new ship on a scrap yard, melt and drow conductive cable that could now transfer clean high voltage electricity to Japan without the need for hydrogen.Nice and pure electrons only from solar panels at our outback Australian land.What Australia gain when we switch the whole country to electric vehicles - stopping pumping CO from our exhaust pipes - will be replaced 10 x with dirty hydrogen production
One problem I see is .. if we send electrons to Japan, we are left with excess of protons to dispose of. Only sensible place is to dump into ocean, which produces acid
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Australia doesn't desire. Sorry.
Done a quick phone survey to determine that have you?
You are still thinking Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and ****ashima.
We as humans DO learn from our mistakes. Nuclear technology has come a long way since those events. Look it up.
