Not really, but maybe someday when throwing around $250 isn't such a big deal
Only rated to 35 degrees which kinda sucks (I've camped in places that dropped below 35F in the month of August, for example), but I would absolutely put it on my future purchases list if it was rated at 0F
For $100 you can get one rated to 50 degrees and honestly it might be wonderful lazy winter indoor attire (save on heating bills!) selkbagusa.com/collections/se…
Me in 2021. Just vibing
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let's learn about @PNNLab for the fifth "Spotlight on the National Labs" webinar!! You can register to attend here (starts at 13:00 EDT) or follow my thread below for the tl;dr 🧵👇us02web.zoom.us/webinar/regist…
We're hearing from EIGHT different @PNNLab employees, including lab director Steven Ashby! Ever wondered what kind of nuclear science and engineering work is going on at Pacific Northwest National Lab? Recording will be available to those who register us02web.zoom.us/webinar/regist…
PNNL is located in Richland, WA and is one of several laboratories that traces its roots back to the Manhattan Project. The lab has about 4700 staff, with about a quarter of the budget each going to Energy & Environment, National Security, and Science
I have some legit questions for people who hate renewables and think they're a waste of time/money/resources/hope. Not looking to start arguments here, I'm looking to understand views
Are you arguing we should put all the money currently spent on renewables (including research, govt subsidies, etc) into research for advanced nuclear? Worth it to put the amount of clean energy in the US on hold for, at minimum, years until we have designs certified AND built?
Or should we try convincing/enticing/forcing utilities to starting build more large reactors with existing design certs NOW, like AP1000s? Or build ESBWRs, APR1400s (neither of which have been built in the US before), also putting the addition of clean energy on hold for years?
Note: I'm not a health physicist and these were all back of the envelope calculations. There are decent uncertainty values associated with the entire calculation. But the point is this same: this image is T E R R I F Y I N G
But tl;dr if you ever stumble upon a radioactive source that's in Curies (not like μCi or some smaller fraction) you should probably back away. If you see a source in hundreds or thousands of Curies you should run away like your life depends on it--- because it absolutely might
Found another angle with a date stamp! 7-1-63
Extra credit to whoever who takes the decay of Co-60 into account (half life 5.217 yr) and re-runs my calculation for me😉
People w/o a radiation science background can still probably guess the outcome of a time-adjusted calculation
Iran is blowing past their stockpile limit, making them out of compliance with the Iran nuclear deal aka JCPOA. Have you ever wondered what that *actually* means from a scientific standpoint? Thread 1/
This thread is for everyone so lets start with the very basic chemistry and nuclear physics. You all remember the periodic table right? All the elements we’ve ever discovered or created, organized by their number of protons 2/
The number of protons (atomic number) governs the element; an oxygen atom always has 8 protons. The atomic number along with the number of electrons govern the chemical properties of an element 3/