text:
PAWTUCKET ŌĆö Will Middlebrooks can relate to Daniel Nava.
A year ago, Middlebrooks scuffled so badly that the Red Sox were left with little choice but to send the starting third baseman to Triple A. Looking back at his minor-league penance, Middlebrooks says that he was able to weather a turbulent stretch thanks to his ability to quickly put the grief behind him.
PROVIDENCE ŌĆö Shea High head coach Christina Daily explained she really wasnŌĆÖt in the mood for a mini-postgame press conference early Wednesday afternoon.
Really, who could blame her?
Her Raiders had looked pretty solid in a first-game victory over Division II crossover foe Central High, but ŌĆō slowly ŌĆō unforced errors, points with little or no communication and serves gone awry became more commonplace.
In the end, the Knights celebrated a 3-1 victory at the Providence Career & Technical Academy field house ŌĆō and it came via scores of 15-25, 25-14, 31-29 and 32-30.
PAWTUCKET ŌĆö On a Tuesday night when Brandon Snyder crushed two dingers and righthander Rubby De La Rosa assembled a mound masterpiece, the Pawtucket Red SoxŌĆÖs bullpen collapsed.
The result: An emotionally-draining ŌĆō not to mention truly sad ŌĆō 7-5 loss to the Rochester Red Wings before a bummed crowd of 3,070 at McCoy Stadium.
De La Rosa had been hurling a gem, yielding only three hits, an earned run and a walk while fanning seven.
The bib numbers in the 30,000s and high 20,000s look awfully strange.
And the newly created fourth wave wonŌĆÖt start until at least 85 minutes after the first wave has crossed the starting line in Hopkinton.
But to LincolnŌĆÖs Poyee Oster, PawtucketŌĆÖs Linda Bachand, and the nearly 5,700 runners that did not finish last yearŌĆÖs Boston Marathon because of the terrorist attack, that means very, very little.
Getting another chance to return for the 118th running of this legendary race, and this time, finishing what they started, is the only thing that matters.
PAWTUCKET ŌĆō Never once did the thought of becoming the Red SoxŌĆÖs everyday center fielder cross Shane VictorinoŌĆÖs mind. He was committed to playing right field, meaning someone else was going to have to fill the void created when Jacoby Ellsbury signed with the Yankees.
Initially, the plan coming out of spring training was to have Victorino flanked by newcomer Grady Sizemore with Jackie Bradley Jr. holding tight in the minors. Of course, those best-laid plans went awry when Boston placed Victorino on the disabled list prior to the first game of the 2014 season.
If youŌĆÖre looking to follow the Boston Marathon online today and keep track of the top residents from the Blackstone Valley, keep the numbers 319, 1991, and 5934 in mind.
They are the bib numbers that will be donned by CumberlandŌĆÖs Jason Reilly, PawtucketŌĆÖs Brendan Doyle, and CumberlandŌĆÖs Dave Constantino, who will be among the runners scattered in the first wave and looking to complete the 118th running of this legendary race in under three hours.
PAWTUCKET ŌĆö To PawSox manager Kevin Boles, Shane Victorino passed his first rehab test.
Playing six innings in the first game of SaturdayŌĆÖs doubleheader at McCoy Stadium, Victorino went hitless in three at-bats and did not record a play in right field. He was replaced in the top of the seventh inning by Alex Hassan.
ŌĆ£The game-plan was five to six innings and three at-bats,ŌĆØ noted Boles.
PAWTUCKET ŌĆō The learning curve is steep and slippery for Tolman HighŌĆÖs talented but inexperienced squad.
The Tigers, who started off this breakthrough Division I campaign with four wins in their first five league games, hit a wall over the past two days. First they dropped an 11-2 verdict to unbeaten North Kingstown on Thursday and then on Friday they fell to Toll Gate by an 8-5 score in eight innings.
While most New YearŌĆÖs Eve revelers were wearily trudging out of Boston on the morning of Jan. 1, Lindsay Amherst and a few friends were strolling into the stateŌĆÖs capitol.
The 30-year-old Pawtucket native, along with a few members of the Tuesday Night Turtles running club, ran the entire Boston Marathon route, beginning in Hopkinton at 6 a.m. and arriving in Boston less than four hours later.
WOONSOCKET ŌĆö For Lincoln High junior Mason Palmieri, it doesnŌĆÖt get much better these days.
On Monday, Palmieri verbally committed to join the Bryant University ŌĆś9ŌĆÖ beginning in the fall of 2015. On Wednesday, the pitcher with the towering mound presence tossed a complete-game five-hitter in LincolnŌĆÖs 4-2 victory over Woonsocket at Renaud Field.


text:
Skip to content, or skip to search.
Skip to content, or skip to search.
"It became clear that it would help other people if I approached it with some kind of humor."
Free-speech and breast-cancer awareness win.
The photo "should be seen as what it is, a young woman with cancer."
Breast Cancer Awareness Month has gone too far.
Happy Breast Cancer Awareness Month!
And domestic violence got pink-washed away.
Dr. Kristi Funk treated Sheryl Crow, too.
When celebrities criticize each other, there are rules.
Red carpets, business ventures, and a refugee camp on three continents.
"I kept thinking, I have to get rid of my breasts. Why sit around and wait for cancer to happen?"
How normal was Jolie's double mastectomy? Doctors discuss.
Mastectomy "in no way diminishes my femininity."
And she wrote a New York Times op-ed about the experience.
Movement leaders will march on the company's New York headquarters today.
The author of Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret has been privately battling breast cancer.
In chemotherapy and wearing a wig at 28, I channeled my anger into sex.
Ten years, three kids, and a second marriage later, Aaron and Sarah are back in touch.
Komen is "pro-cure," said Nancy Brinker.
Michelle Ward took the hard news with a dose of (adorably twee) humility, and it's kind of awesome.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
China Bets on Thorium ReactorsPosted on March 21st, 2014 2 comments
According to the South China Morning Post (hattip Next Big Future),
The deadline to develop a new design of nuclear power plant has been brought forward by 15 years as the central government tries to reduce the nation's reliance on smog-producing coal-fired power stations. A team of scientists in Shanghai had originally been given 25 years to try to develop the world's first nuclear plant using the radioactive element thorium as fuel rather than uranium, but they have now been told they have 10, the researchers said.
I have to admit, I feel a little envious when I read things like that. The Chinese government is showing exactly the kind of leadership that's necessary to guide the development of nuclear power along rational channels, and it's a style of leadership of which our own government no longer seems capable.
What do I mean by "rational channels?" Among other things, I mean acting as a responsible steward of our nuclear resources, instead of blindly wasting them , as we are doing now. How are we wasting them? By simply throwing away the lion's share of the energy content of every pound of uranium we mine.
Contrary to the Morning Post article, thorium is not a nuclear fuel. The only naturally occurring nuclear fuel is uranium 235 (U235). It is the only naturally occurring isotope that can be used directly to fuel a nuclear reactor. It makes up only a tiny share – about 0.7% – of mined uranium. The other 99.3% is mostly uranium 238 (U238). What's the difference? When a neutron happens along and hits the nucleus of an atom of U235, it usually fissions. When a neutron happens along and hits the nucleus of an atom of U238, unless its going very fast, it commonly just gets absorbed. There's more to the story than that, though. When it gets absorbed, the result is an atom of U239, which eventually decays to an isotope of plutonium – plutonium 239 (Pu239). Like U235, Pu239 actually is a nuclear fuel. When a neutron hits its nucleus, it too will usually fission. The term "fissile" is used to describe such isotopes.
In other words, while only 0.7% of naturally occurring uranium can be used directly to produce energy, the rest could potentially be transmuted into Pu239 and burned as well. All that's necessary for this to happen is to supply enough extra neutrons to convert the U238. As it happens, that's quite possible, using so-called breeder reactors. And that's where thorium comes in. Like U238, the naturally occurring isotope thorium 232 (Th232) absorbs neutrons, yielding the isotope Th233, which eventually decays to U233, which is also fissile. In other words, useful fuel can be "bred" from Th232 just as it can from U238. Thorium is about three times as abundant as uranium, and China happens to have large reserves of the element. According to current estimates, reserves in the U.S. are much larger, and India's are the biggest on earth.
What actually happens in almost all of our currently operational nuclear reactors is a bit different. They just burn up that 0.7% of U235 in naturally occurring uranium, and a fraction of the Pu239 that gets bred in the process, and then throw what's left away. "What's left" includes large amounts of U238 and various isotopes of plutonium as well as a brew of highly radioactive reaction products left over from the split atoms of uranium and plutonium. Perhaps worst of all, "what's left" also includes transuranic actinides such as americium and curium as well as plutonium. These can remain highly radioactive and dangerous for thousands of years, and account for much of the long-term radioactive hazard of spent nuclear fuel. As it happens, these actinides, as well as some of the more dangerous and long lived fission products, could potentially be destroyed during the normal operation of just the sort of molten salt reactors the crash Chinese program seeks to develop. As a result, the residual radioactivity from operating such a plant for, say, 40 years, could potentially be less than that of the original uranium ore after a few hundreds of years instead of many thousands. The radioactive hazard of such plants would actually be much less than that of burning coal, because coal contains small amounts of both uranium and thorium. Coal plants spew tons of these radioactive elements, potentially deadly if inhaled, into the atmosphere every year.
Why on earth are we blindly wasting our potential nuclear energy resources in such a dangerous fashion? Because it's profitable. For the time being, at least, uranium is still cheap. Breeder reactors would be more expensive to build than current generation light water reactors (LWRs). To even start one, you'd have to spend about a decade, give or take, negotiating the highly costly and byzantine Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing process. You could count on years of even more costly litigation after that. No reprocessing is necessary in LWRs. Just quick and dirty storage of the highly radioactive leftovers, leaving them to future generations to deal with. You can't blame the power companies. They're in the business to make a profit, and can't continue to operate otherwise. In other words, to develop nuclear power rationally, you need something else in the mix – government leadership.
We lack that leadership. Apparently the Chinese don't.
Kerry, the Democrats, and the Demagoguing of Global WarmingPosted on March 16th, 2014 2 comments
Secretary of State John Kerry appeared quite concerned about global warming during a recent visit to Indonesia, telling students,
The bottom line is this: it is the same thing with climate change. In a sense, climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even the worlds most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.
A bit later, Harry Reid and his fellow Democrat senators pulled an all-night talkathon to sound the climate change alarm. According to Reid, climate change is "the worst problem facing the world today." All this left reporter Susan Davis at USA Today scratching her head:
The Democratic effort is cause for some confusion because these senators are calling for action in a chamber they control but without any specific legislation to offer up for a vote, or any timetable for action this year.
As noted at Hot Air, the talkathon and Kerry's bloviations were nothing but PR stunts:
In other words, this is nothing but a stunt — and transparently so. Senate Democrats control all of the Senate committees, and what comes to the Senate floor. Boxer herself is the chair of the committee on environmental affairs, and could push through legislation any time she wants to the floor.
In other words, it's business as usual when it comes to environmental activism. The pose is everything, and the reality is nothing. The reality is that Kerry, Reid, and the rest are transparently indifferent to the problem of climate change, except as it serves them as a political tool. If they really cared about it, they would have put a stop to illegal immigration long ago. The carbon foot print per capita of the United States is four times that of Mexico, and the ratio is much greater for most of the other countries of origin. If they really cared, they would put a stop to Nuclear Regulatory Commission stonewalling of innovative nuclear plant designs, not to mention grossly excessive litigation hurdles for plant construction. If they really cared, they would get behind the shale-energy revolution which has cut 300 million tons of US greenhouse gas emissions by replacing heavily polluting coal with natural gas, a contribution greater than that of all the worlds solar and wind power installations combined. In other words, they don't care.
It's sad, because climate change actually is a potentially serious problem. Kerry is just blowing hot air himself when he makes statements like,
We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific fact.
The idea that someone like Kerry could distinguish "shoddy scientists" from "scientific fact" when it comes to climate change is beyond ludicrous. What qualifies him to even make such a statement? Certainly not the faintest understanding of current climate models. The most powerful computers on earth couldn't even come close to achieving a deterministic solution of the problem. It involves billions of degrees of freedom in atmospheric and ocean conditions, and the necessary initial conditions are mostly either unknown or of limited accuracy. The only way we can even begin to address the problem is with serious (and potentially inaccurate) data interpolation, and probabilistic computer models, the equivalent of "throwing dice" on a vast scale to see which numbers come up. The statistical noise alone in such models renders it impossible to speak of "scientific facts" when it comes to climate change, but only a range of possible outcomes. In other words, Kerry's crude "alarmism" is an easy mark for the climate "denialism" on the other end of the ideological spectrum. That's too bad, because denying that any problem exists is just as bad as demagoguing it.
We may not be able to speak of "scientific facts" when it comes to climate change. We do know, however, that solar radiation passing through a simplified model of the atmosphere and striking an "average" patch of the earth's surface will raise the temperature of that atmosphere in proportion to the concentration of greenhouse gases. The best computer models we have are not perfect, but they're not useless either, and they predict that significant warming will occur over the coming decades. In other words, we can't speak of "facts" or certainty here, but we can say that there is a substantial risk that significant human-induced climate change will occur. The effects might be benign, outweighed by the same factors that have driven variations in the earth's climate throughout its history. They might also be disastrous. Given that earth is the only planet we have to live on at the moment, it seems foolhardy to rock the boat.
Under the circumstances, Kerry, Reid, and the rest might want to think twice about the value of crying "wolf" to score cheap political points, when it's clear that they have no intention of seriously addressing the problem. Particularly at the end of a 15 year pause in the rate of increase of global temperatures, the result, already much in evidence, will be an increase in cynicism and skepticism that the problem is real. The resulting reluctance to sacrifice other priorities to address it may come back to haunt the alarmists if, as the boy in the story discovered, the "wolf" turns out to be real.
What to do? Some of the most effective solutions are precisely what the alarmists who bray the loudest don't want to do. End significant immigration to countries with the most emissions per capita, for one. Lead in the introduction and adoption of more efficient and safer nuclear technologies and the expansion of nuclear capacity instead of blocking it for another. Instead, the wildly misnomered "Greens" in Germany are shutting down the nuclear plants in that country, with the entirely predictable result that Germany is currently planning to build 26 new, heavily polluting, coal-fired power plants to replace them. Divert heavy subsidies for existing solar and wind technologies to investment in green technology research and development. As those famously "green" Germans discovered once again, taxing the poor to finance the solar energy hobbies of the rich in a cloudy country whose capital lies above the 52nd parallel of latitude is a dubious proposition. The cost of electricity there after years of massive subsidies to solar and a nuclear shutdown is now twice as high as in heavily nuclear France. As noted in an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the burden of these skyrocketing costs is falling disproportionately on the backs of those least able to afford them.
Beyond that, we might want to get serious about finding another habitable planet, and developing the technology to get there. We've been doing a lot of rocking the boat lately. It would behoove us to have an alternative in case it eventually tips over, and the sooner the better.
The United States' Nuclear FuturePosted on February 23rd, 2014 No comments
There are lots of great ideas out there for improving the way we do nuclear power. For instance, Transatomic Power recently proposed a novel type of molten salt reactor (MSR). The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Industry Alliance, with support from the U.S. Department of Energy, has chosen a high temperature gas reactor (HTGR) as its reactor of the future candidate. Small modular reactors (SMRs) are all the rage, and a plethora of designs have been proposed. Unlike the others, Terrapower's traveling wave reactor (TWR), which is backed by Bill Gates, actually has a fighting chance to be built in the foreseeable future – in China. With the possible exception of SMR's, which have strong military support, the chances of any of them being built in the United States in the foreseeable future are slim. Government, the courts, and a nightmarish regulatory process stand in the way as an almost insuperable barrier.
It wasn't always this way. A lot of today's "novel" concepts are based on ideas that were proposed many decades ago. We know they work, because demonstration reactors were built to try them out. More than a dozen were built at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. No less than 53 were built at Idaho National Laboratory! Virtually all of them were completed more than half a century ago. There are few historical precedents that can match the sudden collapse from the vitality of those early years to the lethargy and malaise prevailing in the nuclear industry today. It's sad, really, because the nuclear plants that actually are on line and/or under construction are artifacts of a grossly wasteful, potentially dangerous, and obsolete technology.
The light water reactors (LWRs) currently producing energy in this country use only a tiny fraction of the energy available in their uranium fuel, producing dangerous transuranic actinides that can remain highly radioactive for millennia in the process. Many of the new designs are capable of extracting dozens of times more energy from a given quantity of fuel than LWRs. Molten salt reactors would operate far more efficiently, could not melt down, and would consume dangerous actinides in the process, leaving such a small quantity of waste after several decades of operation that it would be less radioactive than the original ore used to fuel the reactor after a few hundred years rather than many millennia. Besides also being immune to meltdown, HTGRs, because of their much higher operating temperatures, could enable such things as highly efficient electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen fuel and greatly improved extraction techniques for oil and natural gas from shale and sand. Why, then, aren't we building these improved designs?
It's highly unlikely that the necessary initiative will come from industry. Why would they care? They're in the business to make a profit, and LWRs can be built and operated more cheaply than the alternatives. Why should they worry about efficiency? There's plenty of cheap uranium around, and it's unlikely there will be major shortages for decades to come. Ask any industry spokesman, and he'll assure you that transuranic radioactive waste and the potential proliferation issues due to the plutonium content of spent LWR fuel are mere red herrings. I'm not so sure.
In other words, strong government leadership would be needed to turn things around. Unfortunately, that commodity is in short supply. The current reality is that government is a highly effective deterrent to new reactor technology. Take the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for example. Read Kafka's The Trial and you'll have a pretty good idea of how it operates. So you want to license a new reactor design, do you? Well, most of the current regulations apply specifically to LWRs, so you'll have to give them time to come up with new ones. Then you'll need to spend at least a decade and millions of dollars explaining your new technology to the NRC bureaucrats. Then you can expect an endless stream of requests for additional information, analysis of all the threat and failure scenarios they can dream up, etc., which will likely take a good number of additional years. After all, they have to justify their existence, don't they? If you ever manage to get past the NRC, the court system will take things up where they left off.
What to do? I don't know. It really doesn't upset me when reactors built with legacy technology are pulled off line, and replaced with fossil fueled plants. They just waste most of their fuel, throwing away energy that future generations might sorely miss once they've finally burned through all the coal and oil on the planet. Maybe the best thing to do would be to just buy up all the available uranium around and wait. We might also stop the incredibly block-headed practice of converting all of our "depleted" uranium into ammunition. The Lone Ranger's silver bullets were cheap by comparison. Future generations are likely to wonder what on earth we were thinking.
Things were a lot better in the "apathetic" 50′s, but the novelist Thomas Wolfe had it right. You can't go home again.
The Derb on Japan's "Demographic Catastrophe"Posted on February 16th, 2014 5 comments
John Derbyshire's reaction to the BBC documentary, "No Sex Please, We're Japanese," about Japan's "demographic catastrophe" is probably somewhat different from what the producers had in mind. In short, he considers it a feature, not a bug. In fact, he thinks "The 21st Century Might Belong to Japan" because they are biting the demographic bullet now.
The documentary follows reporter Anita Rani, a Briton of Indian descent, as she leads us through a series of nightmares in the demographic basket case that is modern Japan. There is Yubari, a coal-mining town in the north, that once teamed with children, but whose maternity ward has been converted to a dusty storeroom. There are a pair of late-30′s geeks whose main love interests, schoolgirls aged 15 and 17, reside in the virtual world of a Nintendo box. There is a prison that is rapidly becoming a geriatric ward. And finally we cut to the chase. In a conversation with American-born economist Kathy Matsui, Rani observes sagely, ""Immigration. Surely that's the solution that's staring them in the face." Matsui agrees, noting the extreme indebtedness of Japan, its stagnant economy, the increasingly unbearable cost of caring for a rapidly aging population without a steady supply of young taxpayers to milk, etc., etc. However, she notes, "There is an order of steps that need to occur" for mass immigration to become acceptable in a traditional society like Japan. Right, just like the order of steps that take you to the top of a gallows.
According to Derbyshire, "Mass immigration at best postpones the day of reckoning for a few years," and by biting the bullet now, Japan may, "…speed off ahead of us into some new socio-economic order suited to low population levels and better age ratios, as we struggle with the transition they have already mastered." Regardless of how she masters her economic problems, Japan is fortunate indeed to have a "traditional" society that discourages immigration. As Jayman put it in a recent tweet, "we should be so lucky" as to have a similar problem. I can but hope that Japan never becomes so suicidal as to take the "order of steps" to mass immigration.
The peddlers of the "demographic catastrophe" scare stories would have us believe that there can be nothing worse than stagnant or declining economies. Actually, there is something worse; failure to survive. You don't have to go back too many years to come to a time when this was actually a serious concern for Japan. Just read some of the books and magazines about her published in the 30′s when her population was half what it is today. However, with the agricultural technology available at the time, it appeared that there was no way she could continue to feed her population if it grew much beyond that. We now know how she attempted to solve the problem, and the results of that attempt. Now we are supposed to be shaking in our boots if her population returns to that level at the turn of the next century.
Apparently we are to believe that such unfortunate byproducts of continuous population growth are all behind us now. Search the Internet and you can find articles claiming that the planet can easily accommodate 10, 50, or even 100 billion people. As a wag on the nightly news once put it, "maybe so, but who wants to eat standing up?" What's amazing is that this stuff is being eagerly swallowed on both the right and the left. The Beeb, of course, is reliably leftist, like most of the rest of the western European media, and unlimited immigration is one of the boards that makes up the ideological box that the left lives in these days. It's as if the denizens of that box are a bunch of lemmings who can't wait to commit demographic suicide, or serve as promoters for the next wave of civil wars.
Consider, for example, the case of Switzerland, whose voters recently decided to apply some reasonable limits to immigration from the rest of the EU. The German papers and news websites, which I happen to follow, became positively hysterical. I haven't seen much to compare with it since the most recent eruption of anti-American hate in the late 90′s and early 2000′s. Among other things, the evil Swiss were supposed to be hicks from the back woods, consumed by greed. Their vibrant economy was built with the wealth accumulated by the Nazis and assorted other dictators, etc. It was a classic example of the response of an ingroup to perceived attack by an outgroup.
Oddly enough, the right is playing a similar tune. Anyone who thinks the planet might be better off with a smaller population must be "anti-Life." I have personally heard a retired Army 4-star general defend unlimited immigration, supposedly because it's necessary to support a strong economy and, with it, a powerful military. I'm of a different opinion. I'd rather not rock the boat.
Global warming may or may not be a reality. We may or may not run out of clean water. We may or may not be able to produce enough food to feed the planet's increasing population. We may or may not run out of affordable energy in the next few hundred years. It seems to me the pertinent question is, "Why take chances?"
Does that mean that the readers of this little blog should refrain from having as many children as possible? Of course not! Heaven forefend, gentle readers, that any of you should ever become defective biological units. However, Mother Nature, in her wisdom, enabled us to perceive the world in terms of ingroups and outgroups, with different rules and versions of morality applying to each. To paraphrase General Patton, the idea isn't to commit genetic suicide yourself. The idea is to get the other poor, dumb bastard to commit genetic suicide. The result will be a world with a manageable population where you will be able to pursue your own version of "human flourishing" in peace. As for Japan, I don't doubt that she is still producing men (and women) whose love interests don't reside in Nintendo boxes. In time, their children, and their children's children, will inherit the islands. When they do, the population demographics will likely take a turn for the better.
Of course, I'm supplying you with a "should" here, and as my readers know, I don't admit the existence of objective "shoulds." Take it with a grain of salt, if you like. It certainly won't bother me. I've made my reasons for preferring genetic survival to a life in which I make a "meaningful contribution" to the rest of mankind, and then croak, clear enough in earlier posts. My point is, if you happen to share this whim, this preference for survival with me, don't be concerned the next time you see some feminist harridan railing about the evils of having children. Why on earth would you ever attempt to persuade her she's wrong? The best response is to smile, get a room, and get busy.
UPDATE: More on the Derb's article over at Occam's Razor
Fusion Follies at Der SpiegelPosted on October 19th, 2013 No comments
Who says there's no such thing as German humor? Take, for example, some of the comments left by Teutonic wags after an article about the recent fusion "breakthrough" reported by scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory working on the National Ignition Facility (NIF). One of the first was left by one of Germany's famous "Greens," who was worried about the long term effects of fusion energy. Very long term. Here's what he had to say:
So nuclear fusion is green energy, is it? The opposite is true. Nuclear fusion is the form of energy that guarantees that any form of Green will be forever out of the question. In comparison, Chernobyl is a short-lived joke! Why? Have you ever actually considered what will be "burned" with fusion energy? Hydrogen, one of the two components of water, (and a material without which life is simply impossible)! Nuclear fusion? I can already see the wars over water coming. And, by the way, the process is irreversible. Once hydrogen is fused, it's gone forever. Nothing and no one will ever be able to make water out of it ever again!
I'm not kidding! The guy was dead serious. Of course, this drew a multitude of comments from typical German Besserwisser (better knowers), such as, "If you don't have a clue, you should shut your trap." However, some of the other commenters were more light-hearted. for example,
No, no, no. What eu-fan (the first commenter) doesn't seem to understand is that this should be seen as a measure against the rise in sea level that will result from global warming. Less hydrogen -> less water -> reduced sea level -> everything will be OK.
Another hopeful commenter adds,
…if it ever actually does succeed, this green fusion, can we have our old-fashioned light bulbs back?
Noting that the fusion of hydrogen produces helium, another commenter chimes in,
So, in other words, if a fusion reactor blows up, the result will be a global bird cage: The helium released will make us all talk like Mickey Mouse!
In all seriousness, the article in Der Spiegel about the "breakthrough" wasn't at all bad. The author actually bothered to ask a local fusion expert, Sibylle Günter, Scientific Director of the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics, about Livermore's "breakthrough." She replied,
The success of our colleagues (at Livermore) is remarkable, and I don't want to belittle it. However, when one speaks of a "breakeven point" in the classical sense, in which the fusion energy out equals the total energy in, they still have a long way to go.
That, of course, is entirely true. The only way one can speak of a "breakthough" in the recent NIF experiments is by dumbing down the accepted definition of "ignition" from "fusion energy out equals laser energy in" to "fusion energy out equals energy absorbed by the target," a much lower amount. That didn't deter many writers of English-language reports, who couldn't be troubled to fact check Livermore's claims with the likes of Dr. Günter. In some cases the level of fusion wowserism was extreme. For example, according to the account at Yahoo News,
After fifty years of research, scientists at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in Livermore, have made a breakthrough in harnessing and controlling fusion.
According to the BBC, NIF conducted an experiment where the amount of energy released through the fusion reaction was more than the amount of energy being absorbed by it. This process is known as "ignition" and is the first time it has successfully been done anywhere in the world.
I'm afraid not. The definition of "ignition" that has been explicitly accepted by scientists at Livermore is "fusion energy out equals laser energy in." That definition puts them on a level playing field with their magnetic fusion competitors. It's hardly out of the question that the NIF will reach that goal, but it isn't there yet. Not by a long shot.
Another Fusion Tease?Posted on October 10th, 2013 No comments
It has always seemed plausible to me that some clever scientist(s) might find a shortcut to fusion that would finally usher in the age of fusion energy, rendering the two "mainstream" approaches, inertial confinement fusion (ICF) and magnetic fusion, obsolete in the process. It would be nice if it happened sooner rather than later, if only to put a stop to the ITER madness. For those unfamiliar with the field, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, is a gigantic, hopeless, and incredibly expensive white elephant and welfare project for fusion scientists currently being built in France. In terms of pure, unabashed wastefulness, think of it as a clone of the International Space Station. It has always been peddled as a future source of inexhaustible energy. Trust me, nothing like ITER will ever be economically competitive with alternative energy sources. Forget all your platitudes about naysayers and "they said it couldn't be done." If you don't believe me, leave a note to your descendants to fact check me 200 years from now. They can write a gloating refutation to my blog if I'm wrong, but I doubt that it will be necessary.
In any case, candidates for the hoped for end run around magnetic and ICF keep turning up, all decked out in the appropriate hype. So far, at least, none of them has ever panned out. Enter two stage laser fusion, the latest pretender, introduced over at NextBigFuture with the assurance that it can achieve "10x higher fusion output than using the laser directly and thousands of times better output than hitting a solid target with a laser." Not only that, but it actually achieved the fusion of boron and normal hydrogen nuclei, which produces only stable helium atoms. That's much harder to achieve than the usual deuterium-tritium fusion between two heavy isotopes of hydrogen, one of which, tritium, is radioactive and found only in tiny traces in nature. That means it wouldn't be necessary to breed tritium from the fusion reactions just to keep them going, one of the reasons that ITER will never be practical.
Well, I'd love to believe this is finally the ONE, but I'm not so sure. The paper describing the results NBF refers to was published by the journal Nature Communications. Even if you don't subscribe, you can click on the figures in the abstract and get the gist of what's going on. In the first place, one of the lasers has to accelerate protons to high enough energies to overcome the Coulomb repulsion of the stripped (of electrons) boron nuclei produced by the other laser. Such laser particle accelerators are certainly practical, but they only work at extremely high power levels. In other words, they require what's known in the business as petawatt lasers, capable of achieving powers in excess of a quadrillion (10 to the 15th power) watts. Power comes in units of energy per unit time, and such lasers generally reach the petawatt threshold by producing a lot of energy in a very, very short time. Often, we're talking picoseconds (trillionths of a second).
Now, you can do really, really cool things with petawatt lasers, such as pulling electron positron pairs right out of the vacuum. However, their practicality as drivers for fusion power plants, at least in their current incarnation, is virtually nil. The few currently available, for example, at the University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Nevada at Reno, etc., are glass lasers. There's no way they could achieve the "rep rates" (shot frequency) necessary for useful energy generation. Achieving lots of fusions, but only for a few picoseconds, isn't going to solve the world's energy problems.
As it happens, conventional accelerators can also be used for fusion. As a matter of fact, it's a common way of generating neutrons for such purposes as neutron radiography. Unfortunately, none of the many fancy accelerator-driven schemes for producing energy that people have come up with over the years has ever worked. There's a good physical reason for that. Instead of using their energy to overcome the Coulomb repulsion of other nuclei (like charges repel, and atomic nuclei are all positively charged), and fuse with them, the accelerated particles prefer to uselessly dump that energy into the electrons surrounding those nuclei. As a result, it has always taken more energy to drive the accelerators than could be generated in the fusion reactions. That's where the "clever" part of this scheme comes in. In theory, at least, all those pesky electrons are gone, swept away by the second laser. However, that, too, is an energy drain. So the question becomes, can both lasers be run efficiently enough and with high enough rep rates and with enough energy output to strip enough boron atoms to get enough of energy out to be worth bothering about, in amounts greater than that needed to drive the lasers? I don't think so. Still, it was a very cool experiment.
Academic Left Update: Party Time at SwarthmorePosted on May 13th, 2013 2 comments
Paul Gross and Norman Levitt published their now classic Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science almost two decades ago. The book described the flipping and flopping of the various species of self-appointed saviors of mankind on campus left high and dry by the collapse of Marxism. In the absence of that grand, unifying philosophy, the authors found them running about like so many chickens with their heads cut off, engaged in internecine warfare, and chasing after the various chimeras of postmodernism, eco-extremism, radical feminism, anti-racist racism, etc. For some reason, perhaps because they were scientists and they objected to their ox being gored, Gross and Levitt were willing to subject themselves to the incredible boredom of attending the conferences, following the journals, and reading the books emanating from these various swamps. Since they happened to be on the left of the ideological spectrum themselves, their book was also thoughtfully written and not just one of the usual rants from the right.
Unfortunately, no one with similar insight and tolerance for pain has published anything of similar stature in the ensuing years. We have been reduced to scrutinizing the data points that periodically bubble up through the froth to formulate some idea of how close we are to being saved. Based on the meager information at our disposal, we gather that no great new secular religion has sprung up in the meantime to take the place of Marxism. The only thing on hand to fill the vacuum left behind by its demise has been radical Islam. Since, in a sense, it's the only game in town, we've been treated to the amusing spectacle of watching leftist "progressives" making eyes at the fanatical zealots of one of the most reactionary religious systems ever concocted by the mind of man, while the latter have been busily cannibalizing the revolutionary vernacular familiar from the heyday of Communism.
Other than that, it would seem that the scene today would be quite familiar to readers of Higher Superstition. Consider, for example, the recent "revolutionary action" that took place on the campus of Swarthmore. If we are to believe the somewhat overwrought account at National Review Online, it involved intimidation of the school administration and bullying of conservative students at what was advertised as an open Board of Managers meeting. The ostensible goal of the disruption was to get the administration to agree to the divestment of stocks in fossil fuel companies, apparently based on the rather dubious assumption that nothing disagreeable would happen if all mankind suddenly stopped using them. However, the divestment thing is hardly what is nearest and dearest to the hearts of the "academic left" at Swarthmore. What is nearest and dearest? According to NRO,
The radicals are demanding a massive expansion of Swarthmore's politicized "studies" programs, with a new Latino Studies major specifically dedicated to Latinos in the United States, and mandatory classes for all Swarthmore students in ethnic studies and gender and sexuality studies.
I doubt that the gentry at NRO really understand what is going on here, because they lack the proper grounding in Marxist theory. As Trotsky might have put it, they just don't understand the dialectic. What we are really seeing here is the emergence of a new exploiting class of gigantic proportions, cleverly attempting to obfuscate their true historical role behind a smokescreen of revolutionary jargon. These people are exploiters, not exploitees. Ensconced in their ivory towers, untouchable within their tenured cocoons, they are increasingly gaining a monopoly of the social means of education. Like the bourgeoisie of old, who used the social means of production to suck the blood of the exploited workers, they use their own monopoly to feast on the sweat of the academic proletariat – their students. They accumulate these useless "studies" courses for the same reasons that the capitalists accumulated money.
Little realizing that they are being reduced to debt-serfs, with lives sold out and mortgaged to maintain these academic vampires in their accustomed luxury, the student proletariat are kept docile with fairy tales about "saving the world." Now, if Marx was right (and how could he possibly be wrong?) this "thesis" of the academic exploiters will soon run head on into the "antithesis" of the developing revolutionary consciousness of the student proletariat they have so cynically betrayed. At least the bourgeoisie used their monopoly to produce something useful. The new class of academic exploiters fobs off its victims with "studies" that they will find entirely useless in their struggle against the slavery that awaits them, unless they are among the happy few co-opted into the exploiting class. Where is this leading? How will the exploited academic proletariat react when they finally figure out, crushed under a mountain of debt, with heads full of "liberating" jargon and no prospect of employment that the "radical and emancipatory" blather they were being fed really leads to chains and slavery? I can but quote the ringing warning of Edwin Markham in his famous poem, Man with the Hoe:
O masters, lords and rulers in all lands,
How will the Future reckon with this Man?
How answer his brute question in that hour
When whirlwinds of rebellion shake the world?
The pundits at NRO should relax. If I've interpreted the Marxist dialectic correctly, the revolutionary climax will be followed by a brief period of the dictatorship of the academic proletariat, followed by the gradual withering of academic administrations, and a new era of universal wisdom based on enlightened self-education.
And what of the academic exploiters? I think it goes without saying that it will be necessary to "expropriate the expropriators." However, being by nature a kindly and sedate man, I can only hope that it doesn't come to the "liquidation of the academic exploiters as a class." On the other hand, I don't want to be accused of "right opportunism" and realize full well that "you have to break some eggs to make an omelet."
German "Greens" and the Poisoning of Eastern EuropePosted on April 22nd, 2013 No comments
A while back in an online discussion with a German "Green," I pointed out that, if Germany shut down its nuclear plants, coal plants would have to remain in operation to take up the slack. He was stunned that I could be so obtuse. Didn't I realize that the lost nuclear capacity would all be replaced by benign "green" energy technology? Well, it turns out things didn't quite work out that way. In fact, the lost generating capacity is being replaced by – coal.
Germany is building new coal-fired power plants hand over fist, with 26 of them planned for the immediate future. According to Der Spiegel, the German news magazine that never misses a trick when it comes to bashing nuclear, that's a feature, not a bug. A recent triumphant headline reads, "Export Boom: German Coal Electricity Floods Europe." Expect more of the same from the home of Europe's most pious environmentalists. Germany has also been rapidly expanding its solar and wind capacity recently thanks to heavy state subsidies, but the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, especially in Germany. Coal plants are required to fill in the gaps – lots of them. Of course, it would be unprofitable to let them sit idle when wind and solar are available, so they are kept going full blast. When the power isn't needed in Germany, it is sold abroad, serving as a useful prop to Germany's export fueled economy.
Remember the grotesque self-righteousness of Der Spiegel and the German "Greens" during the Kyoto Treaty debates at the end of the Clinton administration? Complying with the Kyoto provisions cost the Germans nothing. They had just shut down the heavily polluting and grossly unprofitable industries in the former East Germany, had brought large numbers of new gas-fired plants on line thanks to increasing gas supplies from the North Sea fields, and had topped it off with a lame economy in the 90′s compared to the booming U.S. Their greenhouse gas emissions had dropped accordingly. Achieving similar reductions in the U.S. wouldn't have been a similar "freebie." It would have cost tens of thousands of jobs. The German "Greens" didn't have the slightest problem with this. They weren't interested in achieving a fair agreement that would benefit all. They were only interested in striking pious poses.
Well, guess what? Times have changed. Last year U.S. carbon emissions were at their lowest level since 1994, and down 3.7% from 2011. Our emissions are down 7.7% since 2006, the largest drop among major industrial states on the planet. German emissions were up at least 1.5% last year, and probably more like 2%. Mention this to a German "Green," and he's likely to mumble something about Germany still being within the Kyoto limits. That's quite true. Germany is still riding the shutdown of what news magazine Focus calls "dilapidated, filthy, communist East German industry after the fall of the Berlin Wall," to maintain the facade of environmental "purity."
That's small comfort to her eastern European neighbors. Downwind from Germany's coal-fired plants, their "benefit" from her "green" policies is acid rain, nitrous oxide laced smog, deadly particulates that kill and sicken thousands and, last but not least, a rich harvest of radioactive fallout. That's right, Germany didn't decrease the radioactive hazard to her neighbors by shutting down her nuclear plants. She vastly increased it. Coal contains several parts per million each of radioactive uranium and thorium. These elements are harmless enough – if kept outside the body. The energetic alpha particles they emit are easily stopped by a normal layer of skin. When that happens, they dump the energy they carry in a very short distance, but, since skin is dead, it doesn't matter. It's an entirely different matter when they dump those several million electron volts of energy into a living cell – such as a lung cell. Among other things, that can easily derange the reproductive equipment of the cell, causing cancer. How can they reach the lungs? Very easily if the uranium and thorium that emit them are carried in the ash from a coal-fired plant. A typical coal-fired plant releases about 5 tons of uranium and 12 tons of thorium every year. The German "Greens" have no problem with this, even though they're constantly bitching about the relatively miniscule release of uranium from U.S. depleted uranium munitions. Think scrubber technology helps? Guess again! The uranium and thorium are concentrated in the ash, whether it ends up in the air or not. They can easily leach into surrounding cropland and water supplies.
The last time there was an attempt to move radioactive waste to the Gorleben storage facility within Germany, the "Greens" could be found striking heroic poses as saviors of the environment all along the line, demonstrating, tearing up tracks, and setting police vehicles on fire. Their "heroic" actions forced the shutdown of Germany's nuclear plants. The "gift" (German for "poison") of their "heroic" actions to Germany's neighbors came in the form of acid rain, smog, and airborne radiation. By any reasonable standard, coal-fired plants are vastly more dangerous and damaging to the environment than the nuclear facilities they replaced.
It doesn't matter to Germany's "Greens." The acid rain, the radiation, the danger of global warming they always pretend to be so concerned about? It doesn't matter. For them, as for the vast majority of other environmental zealots worldwide, the pose is everything. The reality is nothing.
Jonathan Last and the Un-Problem of Shrinking PopulationsPosted on February 24th, 2013 3 comments
In his latest book, What to Expect When No One's Expecting, Jonathan Last warns us of the dire consequences of shrinking populations. He's got it backwards. It's the best thing that could happen to us.
Before proceeding with my own take on this issue, I would like to assure the reader that I am not a rabid environmentalist or a liberal of the sort who considers people with children morally suspect. I have children and have encouraged my own children to have as many children as possible themselves. It seems to me that the fact that those among us who are supposedly the most intelligent are also the most infertile is a convincing proof of the stupidity of our species.
Why did I decide to have children? In the end, it's a subjective whim, just like every other "purpose of life" one might imagine. However, as such I think it's justifiable enough. The explanation lies in the way in which I perceive my "self." As I see it, "we" are not our conscious minds, although that is what most of us perceive as "we." Our conscious minds are evanescent manifestations of the physical bodies whose development is guided by our genes. They pop into the world for a moment and are then annihilated in death. They exist for that brief moment for one reason only – because they happened to promote our genetic survival. Is it not more reasonable to speak of "we" as that about us which has existed for billions of years and is potentially immortal, namely, our genes, than to assign that term to an ancillary manifestation of those genes that exists for a vanishingly small instant of time by comparison? We have a choice. We can choose that this "we" continue to survive, or we can choose other goals, and allow this "we" to be snuffed out, so that the physical bodies that bear our "we" become the last link in an unbroken chain stretching back over billions of years. There is no objective reason why we should prefer one choice or the other. The choice is purely subjective. The rest of the universe cares not a bit whether our genes survive or not. I, however, care. If countless links in a chain have each created new links in turn and passed on the life they carried over the eons, only to come to a link possessed of qualities that cause it to fail to continue the chain, it seems reasonable to consider that link dysfunctional, or, in the most real sense imaginable, a failure. I personally would not find the realization comforting that I am a sick and dysfunctional biological unit, a failure at carrying out that one essential function that a process of natural selection has cultivated for an almost inconceivable length of time. Therefore, I have children. As far as I am concerned, they, and not wealth, or property, or fame, are the only reasonable metric of success in the life of any individual. The very desire for wealth, property or fame only exist because at some point in our evolutionary history they have promoted our survival and procreation. As ends in themselves, divorced from the reason they came into existence in the first place, they lead only to death.
Am I concerned if others don't agree with me? Far from it! And that brings us back to the main point of this post. I do not agree with Jonathan Last that a constantly increasing population, or even a stable one at current levels, is at all desirable. As far as I am concerned, it is a wonderful stroke of luck that in modern societies the conscious minds of so many other humans have become dysfunctional, resulting in their genetic death. I am interested in keeping other genes around only to the extent that they promote the survival of my own. That is also the only reason that I would prefer one level of population on the planet to one that is larger or smaller. That, of course, is a very personal reason, but it seems to me that it is a conclusion that must follow for anyone else to the extent that they prefer survival to the alternative.
Survival, then, is my sine qua non. Given that this planet is, for practical purposes, the only one we can depend on to support our survival, I consider it foolhardy to prefer a population that is potentially unsustainable, or that will diminish everyone's chances of long term survival. I am hardly a fanatical environmentalist. I would just prefer that we refrain from rocking the boat. I have read Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist, and am well aware of how frequently the environmentalists have been crying "wolf" lo now these many years. However, like Lomborg, I agree that there is still reason for concern. Pollution and environmental degradation are real problems, as is the rapid exploitation of limited sources of cheap energy and other raw materials. Obviously, Paul Ehrlich's dire predictions that we would run out of everything in short order were far off the mark. However, eventually, they will run out, and it seems reasonable to me to postpone the date as long as possible. Let us consider the reasons Jonathan Last believes all these risks are worth taking. In all honesty, assuming we are agreed that survival is a worthwhile goal, they seem trivial to me.
To begin, while paying lip service to the old chestnut that a correlation does not necessarily indicate causation, Last suggests exactly that. On page 7 of the hardcover version of his book he writes, "Declining populations have always followed or been followed by Very Bad Things. Disease. War. Economic stagnation or collapse." To see whether this suggestion holds water, let's look at one of Lasts own examples of "declining populations." On p. 36 he writes, "World population also declined steeply between 1340 and 1400, shrinking from 443 million to 374 million. This was not a period of environmental and social harmony; it was the reign of the Black Death. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine whether declining populations were the cause of the Black Death, or the Black Death was the cause of declining populations. To anyone who has read a little history, it is abundantly clear that, while disease, war, and economic collapse may cause depopulation, the instances where the reverse was clearly the case are few and far between. In a similar vein, referring to the Roman Empire, Last writes on p. 35, "Then, between A.D. 200 and 600, population shrank from 257 million to 208 million, because of falling fertility. We commonly refer to that period as the descent into the Dark Ages." Where is the evidence that the population fell because of "falling fertility"? Last cites none. On the other hand, there is abundant source material from the period to demonstrate that, as in the case of the Black Death, declining populations were a result, and not a cause. In Procopius' history of the Great Italian War in the 6th century, for example, he notes that Italy has become depopulated. The great historian was actually there, and witnessed the cause first hand. It was not "declining fertility," but starvation resulting from the destruction of food sources by marauding armies.
However, this allusion to "Very Bad Things" is really just a red herring. Reading a little further in Last's book, it doesn't take us long to discover the real burrs under his saddle. Most of them may be found by glancing through the 50 pages between chapters 5 and 7 of his book. They include, 1) The difficulty of caring for the elderly. 2) The decrease in inventiveness and entrepreneurship (because of an over proportion of elderly) 3) A decline in military strength, accompanied by an unwillingness to accept casualties, and 4) Lower economic growth. The idea that anyone could seriously suggest that any of these transient phenomena could justify playing risky games with the ability of our planet to sustain life for millennia into the future boggles the mind. The population of the planet cannot keep increasing indefinitely in any case. At some point, it must stabilize, and these consequences will follow regardless. The only question is, how many people will be affected.
Consider Japan, a country Last considers an almost hopeless demographic basket case. Its population was only 42 million as recently as 1900. At the time it won wars against both China and Russia, which had much greater populations of 415 million and 132 million, respectively at the time. Will it really be an unmitigated disaster if its population declines to that level again? It may well be that Japan's elderly will have to make do with less during the next century or two. I hereby make the bold prediction that, in spite of that, they will not all starve to death or be left without health care to die in the streets. Demographically, Japan is the most fortunate of nations, not the least favored. At least to date, she does not enjoy the "great advantage" of mass immigration by culturally alien populations, an "advantage" that is likely to wreak havoc in the United States and Europe.
As for military strength, I doubt that we will need to fear enslavement by some foreign power as long as we maintain a strong and reliable nuclear arsenal, and, with a smaller population, the need to project our power overseas, for example to protect sources of oil and other resources, will decline because our needs will be smaller. As for inventiveness, entrepreneurship, and economic growth, it would be better to promote them by restraining the cancerous growth of modern tax-devouring welfare states than by artificially stimulating population growth. Again, all of Last's "Very Bad Things" are also inevitable things. What he is proposing will not enable us to avoid them. It will merely postpone them for a relatively short time, as which point they will be even more difficult to manage because of depleted resources and a degraded environment than they are now. It seems a very meager excuse for risking the future of the planet.
In a word, I favor a double standard. Unrestricted population growth of my own family and those closely related to me genetically balanced by an overall decline in the population overall. There is nothing incongruous about this. It is the inherent nature of our species to apply one standard to our ingroup, and an entirely different one to outgroups. We all do the same, regardless of whether we are prepared to admit it or not. I leave you, dear reader, in the hope that you will not become confused by the distinction between the two.
Nuclear Power, Thorium, and the Role of GovernmentPosted on May 6th, 2012 9 comments
Nuclear power is an attractive candidate for meeting our future energy needs. Nuclear plants do not release greenhouse gases. They release significantly less radiation into the environment than coal plants, because coal contains several parts per million of radioactive thorium and uranium. They require far less space and are far more reliable than alternative energy sources such as wind and solar. In spite of some of the worst accidents imaginable due to human error and natural disasters, we have not lost any cities or suffered any mass casualties, and the horrific "China Syndrome" scenarios invented by the self-appointed saviors of mankind have proven to be fantasies. That is not to say nuclear power is benign. It is just more benign than any of the currently available alternatives. The main problem with nuclear is not that it is unsafe, but that it is being ill-used. In this case, government could actually be helpful. Leadership and political will could put nuclear on a better track.
To understand why, it is necessary to know a few things about nuclear fuel, and how it "burns." Bear with me while I present a brief tutorial in nuclear engineering. Nuclear energy is released by nuclear fission, or the splitting of heavy elements into two or more lighter ones. This doesn't usually happen spontaneously. Before a heavy element can undergo fission, an amount of energy above a certain threshold must first be delivered to its nucleus. How does this happen? Imagine a deep well. If you drop a bowling ball into the well, it will cause a large splash when it hits the water. It does so because it has been accelerated by the force of gravity. A heavy nucleus is something like a well, but things don't fall into it because of gravity. Instead, it relies on the strong force, which is very short range, but vastly more powerful than gravity. The role of "bowling ball" can be played by a neutron. If one happens along and gets close enough to fall into the strong force "well," it will also cause a "splash," releasing energy as it is bound to the heavy element's nucleus, just as the real bowling ball is "bound" in the water well until someone fishes it out. This "splash," or release of energy, causes the heavy nucleus to "jiggle," much like an unstable drop of water. In one naturally occurring isotope – uranium with an atomic weight of 235 – this "jiggle" is so violent that it can cause the "drop of water" to split apart, or fission.
There are other isotopes of uranium. All of them have 92 protons in their nucleus, but can have varying numbers of neutrons. The nucleus of uranium 235, or U235, has 92 protons and 143 protons, adding up to a total of 235. Unfortunately, U235 is only 0.7% of natural uranium. Almost all the rest is U238, which has 92 protons and 146 neutrons. When a neutron falls into the U238 "well," the "splash" isn't big enough to cause fission, or at least not unless the neutron had a lot of energy to begin with, as if the "bowling ball" had been shot from a cannon. As a result, U238 can't act as the fuel in a nuclear reactor. Almost all the nuclear reactors in operation today simply burn that 0.7% of U235 and store what's left over as radioactive waste. Unfortunately, that's an extremely inefficient and wasteful use of the available fuel resources.
To understand why, it's necessary to understand something about what happens to the neutrons in a reactor that keep the nuclear chain reaction going. First of all, where do they come from? Well, each fission releases more neutrons. The exact number depends on how fast the neutron that caused the fission was going, and what isotope underwent fission. If enough are released to cause, on average, one more fission, then the resulting chain reaction will continue until the fuel is used up. Actually, two neutrons, give or take, are released in each fission. However, not all of them cause another fission. Some escape the fuel region and are lost. Others are absorbed in the fuel material. That's where things get interesting.
Recall that, normally, most of the fuel in a reactor isn't U235, but the more common isotope, U238. When U238 absorbs a neutron, it forms U239, which quickly decays to neptunium 239 and then plutonium 239. Now it just so happens that plutonium 239, or Pu239, will also fission if a neutron "falls into its well," just like U235. In other words, if enough neutrons were available, the reactor could actually produce more fuel, in the form of Pu239, than it consumes, potentially burning up most of the U238 as well as the U235. This is referred to as the "breeding" of nuclear fuel. Instead of just lighting the U235 "match" and letting it burn out, it would be used to light and burn the entire U238 "log." Unfortunately, there are not enough neutrons in normal nuclear reactors to breed more fuel than is consumed. Such reactors have, however, been built, both in the United States and other countries, and have been safely operated for periods of many years.
Plutonium breeders aren't the only feasible type. In addition to U235 and Pu239, another isotope will also fission if a neutron falls into its "well" - uranium 233. Like Pu239, U233 doesn't occur in nature. However, it can be "bred," just like Pu239, from another element that does occur in nature, and is actually more common than uranium – thorium. I've had a few critical things to say about some of the popular science articles I've seen on thorium lately, but my criticisms were directed at inaccuracies in the articles, not at thorium technology itself. Thorium breeders actually have some important advantages over plutonium. When U233 fissions, it produces more neutrons than Pu239, and it does so in a "cooler" neutron spectrum, where the average neutron energy is much lower, making the reactor significantly easier to control. These extra neutrons could not only breed more fuel. They could also be used to burn up the transuranic elements – those beyond uranium on the table of the elements – that are produced in conventional nuclear reactors, and account for the lion's share of the long-lived radioactive waste. This would be a huge advantage. Destroy the transuranics, and the residual radioactivity from a reactor would be less than that of the original ore, potentially in a few hundred years, rather than many thousands.
Thorium breeders have other potentially important advantages. The fuel material could be circulated through the core in the form of a liquid, suspended in a special "salt" material. Of course, this would eliminate the danger of a fuel meltdown. In the event of an accident like the one at Fukushima, the fuel would simply be allowed to run into a holding basin, where it would be sub-critical and cool quickly. Perhaps more importantly, the United States has the biggest proven reserves of thorium on the planet.
Breeders aren't the only reactor types that hold great promise for meeting our future energy needs. High temperature gas cooled reactors would produce gas heated to high temperature in addition to electricity. This could be used to produce hydrogen gas via electrolysis, which is much more efficient at such high temperatures. When hydrogen burns, it produces only water. Such reactors could also be built over the massive oil shale deposits in the western United States. The hot gas could then be used to efficiently extract oil from the shale "in situ" without the need to mine it. It is estimated that the amount of oil that could be economically recovered in this way from the Green River Basin deposits in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado alone is three times greater than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.
Will any of this happen without government support and leadership? Not any time soon. The people who build nuclear reactors expect to make a profit, and the easiest way to make a profit is to build more conventional reactors of the type we already have. Raise the points I've mentioned above, and they'll simply tell you that there's plenty of cheap uranium around and therefore no need to breed more fuel, the radioactive danger of transuranics has been much exaggerated, etc., etc. All these meretricious arguments make sense if your goal is to make a profit in the short run. They make no sense at all if you have any concern for the energy security and welfare of future generations.
Unless the proponents of controlled fusion or solar and other forms of alternative energy manage to pull a rabbit out of their collective hats, I suspect we will eventually adopt breeder technology. The question is when. After we have finally burnt our last reserves of fossil fuel? After we have used up all our precious reserves of U238 by scattering it hither and yon in the form of "depleted uranium" munitions? The longer we wait, the harder and more expensive it will become to develop a breeder economy. It would be well if, in this unusual case, government stepped in and did what it is theoretically supposed to do; lead.


text:
Our online tools make booking, managing your schedule and paying for lessons easy and hassle-free.
Access and compare detailed information about teaching style, experience, education, and more.
If for any reason you're not satisfied after your first lesson, we'll help you find another teacher or refund your entire purchase.
No matter where you live, chances are we can introduce you to an
amazing teacher in your neighborhood. You can take lessons in the
privacy of your own home or at your teacher's location. Start by
searching in your ZIP code to find teachers near you.
Learn More
What if the teacher who best fits your needs is on the other side
of the country? No problem. Our online lesson platform connects
you with any teacher, anywhere. All you need is a reliable Internet
connection, a webcam, and a microphone.
Learn More
Your search for the perfect teacher starts with the subject you'd like to learn and your ZIP code. From the list of recommended teachers, compare detailed information about each option before you make your teacher selection.
Take some time to review the teachers in our network. All of our teachers provide detailed profiles, including information about their background, specialties, and teaching style. You can also read reviews from past and current students.
Select your teacher and book online. After you book, your teacher will contact you directly to talk about your first lesson and you'll be able to manage your entire schedule through our free online account.
Take your voice to the next level. Download free video tutorials to start singing like the star you are!
Getting Started with Music Lessons guides you through selecting a teacher & preparing for your first lesson.
Kickstart your guitar playing. Download free video tutorials to learn about chord progressions, strumming, and more!
Acoustic Guitar, Arrangement and Composition, Audio Engineering, Bass Guitar, Composition, Ear Training, Guitar, Music Performance, Music Recording, Music Theory, Songwriting
Andrew is a Philadelphia area bassist, guitarist, composer, sound designer, audio engineer, and teacher. As a recent graduate of University of the Arts with a MM in jazz studies, Andrew has had many opportunities to study with some of the best musicians that Philadelphia has to offer. Andrew performs in a variety of styles from rock to jazz and R&B. For Andrew, music is the most fun a person can have and this idea is the foundation for his instruction. Andrew aims to inspire his students, in the way that his great teachers have inspired him. He emphasizes improvisation, confidence, versatility, good habits, a strong foundation, and the concept of music as a language.
*** Lesson Details ***
Though I cultivate a laid-back atmosphere, I take music and teaching very seriously. I expect beginners to put in an honest effort, and expect more advanced players to be enthusiastic about the material I give them, and to give it the time and attention it deserves. Ultimately, a student will only get out what he or she puts in. It can and should be fun, (and if It isn't, I'll figure out a way to make it fun.) Students will learn to be creative every time they play. They will learn to interact with others (musically) and to rely on their ears and intuition. I try to focus on producing a well-rounded student who can play with emotion and spontaneity, yet has knowledge of music theory, history, convention, and other essentials of a more academic nature. I cater to the student's interests and tailor my lessons to the student's specific needs.
*** Studio Equipment ***
Home: studio with music stands, guitar/bass amps, music library and materials, keyboard, recording mixer, guitars (acoustic & electric), electric bass, fretless bass, upright bass, and computer with various music software, and a wipe off board.
*** Travel Equipment ***
Car, Music stand, instruments, amplifiers, Ipad
*** Specialties ***
I specialize in Jazz, Rock, Pop, and Contemporary music.
Clarinet, French Horn, Music Performance, Music Theory, Piano, Trombone, Trumpet
I am a graduate of Montclair State University with a Bachelors degree in music education and a minor in sociology. I have also received an Associate's degree in music from Brookdale Community College and have been playing the French Horn since I was 10-years-old and the piano since I was 14-years-old. I have also played a variety of other instruments including the trumpet, trombone, flute and clarinet.
I have performed with the NJ Conservatory in Beethoven's 3rd Symphony and 9th Symphony. I have also conducted intermediate, concert and beginner bands and have given both group instrumental lessons and one-on-one private lessons. These group and individual lessons include clarinet, French Horn, trumpet, flute, trombone, saxophone, violin and percussion. I am most diverse in brass instruments and piano. I have also worked with students with special needs and students who do not have English as their first language. Currently, I am teaching general music to students in from grade kindergarten to fifth.
While still in high school, I performed at Carnegie Hall with the New Jersey Youth Orchestra, the New Jersey all shore band, the pit band for the high school musical productions, and received the Band Director's award in my senior year of high school. I have also performed in several other orchestras, bands and chamber groups at all musical levels including professional. I have accompanied choirs on piano in middle school and high school level.
I was on the Dean's list at Montclair State University for six semesters and all four semesters at Brookdale Community College and received the NJ STARS scholarship and graduated Montclair State University and Brookdale Community College with honors.
*** Lesson Details ***
I believe it is very important that students know music theory along with performance knowledge. During lessons, I like to spend time going over music theory with the student, depending on what their instrument and age level is. This includes learning scales (major and minor), chords, reading music and anything the student shows an interest in. It is very important that students learn the basics of music to perform an instrument. I also incorporate learning pieces/songs in the lessons. The songs and pieces that I incorporate in the lessons are songs that are at the student's performance level and is something they are interested in learning. I believe it is important that students learn the fundamentals of music and have fun at the same time.
*** Studio Equipment ***
Room with piano seating for parents
*** Travel Equipment ***
I can provide some music books or sheet music along with some CDs and a music stand. I would like for students to provide instruments and possibly some music books or any music they may want to learn.
*** Specialties ***
Brass, band, piano
Choir, Christian Gospel, Gospel Singing, Music Performance, Music Theory, Singing, Songwriting
Graduating from the renowned High School for the Creative and Performing Arts in Philadelphia; succeeding heavyweight entertainers such as Boyz II Men and Jazmine Sullivan, has equipped me to teach music! Most of my experience is as a professional gospel recording artist and songwriter. I have writing credits on two successful albums, and am currently working on my debut album through RockSoul Productions.
I have experience as a music teacher, choir director, and Performing Arts Coordinator at We Ovecome Performing Arts Summer Camp. I am currently the Group Facilitator/Music Teacher at Congresso working in the after school program at Kensington CAPA high school. I specialize in beginners music theory, vocal arrangement, and songwriting, in the urban/gospel/contemporary styles of music.
A Lesson with me will be fun, challenging, and inspiring. I like to do creative and interactive lesson plans, vocal exercises, and work on any music projects or endeavors that you may have. You want me as your teacher because I can coach you into the vocalist you've always dreamed of becoming!
*** Travel Equipment ***
I expect student to provide a piano or keyboard, cd player, paper and pencil,
I will provide sheet music, cd's, and lessons plans.
*** Specialties ***
Genres: Gospel, Contemporary, Pop
Vocal Arrangement
Music Theory
Music Performance
Accent Reduction, Acting, Audition Prep, Broadway Singing, Ear Training, Film Acting, Film and TV Acting, Meisner Technique, Method Acting, Musical Theater, Music Performance, Music Theory, Shakespearean Acting, Singing, Speaking Voice, Stage Performance, Theater Acting, Vocal Training, Voice Acting
I am an actor, singing actor and teaching artist based out of Philadelphia, PA. With over 20 years of experience in the field. I've helped thousands of students improve their vocal and performance capabilities whether as an actor, singing actor, or public speaker.
Current and past clients include The Walnut Street Theatre, Philly ASAP, Philly Senior Stage, The Minuetto Music Festival, and The Continuo Arts Foundation.
Come and study with me in a safe, professional environment here in my home studio, online, or in the comfort of your very own home.
I carry full liability insurance for your peace of mind.
*** Lesson Details ***
Integrated performance training is the key. My particular skill set places me firmly in between the worlds of both music and drama.
There's a great deal of shared knowledge, technique and performance aesthetic in the space where music and drama intersect.
I utilize training techniques from these two interrelated worlds as well as the world of speech communication with all of my students resulting in a more dynamic and solid performance.
I provide a safe, professional environment in which to learn. My current students range in age from 10 to 96 years old. I tailor my instruction to your individual needs and learning style.
*** Studio Equipment ***
Piano, Video Camera, Monitor, Sound System, Audio Recording Capability, Microphones, Music Stands, Mirror.
On street parking available in historic block of the Germantown section of Philadelphia.
*** Travel Equipment ***
Students provide Piano or Keyboard, CD player and a mirror. I will provide music, staff paper for notes and practice exercises as well as recording equipment for feedback purposes.
*** Specialties ***
Pop, Music Theatre, German Lied, American and Italian Art Song, French Melodie.
Acting-Stanislavski Method, Bertolt Brecht's Epic Theatre, Audition and Monologue Coaching, TV/Film Acting.
Accent Reduction
Audition Prep, Conga Drums, Djembe, Drum, Ear Training, Hand Drums, Marimba, Music Performance, Music Theory, Percussion, Steel Drums, Xylophone
Welcome to Percussion and Drum set lessons with Peter D. K.
Due to a performer's schedule, please sign up for SCHEDULE AS YOU GO. I will then be in contact to schedule your first lesson! I look forward to working with you.
*** Travel Equipment ***
I can provide percussion instruments such as drum pad and or snare drum. Students would have to provide the keyboard instruments and drum sets.
*** Specialties ***
Drum set
African Percussion,
Keyboard Percussion
Classical Percussion
Solo Marimba
Solo Xylophone
Jazz Vibes
Broadway Singing, Music Performance, Music Theory, Opera Voice, Piano, Singing
Maja Lisa has maintained a private voice studio since 2005. She has also taught at the University of Iowa and Camden Country Community College. She has also taught at Stagecoach school of the Arts, PA Performing Arts, Mainstage Center for the Arts and the Conservatory of Music and Dance. Her students have been cast as leads in musicals, are performers in NYC and have received top awards.
Maja Lisa is an active member of NATS (National Association of Teachers of Singing), MTNA (Music Teachers National Association) and on Sony's list of teachers.
Maja Lisa is an active performer and recently played Hansel in Hansel and Gretel in Delaware Valley Opera�s summer festival. Upcoming performances include Meg in Falstaff in the Philadelphia Fringe Festival and Orlofsky in Die Fledermaus with Center Stage Opera. This year she performed Mercedes in Carmen with ConcertOPERA Philadelphia (while also covering Carmen), and the Nursing Sister in Suor Angelica in NYC with Opera Manhattan. She has appeared with Poor Richards Opera, Delaware Valley Opera Company, Cedar Rapids Opera Company, Center City Opera Theater, ConcertOPERA Philadelphia, and Bismarck Symphony Orchestra. Recent performances include Dinah in Trouble in Tahiti, Mother in Amahl and the Night Visitors, Lay Sister and Nursing Sister in Suor Angelica, La Chiesca in Gianni Schicchi Mrs. Jenks in The Tenderland, Praskovia in Merry Widow, Wife of the Giant in Jack and the Beanstalk, and Mercy Lewis in The Crucible. She has performed as a Young Artist with the Cedar Rapids Opera and Center City Opera Theatre. She was awarded first place in The Schubert Club Intermediate Category competition. Maja Lisa has been a soloist in the Messiah, the Vivaldi Gloria, and Mozart�s Sparrow Mass and featured at the North Dakota Capital Gala Concert
*** Lesson Details ***
My goal for each of my students is to sing any kind of music in a healthy way. Each lesson will include vocal technique exercises where you will learn how to find your voice, sing in a healthy way, build breath support, and improve range, pitch, and sing with ease and clarity. Lessons will also include singing pieces that help your voice grow, or songs you love to sing!
*** Studio Equipment ***
Lessons in the front room, upright piano, space for parents
*** Specialties ***
opera, classical, broadway, show tunes, jazz, pop
"Steven is very professional and extremely helpful. He always has a smile on and is serious about helping you phrase the music. I would highly recommend him to anyone."
"It's been really exciting so far! Jordan has been so helpful, so knowledgeable. I could not have found a better instructor and I'm getting better and better every day."
"My daughter's wedding was weeks away and I had never been able to dance a step. With Jenny's help, I came further than ever before in such short time in any subject."


text:
Today's Guest Bloggers are Gregory Dale Smith, Ph.D., the IMA's Otto N. Frenzel III Senior Conservation Scientist, and Michael Columbia, Ph.D., Sabbatical Leave Research Fellow - IPFW
It is an uncomfortable truth that in showing you an artwork in a museum, we are potentially destroying it. As a conservation professional, it feels wrong to admit that, but it is true. Every photon, or packet of radiant energy, that strikes the surface of an art object has the potential to do damage, and we most often see that as a negative change in the artwork's aesthetics: darkening, fading, yellowing, chalking, crosslinking, etc. It's an unstoppable phenomenon, but one that proceeds at a variety of rates. Certainly color change is one of the most notable alterations that light can cause in an artwork, and so we must dole out the expected lifetime of an object using an informed and rational approach. Conservators and collections managers go to great pains to protect artwork by limiting its exposure to light. This can take the form of reducing light intensity, restricting its spectral output, or limiting the duration of an exhibition. These stewards of the collection get additional insight and data from scientists who study the fading behavior of artists' materials.
For the past several months the IMA has been conducting a condition survey of its photograph collection, over 800 objects that span the history of the medium. This program is sponsored by a generous grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), a wing of the federal government that supports museum and conservation activities. In addition to the inventory and conservation assessment of each artwork, the grant has also funded a study of the lightfastness of the contemporary color photographs in the collection using a technique called microfade testing (MFT), or microfadeometry. The goal of the study is to determine the susceptibility to color change for the highest priority color photographs in the collection and to determine patterns of lightfastness among the many photographic processes. This data in turn informs our exhibition, loan, and lighting guidelines for the collection.
Figure 1. Watercolor paint outs after artificial light aging.
Filed under: Conservation, Photography, The Collection


text:
BJ Penn And Rory MacDonald Stare Down Video From UFC on FOX 5 Pre-fight Press Conference.
The closer we get to this fight the more i think B.J is gonna win
COME ON BJ you got all the tools.
Bring it! Can't wait for this fight more than all the rest.
War BJ Shut him up and down.
Penn doesn't stand a chance. He is gonna get beat up just like he did vs Diaz. It's nice to wish but reality has to set in sooner or later.
Can't stand McDonalds personality, he's like a boring version of chael sonnen, and I like sonnen….if that makes sense
When rory says douchy stuff it annoys me , when sonnen does it I laugh, hope bj smashes him.
The only problem with BJ is is mental and physical stamina. If things aren't going his way he kinda folds.
Rory…..he's like Canadian Psycho
BJ is going to fight hard for 2 min and when he finds it's going to difficult he'll quit like he always does. His only hope is a quick first round knockout which I don't foresee happening.
Rory will definitely earn two things in this fight. Respect and victory. If bj penn wasn't fired up about this fight before, he sure is now. Rory will win this fight but it won't be pretty.
Rory is going to destroy BJ you can bet on it, I know I am, I've already put my money bet in.
I hope BJ smashes this coky punk
the size diffeence is huge though, and rory is pretty skilled too . got to love Bj for taking fights with bigger opponent, I just hope he doesnt get hurt
I've never rooted for BJ so hard, I hope he's been training with a bunch of 185ers, Rory is huge
It's gonna be a very hard fight but Rory will get the W.
BJ is such a wild card. If he comes out like he did against Fitch, he's got a great chance. If he let's Rory use GSP's game plan and gets pinned against the cage until he gases, it's going to be a boring fight.
Hopefully BJ does to RORY what he did to KENFLO and catches Rory in transition to end the fight quickly.
F@ck BJ, he's a rich bitch child.. skilled but his attitude is what keeps him down..
The diiference between rory and chael is that rory actually wrecks dude bad! He Flucks ppl up!. BJ better go old schoool cuz this kid can easily make him look like a D-Level fighter.
BJ looks like a dwarf.
if penn can defend rory takedown hes got a good chance of winning the fight
lots of BJ nuthuggers who won't come to terms with the actual odds
bj is out of his league in this fight. but who knows, a motivated bj will kill anyone
BJ Penn loses, I already saw this one.
rory is my guy but for what he said was kinda disrespectful and sound dum he should be calling out carlos the only guy to hurt him and his only loss in the ufc. wow payattension rory is scared bj is not ..rory pic on guys that are not doing the best in there carrer bj will fight anyone any time any weight class … bj is the real fighter even if rory wins because bj wana be the best and fight the best rory don't he wana fight bj which has been down hill for a minute
Roy trains with GSP… I think that says it all. It will be a fight to see, Roy has that hight and reach, but If bJ takes him down or gets inside, Roy will be in alott Trouble
I'm a BJ fan but Rory's reach advantage and athleticism gives him the win. Sorry but I cant see BJ winning this one.
All you doubting BJ can eat Rory's tooth pick lol. Because you are forgetting this is the UFC. ASs real as it gets.. Anything can happen in this sport. BJ Penn winner by KNOCKOUT!!! WARRRR PRODIGY 808!!!!!!!!!
I usually don't go for bj because of his attitude but im going for him this time.Rory is full of himself and seems like how you say "not very good guy".He has some darkness inside and not the harmless kind.
BJ= no chance. Rory will destroy Penn and put him right back into retirement. BJ will surely whine and complain after the fight. Go Rory.
poor BJ hes getting killed tomorrow. he'll be completely outclassed. with all due respect.
BJ is one of the greatest of all times, but hes a little past his prime, didnt take his career seriously when he should have..too late now. i just hope he wouldnt get too hurt.
I think BJ might be fired up, but I also think it's going to be too little too late. Maybe if he had this much fire to start his training he'd have a better chance, but damn there's a huge size difference to top it all off. The only thing we can hope for is Rory possibly losing focus now that all the hype seems to be getting in his head a bit.
I'm gonna laugh if BJ subs him!
Bj may look like a dwarf but he will knock you back to the hobbit Joe Dog!
I'm not surprised Rory is talking about hurting BJ. BJ talks a lot of s*** about Tri-Star and his brothers. I don't see him as cocky. I see him focused on defending the honour of his gym. Reminds me of old-timey martial arts films with a televised pre-fight discussing.
Rory really seems like a twink, he sets off the gaydar. Will he become the first openly gay UFC Champ someday?
i think the only people rooting for rory are canadian
I believe right now Rory is just too much for BJ, who is way out of his prime. Other than a sucker punch victory, I think BJ doesn't stand a chance whatsoever against the new breed of fighters like Rory.
I love BJ but Rory unfortunately is gona wear him down with his size and beat him….
BJ is such a game dog in this fight. The odds are so long it was too tempting to pass up.
Penn has HEAVY hands, fantastic TDD, and better BJJ than Rory. He can choke him out or knock him out. Of course, Rory can win as well, but Penn should not be counted out.
Please BJ shut him up!! what a disrespectful duche bag is rory
Please win BJ!
BJ only lost to Diaz because BJ was not in shape.. BJ was dominating Diaz in the first round. I'm rooting for Rory cause I think he's very skilled is will go very far.. but for some reason i really want to see BJ win.
destroy him BJ…please….
I predict that this fight will make me very sad. I love you, BJ, please move back to lightweight.
Also, Rory may be a good cantidate to star in an American Psycho sequel. (Yes, I know he's Canadian. Fiction, remember…..?)
Rory is a killer.. somebody up top said he has some "darkness inside" and I agree. He's like an MMA version of Dexter. He seems so cool and calculating, like it would be nothing if BJ died in the ring.
Rory by corner stoppage…
Same Old Lame BJ. I'm ready, never felt any better. Just retire already…
what excuse is penn going to come up with this time around. Blah Blah Blah…
BJ hit his plateau long ago. Rory is one of the next generation fighters who is rising to the top fast. Time and time again we see these types of matches with the result being that the older fighter's gameplans and tactics being too obsolete to compete with the present day style of the younger, fresher fighter. The odds are stacked against BJ this time around. As far as Rory talking crap…you have to remember that BJ specifically picked Rory to be his next opponent. If you call a certain fighter out, don't necessarily expect that person to be completely cordial toward you.
This is gonna be a Massacre. Sorry BJ
BJ wins by anal submission in the second round!!
Rory will whoop that loud mouth. Why does BJ act so hardcore hawaiin like talking with an accent when his dad is white as snow?
BJ, in shape? Bwa hahaa ha ha ha. He's a 155er fighting at 170 so I don't see how he could be.
If Penn weighs in between 167-169 we may see a fight.
But people seem to ignore the fact that come fight time he is going to be giving up 25 lbs of muscle weight to a very good young fighter.
I think BJ is great, but Penn nuthuggers are dreaming if they think he has more than a fluke chance in this fight.
The better odds would be can Rory stop him.
I think Rory will win this fight. Unless BJ gets really lucky. I just can't see him BJ beating Rory.
I agree Rory has that psycho look. He would make a good charactor for a well dressed, smart look serial killer in a movie lol
I'm finding it humorous how there are so many B.J Penn fans ready to jump all over Rory for a few overblown statements. B.J. has been instigating trash talk for as long as he's been in the game. Dr. is probably right that there may be a TriStar vendetta to settle. We can expect a war. B.J. has always been a natural, but cardio can definitely be an issue. Not to disrespect B.J.'s guard, but Rory's G n P is phenomenal n he's got tons of killer instinct. Rory's standup is good, but I think B.J.'s best shot is to keep it on the feet. I can't wait for this one.
He's a young man in a north american society.. of course he has some darkness in him.. who here doesn't?
I think he's come off as very respectful, for the most part. This isn't the wwe.. too many sonnen nut huggers wanting constant drama.
That being said.. it's one of the hardest things to not cheer on mr penn.. excited for this fight for sure.
My opinion of Rory Mcdonald just went into the gutter. I hope Penn destroys him. Fighters need to stop talking about killing each other in the ring because one day it is bound to happen, and we don't need the media looping the death threat after it happens. STFU Rory
Rory's "Dark Passenger" is gonna carve up the big mouth Penn.
BJ is over the hill and can't accept the fact he slacked off and thought he was too good to work out and maintain championship form.
Where are all the BJ nuthuggers? I'm glad he came to fight but his stand-up has never been as crisp or technical as Rory is showing
MAC is a roid using fancy boy, nice back acne bro..


text:
Google glasses could be restricted in Illinois before they even go on sale.
Google Glass features a small video display on a lens in front of the user's right eye. The device is built into frames that look like eyeglasses.
Users can search the Internet, make phone calls and check email.
Illinois State Sen. Ira Silverstein has filed legislation to try to keep the technology from taking drivers' attention off the road.
The Chicago Democrat claims it is just another way people will be distracted.


text:
2. Entering IMAP server details and securing your connection.
1. To enter information on accessing your email account, click on the
[Tools] menu and select
[Imap profiles]. Click on the
New button.
2. Under
Enter a name for this definition, enter a name for your
email account that makes sense to you. In the example below,
Nexus has been used. Next to
IMAP Server address,
imap.nexus.ox.ac.uk. In the field next to
name, enter your Single Sign-On user name as provided by OUCS in the
abcd1234. Next to
Password, enter your
Single Sign-On password. Then locate the
Security tab at the top
of that window and click on it to proceed.
3. The
SSL/TLS (encrypted data stream) settings section offers you
three options. Select
Via direct SSL connect.
4. The dialogue box below then requests your permission to automatically change
the ports used by the connection in accordance with your selection. Click on
Change to allow it to do so. Afterwards, click on
OK. You should now be able to receive mail; in order to be
able to also send mail, you will need to complete the following steps to secure
the connection to the outgoing email (SMTP) server.
5. Click on the
[File] menu and select
Configuration]. The programme opens the
Internet Mail
Options window below. Locate the
Sending (SMTP) tab
near the top of the window and click on it.
6. The programme will display a list of smtp servers. Select
smtp.ox.ac.uk and click on
7. Under
SSL/TLS (encrypted data stream) settings, select
Via direct SSL connect. The programme will request your
permission to change ports; click on
Change. Then click on
OK to complete the configuration of your outgoing mail
server. Pegasus should now be ready to send and receive emails through your
Nexus account.
Up: Contents Previous: 1. Setting up Pegasus Mail