Re: NASA to launch huge orbiting nuclear reactor!


"R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3eWdnSHSioIRofPZnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx
NASA is to launch an giant orbiting nuclear reactor, with the high energy
being beamed back to receivers on earth.

A spokesperson said that whilst there were risks with this program
detractors had greatly overestimated them.

Environmentalist have pointed out several hazards of the project,
particularly for anyone caught in the open by the energy beam from the
reactor: -

* second degree burns after as little as ten minutes exposure (especially
children)

What? My kids are out for an hour at lunchtime! I'll tell the school to keep them
inside surrounded by 10 foot thick concrete.

* huge increase in the risk of skin cancer (especially older people)

I believe there'll be high tech protective devices, sold at specialist outlets called
"milliners".

* temporary sight impairment if beam observed accidentally even for a few
seconds
* permanent blindness if observed for a few minutes.

Yes, I guess half the population will be blind within a year of launch!

The rays will also cause material damage - bleaching paint and even melting
roads or starting forest fires.

The highly experimental fusion reactor is unshielded to save weight so gamma
rays and high velocity particles will form part of the beam, approximately
equivalent to all the [background] radiation from rocks on earth or all the
radioactivity from the surface nuclear tests from 1945 to 1962.

But how will a 1W mobile phone still be able to comminicate with a mast half a mile
away with all this background radiation?

Nasa have responded to this by announcing that people will be encouraged to
buy screening treatments for their skin and protective goggles and that the
reactor will go round once a day, so at least half the earth will be
shielded at any one time. .

Clearly people will feel safer when we're shielded from it. Apparently some parts of
the world will be affected less than others by the radiation, Antartica may become a
popular place to live!

Some change in sea level can be expected on a regular basis, however when
combined with tides caused by the moon this may lead to large scale
flooding...

Yes, sea water will evaporate, condense, and them get dumped on us on a regular
basis.

--
Andy


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gamma Camera
    ... >> Your main problem will be that extraterrestrial gamma ... > background radiation from the total, ... Natural background radiation. ... Most of what you measure at the surface of the Earth, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Is it this easy to live on Mars?
    ... Living on Earth unsheilded, exposes you to 1 millirad per day. ... Clearly radiation is a factor to be considered carefully when planning ... clearly says this 22 mrad/day applies to interplanetary space and Mars ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Climate Witnesses Testify About Warming
    ... > Only those gases that absorb IR radiation from the earth (which would ... > warming the earth) are greenhouse gases. ... transfer of energi from the opaque to the transparent irradiation. ...
    (sci.geo.meteorology)
  • Re: Climate Witnesses Testify About Warming
    ... > Only those gases that absorb IR radiation from the earth (which would ... > warming the earth) are greenhouse gases. ... transfer of energi from the opaque to the transparent irradiation. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: EM pollution threatens with breakdown of Earths magnetic field
    ... As for other kinds of radiation, most that we get is from the sun. ... Not so much from an ordinary nova, but from a supernova if it were ... to be considered a threat to life on Earth. ... no ancient climatic global warming trends have ...
    (sci.physics)