About Packeteer

Recent posts

• Follow Following 1

  Should I sport a man purse?

  1 5 Let 'em wonder. Seriously though, wearing a man bag is supposed to be ambiguously sexual. If you think you are going to send 110% hetero beams in every direction while sporting a man bag you are delusional. Women love mystery. They spend billions of dollars a year on chick flicks and romance novels where the ideal man can't be figured out right away. It might not be acceptable fashion according to whoever writes the rules but it will pique the interest of women you want to date. Also finally, fashion is about expressing yourself. If you want to do it, fucking do it. Packeteer answered in Men's Fashion about 1 year ago Answer, comment & read 23 more answers »

• Follow Following 1

  Why weren't they able to use dry ice to cool the fuel rods (at least temporarily)??

  0 0 As prompt said here water can actually absorb more heat per molecule than dry ice can. Also you should consider that the temperature of the nuclear reactor is so high (sometimes above 1800 degrees Fahrenheit) that going from water at 50 degrees to dry ice at -70 degrees does not make a big difference. The slight difference in temperature still makes water the best material due to it absorbing more heat. Also water is easier to transport. There is much more trucks and pumps capable of delivering it to the reactors. Packeteer answered in Earthquake! about 1 year ago Answer, comment & read 2 more answers »

• Comment on Gregory Ritter's answer…

  1 0 I am not paid in any way to give these answers. I also don't have any friends or family employed in the nuclear industry. I am just a nerd who has had an interest in particle physics since I was a child. I am a best described as a hobbyist, not a professional. I do however work in computer network security and part of my professional life involves explaining risks and contingencies to people. Anyone in the security industry will tell you that humans are very poor at understanding statistics and risks. I sympathize for everyone who is freaking out, it is only human, but their opinions need to be brought to light immediately or they can spread panic and misinformation. Packeteer commented about 1 year ago

• Comment on Cedarthvader's answer…

  1 0 Yyou should be worried about a local earthquake much much more than nuclear radiation from Japan. If you are concerned about a disaster effecting your toddler enough to try and get iodine in the diet then you should be stockpiling food and water for the local earthquake that we know WILL happen. Packeteer commented about 1 year ago

• Comment on Gregory Ritter's answer…

  2 0 Fukushima is not already worse than Chernobyl. Chernobyl released a significant amount of radiation into the atmosphere. That has not happened yet with Fukushima and it might not happen. The situation in Japan is concerning but it is in no way worse than Chernobyl. Please take your hysteria elsewhere and stick to the facts here. Packeteer commented about 1 year ago

• Comment on Packeteer's answer…

  0 0 @Tom You are right that the spent fuel rods are probably more concerning right now. However you can to consider that the reason the spent fuel rods are the problem is that if that situation gets out of control the entire complex must be abandoned which means the fission reactors would melt down. I was writing above about the actual fission reactors melting down. Most things in this scenario are better than Chernobyl. The risk of the spent fuel rods turning into a criticality is "none zero" which means it could potentially happen but is unlikely. If it appears a criticality would happen with the spent fuel rods this can be prevented with human intervention. You could dump boron, graphite, water or other neutron absorbing material on the melted spent fuel cells. Boron is the better material because it is not flammable like graphite. Speaking of graphite, Chernobyl used graphite in the reactor which caused the fires to be much worse than what Fukushima could ever be. Packeteer commented about 1 year ago

• Follow Following 1

  Why can't Fukushima get worse than Chernobyl?

  2 0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_coefficient The design of Chernobyl was a "positive void coefficient" whereas in Fukushima it is a "negative void coefficient." This basically means that if we abandon the facility at Fukushima all of the reactors would slowly shut down on their own. At Chernobyl intervention was needed to get the reactor to shut down by design. All modern reactors are designed like Fukushima where if you have to completely abandon ship the fuel rods shut themselves off. Think of a car that cannot idle. If you had to keep your foot on the gas at all times just to keep it running at all that would be like Fukushima. Packeteer answered in Earthquake! about 1 year ago Answer, comment & read 4 more answers »

• See all of my 0 Questions , 3 Answers and 4 Comments