Great idea. Lets hand out loans to companies that want to build nuclear power plants in the U.S. Since we know that nuclear power generation is completely unprofitable, the odds of us ever getting this money back is pretty slim.

Now I know that those of you on the left will argue about the dirtiness of nuclear power and the waste that is generated and the danger of accidents which can irradiate whole tracts of land. Those on the right will proclaim how nuclear energy does not pollute the atmosphere with greenhouse gases (curiously, they don’t believe in global warming, but they still insist on making this point); and how nifty it is.

But the fact is simple economics. There hasn’t been a nuclear reactor built in the US since 1970. This is because running a nuke plant isn’t profitable. The cost to build, maintain, and dispose of the waste generated outweighs the potential income over the 40-year life of the reactor.

Now, the Obama plan seems to be to make nuclear power profitable by subsidizing it with government money. This would be a good idea if it would generate jobs in the US. Unfortunately, since the US hasn’t built a nuclear reactor since 1970, nobody in America knows how to build one. So everything. . . EVERYTHING. . . will have to be outsourced to overseas firms. Sure, the guys who run the place after it is built will have jobs — but it wouldn’t matter if they were building a coal plant or a nuke plant, those folks would still have jobs.

So, overall, even apart from the environmental and health concerns over nuclear power, this is a really bad idea.

So, you may ask what my beef is with Atheists. Let me tell you. A while ago, I started really looking into Atheism, and I got into some discussions with Atheists and so forth. What I found was appalling.

Although all Atheists will claim that their belief in the non-existence of God is based on scientific fact, they cannot point to a single publication in a refereed scientific journal that has proven the non-existence of God.

Worse yet, they believe in other things (such as “the world will be without war once everyone is an Atheist”) that there is ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF of, and yet they believe and defend these things with the rabid passion of the most devout follower of John Birch.

So, you may still ask, what is your problem with Atheists? Don’t Christians and Muslims and Jews believe in things that there is no scientific proof of?

Yes, but Atheists claim a superiority since their belief (oh, excuse me, absence of belief) is based in science and scientific principles. And yet, the things that they believe in most dearly are utterly without scientific backing or proof.

For example, I had one Atheist, who waxed on about how superior science is to primitive “belief”, tell me that he believed that without religion there would be no war. When I pressed him on what sort of scientific proof he had for this theory, he retorted “I believe this to the core of my being! I don’t have proof, but I KNOW that this is true.” He then went on to rant about how stupid and ignorant religious people are.

In other words, they believe in the absolute superiority of science — unless science fails to support their beliefs. This sort of hypocracy among those who claim to be supporters of science is what I dislike about Atheists.

Tony Writes:

Hi, Im 14 years old and Chemistry really is my favorite subject in school,
and out. I had a question about CO2. Is it possible to break the bonds that
hold the CO2 molecules together?
ex.passes through something and carbon is trapped and air passes on?
Thanks a lot

Yes, it is possible to break the bonds that link the carbons to the oxygens in CO2. However, doing so is not easy, and outside the laboratory there is only one practical way to do this. CO2 is very stable and non-reactive, which is why it survives so long in our atmosphere, and contributes to global warming.

Scientists are working on a method for transforming carbon dioxide (CO2) into fuel, using catalysts and sunlight. However, it could be decades before this can be done on a large scale So there still really is only one way to convert large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) into oxygen (O2) – Photosynthesis.

Yep. What scientist have been able to do only with great difficulty – and usually with dangerous substances and expensive equipment – nature has been doing for a billion years with ease.

I know that “plant a tree” wasn’t the answer you were looking for, but photosynthesis is still the most efficient way to purify CO2, and it probably will remain so for another century or so.

An article in Psychology Matters, Believing you can get smarter makes you smarter, indicates that when people learn that intelligence is a changeable, rather than a fixed, trait, that they actually increase their ability to learn.

The authors note that the increase in the ability to learn is especially significant among certain minorities, such as blacks, who have been stereotyped as “low intelligence.” African American participants in the studies cited showed a greater increase in learning ability than their white counterparts.

This is important, because it is well known that African-American students score lower on tests than European Americans. The study shows that these lower scores may be directly related to “self-stereotyping” and, more importantly, this “self-stereotyping” effect can be counteracted through education about the malleable nature of intelligence itself.

Obesity on the rise among Telekinetics

Doctor P. T. Snikta, author of the aptly named The Snikta Diet, is considered to be the leading authority on low food diets.

“I based my book on research that was conducted in the early 70′s and 80′s that showed that people who took less food in their diet lost more weight than those who ate more food.” Explains Dr. Snikta. “Study after study has confirmed these results, and these studies became the basis for my diet plan, which can be purchased at any book vendor for $24.95 (USD).”

The theory behind the “low food” diet appears to be sound. Medical professionals have known for well over a year that obesity is caused when ingested food is stored in the body as fat. Dr. Snikta contends that by reducing the amount of food, the body has less food to turn into fat. “Its simple physiology.” Remarks Dr. Snikta

However, critics contend that the “low food” diet can be dangerous, and that Dr. Snikta is an irresponsible ass. “Dr. Snikta is an irresponsible ass.” Claims Dr. Debra Pearsons. “People need food to live — Obviously, if people eat less food, they will live less. The old adage ‘Eat, drink, and be merry’ may be cliched, but there is an element of truth to it.”

Meanwhile, marketers and food manufacturers are jumping on the low food bandwagon with new “low food” products.

“Our Low Food Diet products have 50% less food than our regular products.” Says Michael Dryden, CEO of Snackity Snack, Inc. “Like the Low Food version of our popular Snackity Snack Food Sack (a popular snack food). The 16 oz package only contains 8 ozs of snack food.” Mr. Dryden claims “We can’t make them fast enough! Sure they cost a little more, but its what our consumers demand.”

Creating the elusive element required scientists to bombard unstable, radioactive, Californium-249 atoms with Calcium-48 ions for two months. Finally, after two months of painstaking work and analysis, the experiment probably produced 3 atoms of Element 118 that lasted less than a millisecond.

Since the element had a life-span shorter than the Swift Boat Veterans for Justice after the 2004 election, scientists could not observe the elements directly.

Says Jason Emory, of the Mount Livermore Nuclear Laboratory and Grill: “We can detect the decay sequences with a special device. . . that. . that detects decay sequences” Pausing to clear his throat, he continues, “By working backward through the decay sequence, we are reasonably certain we created element 118.”

His colleague, Dr. Ivan Nostrovski of the Chernobyl Memorial Radioctive Cement Block High-Energy Lab, stresses how relatively positive they are that they have succeeded. Gesturing broadly at the decay chart, Dr. Nostrovski explains. “Element 118 first decayed into element 116, then into element 114. That decayed into element 112, which split into two roughly equal pieces.”

“It was really cool.” Added Dr. Nostrovski.

Diagram shows the decay remnants of Element 118 (probably)

Ghazal asks:

Dear AaC,

Hi, I am an engineering student, and I will be working on remediation of TCE using ZVI. My problem is that TCE is very volatile, so it’s hard to know how much of exactly I have, for example, if i wante a 50mg/l concentration, by the time is added, weight, how can i know how much i have in my vile ? I will also be using a GC, but the problem with that also is that i have to define concetrations for it, before i can give it an unknown concentration. ANother problem is that i need to make my viles are anaerobic as possible, but the ones that i have tend to contain a bubble of air in them as soon as put the cap on it. how can i avoid that?
thanks alot

Translation: Ghazal is (I believe) using a permeable reactive barrier (PRB) made of zero-valence Iron (ZVI) to reduce toxic Trichloroethylene (TCE) to non-toxic ethylene and water. In general, the system works by passing contaminated groundwater through the ZVI-PRB which de-chlorinates the TCE, so that only purified water passes through to the other side. He states that he will be using a gas chromatagraph (GC) to examine his samples before and after the remediation process in order to determine how effective the process is.

Solution
There are two ways to reduce the evaporation rate.

1. Lower the temperature. TCE freezes at -90 C. It is fairly easy to find a commercial freezer that can go down to -50 C or lower. If you place all of your equipment, including your sample of TCE in the freezer for about an hour, and then (quickly) take it to the lab and measure your sample, you should lose very little of your TCE due to evaporation. If you are in Canada, you can just go outside and do this.
2. Reduce the surface area. If you weigh your TCE into an extremely narrow glass tube, and then quickly cap it once you have your measured amount, you can assure minimal loss of TCE due to evaporation.

The only way to eliminate the problem of oxygen in your samples is to use a nitrogen blanket to displace the oxygen. Prepare your samples under a nitrogen blanket and then cap them so they are not contaminated with oxygen.

Benjamin Writes:

Dear AaC,

I am doing an assignment on removing certain inks and ethyl acetate seems to
do it best. I need to know whether i am able to dilute ethyl acetate in
water so as to reduce the quantity of purchase.

Ethyl Acetate is in a class of compounds known as Esters. Like most esters, Ethyl Acetate has a slight fruity smell. It is a non- to slightly polar molecule. Although it mixes well with other solvents, such as acetone, ethanol, and benzene, it is not terribly soluble in water.

According to the literature, ethyl acetate has only an 8.3% (by w/v) solubility in water, so you would not see a great savings if you were to mix some water into it. However, you may be able to mix in a less expensive solvent that is miscible with ethyl acetate and make a small savings that way.

At the 16th 1st annual Ig Nobel Prize ceremonies, the 2006 winners of the Ig Nobel Prize were announced .

For those who don’t know, the Ig Nobel Prizes are a parody of the Nobel Prizes. Ig Nobels are awarded to research that cannot (or should not) be reproduced, and the ceremonies usually have several actual Nobel Laureates in attendance.

The prizes awarded:

ORNITHOLOGY: Ivan R. Schwab and the late Philip R.A. May for exploring and explaining why woodpeckers don’t get headaches.

PEACE: Howard Stapleton, for inventing an electromechanical teenager repellant — a device that makes annoying noise designed to be audible to teenagers but not to adults; and for later using that same technology to make telephone ringtones that are audible to teenagers but not to their teachers.

NUTRITION: Wasmia Al-Houty and Faten Al-Mussalam for showing that dung beetles are finicky eaters.

ACOUSTICS: D. Lynn Halpern, Randolph Blake and James Hillenbrand for conducting experiments to learn why people dislike the sound of fingernails scraping on a blackboard.

LITERATURE: Daniel Oppenheimer for his report “Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly.”

MATHEMATICS: Nic Svenson and Piers Barnes for calculating the number of photographs you must take to (almost) ensure that nobody in a group photo will have their eyes closed

MEDICINE: Francis M. Fesmire of the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, for his medical case report “Termination of Intractable Hiccups with Digital Rectal Massage”; and Majed Odeh, Harry Bassan, and Arie Oliven for their subsequent medical case report of the same name.

PHYSICS: Basile Audoly and Sebastien Neukirch for their insights into why, when you bend dry spaghetti, it often breaks into more than two pieces.

CHEMISTRY: Antonio Mulet, José Javier Benedito, José Bon and Carmen Rosselló for their study “Ultrasonic Velocity in Cheddar Cheese as Affected by Temperature.”

BIOLOGY: Bart Knols and Ruurd de Jong for showing that the female malaria mosquito, Anopheles gambiae, is attracted equally to the smell of limburger cheese and to the smell of human feet.