Nuclear power in Australia

[allover]

Argue amongst your selves, BUT nuclear ain't gonna happen in Australia as it is too expensive a form of production
Cost to set up $16-20 Billion
Time to operation 10-16 years
Not enough people in Australia with the knowledge to operate a plant
Solar falling exponentially in cost
Battery price now US$94 per K/h and falling
Bigger and cheaper wind farms
An inter connector that will span 5000km

[Uncle Fester]

I personally have never really disagreed with Nuclear power but the main argument against it remains the general negativity that will never go away.
If it really where that cheap then why otherwise is the whole word not using it?

Maybe the consequences of a single reactor blow that eventually lead to 9000 cancer deaths and many other problems, which I assume the less ignorant don't want to happen in their backyard might have something to do with the negativity:


When FMG can go 100% carbon neutral by 2030 then the construction time of 10-16 years for a reactor also means a no go.

Renewable technology is getting a huge push in R&D and they are achieving dramatic breakthroughs.
Only recently NASA has achieved a Solar cell capable of 49% efficiency but these are expensive beasts for space exploration.
However history has shown even with cars that high end products eventually become mainstream when there is a demand for them and the demand for renewable tech has become immense with many countries wanting to fulfil their 2050 target.

No great breakthroughs have been achieved with nuclear reactors lately.
China has recently looked into molten salt Thorium reactors that has certain benefits especially regarding safety but it looks like that is still a very long way away, if ever viable.

[trash]

.... especially regarding safety but it looks like that is still a very long way away, if ever viable.

Because nuclear wasn't safe enough already.

nuclear ain't gonna happen in Australia as it is too expensive a form of production

But we've already shown that isn't the case and of course the other variables are speculation and FUD.
The only thing stopping nuclear at the moment is legislation and that is about to change.

Oh course with that comes new hurdles. The first will be nimbys who will attempt to obstruct development until they are sure their palms are adequately greased.
Then will come the Greens who will try every protest and environmental impact study to boondoggle construction.
Next will be a native title claim.
Then will come the unions and contractors.
Finally the opposition (both sides of politics) will flush any delays, cost over runs and general incompetency and blame each other.

Really, there's nothing special or different about nuclear power compared to any other development other than the massive target painted on it by Green ideology and everybody thinks they can profit from obstruction. It's the new Australian way. Stand in the way everything and demand a dollar to get out of the way.

But I guess we'll just have to ride this one out. Burn some more coal and gas to light the way for wishful thinking.
The point in time will come when solar and wind and burning furniture will power Australia or the realisation that it's always too late to correct the anti-nuclear mistakes.

Australia: too dumb, too lazy, too cheap, too late for nuclear power.

[Ah-Those-Old-Days!]

WOW!!... I am going to 'seriously' re-read what 'admin' said above, a few more times. I'm *not* saying that anything he said is *wrong*, just that I
need a quiet moment to absorb it!! OBVIOUSLY though, this is a major thing with/for 'admin'. And that's GOOD that he stands by all his thoughts!

[Ah-Those-Old-Days!]

Because nuclear wasn't safe enough already.


But we've already shown that isn't the case and of course the other variables are speculation and FUD.
The only thing stopping nuclear at the moment is legislation and that is about to change.

Oh course with that comes new hurdles. The first will be nimbys who will attempt to obstruct development until they are sure their palms are adequately greased.
Then will come the Greens who will try every protest and environmental impact study to boondoggle construction.
Next will be a native title claim.
Then will come the unions and contractors.
Finally the opposition (both sides of politics) will flush any delays, cost over runs and general incompetency and blame each other.

Really, there's nothing special or different about nuclear power compared to any other development other than the massive target painted on it by Green ideology and everybody thinks they can profit from obstruction. It's the new Australian way. Stand in the way everything and demand a dollar to get out of the way.

But I guess we'll just have to ride this one out. Burn some more coal and gas to light the way for wishful thinking.
The point in time will come when solar and wind and burning furniture will power Australia or the realisation that it's always too late to correct the anti-nuclear mistakes.

Australia: too dumb, too lazy, too cheap, too late for nuclear power.

You were going so well mate, in general, until that last sentence I placed in Bold. I think that is too harsh on our relatively 'young' country. There are many other
factors that have governed our 'resistance' so far, when/by looking back on the myriad of problems faced by many other 'older'/Technological countries. Talking about
the End-Goal is one thing, but deliberately ridiculing a relative 'New-Comer' on the scene like (our?) Australia is certainly counter productive. That gets fists raised!!

[Uncle Fester]

WOW!!... I am going to 'seriously' re-read what 'admin' said above, a few more times. I'm *not* saying that anything he said is *wrong*, just that I
need a quiet moment to absorb it!! OBVIOUSLY though, this is a major thing with/for 'admin'. And that's GOOD that he stands by all his thoughts!

Admin didn't write any of that bold text but 'stole' it from the publication The Australian , Claire Lehman, 5th of July 2021.
I say 'stole' as it is usually common to mention the source of quotations.

While it does contain some true facts there are also grave errors like the claim that only 100 died of subsequent radiation when it has been revealed that a figure of 9000 cancer deaths has been attributed to the incident.

[trash]

While it does contain some true facts there are also grave errors like the claim that only 100 died of subsequent radiation when it has been revealed that a figure of 9000 cancer deaths has been attributed to the incident.

I haven't looked back to see what the reference is, but I'm guessing it's going to be the Green's favourite whipping boy, Chernobyl.
If this is the case then you will find that both numbers are incorrect. And both in the wrong direction from what you think.
There's a lot more devil in the details. It's been a few years since I looked at the numbers so they will changed a little.

Deaths directly caused by radiation from Cherbonyl were about 64 last time I looked. This might sound very low and as you might expect the greens scream loudly about this being a lie. They will make claims in the millions. The number being less than 100 will be correct.

There are two more case groups. The second is an elevated mortality group of people who can directly associate with Chernobyl.
For example you may find that specific disease like Thyroid cancer is elevated in the a specific population with a known direct association. There will also be a base natural occurrence in that group. This is the group of about 10,000 people. Originally this number was expected to be higher but it has generally been lower.
Again, I've not looked at numbers for a few years. But you should always be cautious about who is quoting them and what the spin is.

What is amazing and interesting is the larger groups of people who you expect to be a ticking time bomb and don't appear to be obviously in a negative group.
We all love a scary story and it can be disappointing when there aren't as many monsters in the real world.

The third group is everybody else. This is the most interesting group. This is the group the Greens misrepresent in the first group and misrepresent both.
The numbers for this group are actually really high. Something like 200,000 people who died because of Chernobyl. Jebus on a stick trash, I can hear you say.
Either that number is unrealistically high or how is it nobody has noticed these deaths.

Welcome to statistics. These correlated deaths are below the noise. So we might say that 1 billion people are our set. 250 million of them will die from cancer.
Now because of Chernobyl 250.2 million will die from cancer. And you cannot tell the difference between the 250 and the 0.2 million. All of them will look natural and none of them will be directly attributable. You can only see the deviation in statistics.

The one thing I will say about Chernobyl is that if any number shocks you because it is large number then somebody is jerking your chain.
If you're shocked that numbers are much lower, then they are probably close to correct, but you still have to look carefully at why.

I've seen all the propaganda the Greens can throw at this subject. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt is what they do.
One of my favorites they were pedaling in the 90's before their marks could google for themselves was that Cancer rates were higher in Ukraine and Russia than Australia because of Chernobyl. It was of course complete bullshit. You were and still are more likely to die of cancer as an Australian than a Russian.
One in three people will get cancer in Australia and one in four will die from it. 25%
In Russia it was about 20% last I looked and I don't expect it to have changed much or be different for Ukraine.

So do we blame Chernobyl for the lower cancer rates? Of course not. But if it were higher, you know who's propaganda is going to be mentioning it.

So what's really going on here? The answer is simple. Australians live longer and therefore have more time and a chance to develop a cancer.
Russians and Ukrainians are falling down steps, dying from cardiovascular disease but compounded by high alcohol consumption and smoking.
Not to mention a lower level of general public health care and poverty. The cancers they do get are very well established as a result of their lifestyle, not because of stray radioisotopes.

Everybody loves the nuclear boogeyman.

[allover]

Admin didn't write any of that bold text but 'stole' it from the publication The Australian , Claire Lehman, 5th of July 2021.
I say 'stole' as it is usually common to mention the source of quotations.

While it does contain some true facts there are also grave errors like the claim that only 100 died of subsequent radiation when it has been revealed that a figure of 9000 cancer deaths has been attributed to the incident.

Good spotting Unco, knew it was plagiarized, and thought most likely from a Murdoch source. Turns out i was right

[allover]

Maybe fusion as opposed to fission?

[Uncle Fester]

Aaah the race for high temperature superconductors.
It never stopped, I only stopped following it.
There was a book in the 80's, I think I recognised the name of one of the Authors in that video.
It was the most exciting book I ever read, the way it was written and I consequently started to do my own experiments.
I think there were even kits to bake your own HT SC but I did not have access to them back then.
So now they finally have created them as a tape.

There is a lot more you can do than make Fusion reactors but yes of course that would be the biggest achievement of mankind should it ever happen.
Been waiting since I was 12 y/o and have given up waiting.
Nice video (about the magnets) but still not convinced usable Fusion will happen in my lifetime.

[trash]

Yep. Fusion always seems to be just out of reach. Though it is looking more promising with ITER. Still I'm not betting big bucks on that one.
Keeping with my trend of shitting on the Greens (faux environmentalists) they are still going to lose their shit over fusion with radioactive waste.
And the same with Thorium "the nice nuclear". Don't buy that shit, don't sell it. Thorium, Uranium, Plutonium as fuels are akin to Petrol, Diesel and Kerosene.
Same same but different. Best choose is diversity. Develop what works best and try to keep the playing field level.

The current best course of action is to replace as much coal with gas asap. Subsidise suburban battery storage and real time electricity commodity trading.
This also continues with suburban solar power production.

The gas fired power stations hold up as much of the base load as possible until nuclear can pick up the majority of the base load with gas.
If we were to act fast enough on it, a lot could be achieved in the next 15 years. And I might also ice skate to Manly from the opera house before then.

The issue is that gas is disgustingly cheap for us and while it's better than coal, it's still carbon based and nobody is going to make an effort to reduce that carbon.

Ideally with a level playing field and carbon tax the market should regulate reasonably well.
Nuclear, Uranium/Plutonium closed fuel cycle, heavy water and thorium reactors should all be making up the bulk of the base load.
If coal can work with a carbon tax then it should be in there too.
Same for gas making up a portion of the base load that needs to be able to spin up fast.
Hydro will be gas's main competitor with quick online/offline times.

Can't say I'm a fan of wind (pun) but if it is running unsubsidised then it should be used.
Solar PV is also proving to be practical. I'm surprised it isn't making more of a dent.
Batteries. As I've mentioned in many other places, if individual households and businesses can invest in grid connect batteries and buy and sell power in real time with a floating retail price and offset, that really makes the grid an open market place like the internet.

My money is on the losers. I'm short selling climate change. If there is one thing you can bet on, somebody will #### it up for everybody else.
I was very disappointed with the improvements due to the phase out of CFC's. It looked like they got everybody to follow the rules. But then China has come back to ruin it for everybody.
And was I pissed to find my last can of CFC spray had evaporated. Bitchin... I wanted to get some value from my environmental vandalism. Now I have to use some other kind of contact cleaner. shit me.

[B52]

“0” emission won’t stop global warming… Global warming is caused… By the systematic concretation of planet earth. The word concretation is a new word. The urban sprawl, roads, concrete tiles, roof tiles they all emit heat well after the sun has set.
Yes the first nuclear power plant will be commissioned in 2060. It took 40 years for Sydney to get a 2nd airport.

[Uncle Fester]

“0” emission won’t stop global warming… Global warming is caused… By the systematic concretation of planet earth. The word concretation is a new word. The urban sprawl, roads, concrete tiles, roof tiles they all emit heat well after the sun has set.
Yes the first nuclear power plant will be commissioned in 2060. It took 40 years for Sydney to get a 2nd airport.

Where did you get that crock from? Trump's new social lie site?

Since this planet has solidified, it has been reflecting/radiating heat from the sun off rock formations, mountains and deserts long before humans came.
While it feels initially locally warmer at those sites, this heat radiation actually contributes to cooling the planet as long as the heat can escape through the atmosphere.

As you are obviously clueless what this global warming talk is all about, I will try to explain it very simply:

Human activity has contributed to the emission of gasses in a layer of our atmosphere that impedes this radiation of heat. These gasses absorb the heat and radiate it back to earth.
That's it! No Science degree required.

Why Sydney needs a second airport is beyond me.
That money would have been far better spent on high speed rail between major cities.

[Uncle Fester]

I personally have never really disagreed with Nuclear power but the main argument against it remains the general negativity that will never go away...

...China has recently looked into molten salt Thorium reactors that has certain benefits especially regarding safety but it looks like that is still a very long way away, if ever viable.

It is claimed that the reason why they were never continued back then was that it's byproducts could not be weaponised.
Well the Chinese are about to fire one up!




I DO see a future in these.
If successful this could kickstart things, even in Australia one day.
Safety in handling(mining and processing) and nothing that could be turned into a weapon would be paramount for Australia to backflip on the nuclear ban.

The test reactor is allegedly only 3x2.5m so it fits in my back yard and 2MW will do me and my guitar amp nicely
I also don't have a problem storing a bucket of mildly radioactive Thorium in my shed
It is estimated Australia has 1/2 a million tonnes of it.

Normal high pressure reactors are a bit like standard Li-Ion batteries, do something slightly wrong and you have a thermal runaway effect(or in reactors a meltdown) and they explode with great heat. Therefore a lot needs to be done so that doesn't happen. So much can go wrong here with human error.

Molten salt Thorium reactors are a bit like LiFePO4 batteries. You can overheat, overcharge, drill a hole in them and nothing happens other that they might puff up a bit.
If something doesn't seem right the reactor automatically just drains the fuel with a fusible plug safely in an underground tank.

Yes, I would put a little one in my back yard, just like I only use LiFePO4 for my house battery system and not a Tesla PowerWall.

[trash]

I DO see a future in these.

Ah I can see you've bought the bullshit. Thorium, the nice nuclear. That's like the Yugoslavs were the nice communists.

I also don't have a problem storing a bucket of mildly radioactive Thorium in my shed

See this is what I mean. "Mildly Radioactive". What is missing here is context. I actually do have a bucket of Thorium in my shed. I also have a bucket of Uranium and there isn't a lot of difference between them. But as I said, context is missing.

So lets go through the entire fuel cycle.
The ore. Thorium and Uranium ore is comparable for radioactivity. Thorium 232 has a longer half life. Uranium 238 decays to through Thorium 234.

Then there is the fuel cycle. Uranium 235 is fissile, U238 fertile which then breeds to Plutonium isotopes, themselves fuel and neutron poisons.
Thorium 232 is fertile, not fissile, the same as Uranium 238. Th232 breeds to Uranium 233 which is fissile.
The fuel of a Thorium reactor is actually Uranium. And up to this point there is nothing inherently evil or dangerous about Thorium, Uranium or Plutonium.
OR did you buy the bullshit about Plutonium being the most toxic substance?

At this point we diverge to weaponisation. To weaponise any of these isotopes requires effort. In terms of Uranium, it requires a lot of material and a lot of power to enrich enough material. Once you have enough enriched U235 the construction of a weapon is trivial. A U235 bomb is a very low tech device.
The quicker route to making a weapon is using Plutonium. Rather than enriching it requires a lot of chemical processing and working with high radioactivity.
The construction of a weapon is high tech and high precision and of course offers high yields.
That leaves Thorium which can also be weaponised in the same way Plutonium. So the non-weaponisation is a myth. Plutonium has more advantages.

So back to the power fuel cycle and radioactivity.
The U233 or U235 or Pu239 undergoes fission and now we have some nasty fission products.
Did you think Thorium's shit don't stink? Bad news, all three of them are nasty radioactive and are very similar.
It's like comparing human shit, pig shit and dog shit. They all stink and stick to your boot the same way.

The good news is that all three are also not as bad as the greens say and they deal from the bottom of the deck when they start quoting numbers.
When greens use numbers bigger than the number of fingers they have (more than 12) you can be sure they're putting more spin on it than a Segate barracuda.
Lets put it simply, faux environmentalists don't know shit about nuclear waste. They don't even know what colour it is let alone what is in it.
The image in their head is of Homer Simpson and a glowing green ooze.
​

It is estimated Australia has 1/2 a million tonnes of it.
​

It's likely to be a bit more than that. But that is known reserves from specific sourcs.

Normal high pressure reactors are a bit like standard Li-Ion batteries, do something slightly wrong and you have a thermal runaway effect(or in reactors a meltdown) and they explode with great heat. Therefore a lot needs to be done so that doesn't happen. So much can go wrong here with human error.

No, that's not true either. Yes there are things that can go wrong, be these are not inherent disasters waiting to happen nor are they easy to create.
Each reactor has advantges and disadvantages based on its design and configuration.
There are tradeoffs to higher efficiency, safety or cost. There are Uranium reactors which inherently shut down if there is a problem. This is not some magical property of Thorium.
It's like saying cars are dangerous because they burn petrol and kill people and are prone to human error. Petrol is the fault. But diesel cars is inherently safe for the same reasons.

Molten salt Thorium reactors are a bit like ....... nothing happens other that they might puff up a bit.

Don't buy the bullshit, don't sell the bullshit.
I know this is a analogue for a range of failures but it's just wrong.
This specific configuration is just one of a range of reactors not just molten salt or Thorium. Drilling a hypothetical hole is going to cause the same problems independant of fuel. If you take the radiator cap of any vehicle, the results are going to be very similar independant of the fuel. Of course the petrol VW might not have that issue, but it's not because it uses petrol.

If something doesn't seem right the reactor automatically just drains the fuel with a fusible plug safely in an underground tank.

What? NO? absolutely not. What kind of nuclear disaster are you trying to create?
This is just a lack of understanding of how reactors work. I know what you're trying to say but there are a range of designs of all kinds of nuclear reactors that will fail safe shut down.

Yes, I would put a little one in my back yard, just like I only use LiFePO4 for my house battery system and not a Tesla PowerWall.

No you wouldn't. It's like saying you buy a volvo because it's safer and not japanese.
Neither of these statements validate the stupidity of putting volvo in your backyard.

Thorium reactors are just another type of fission nuclear reactor like Uranium or Plutonium. If you think there are magical benefits of one over the others then you are drinking the glowing green koolaid.

It makes me laugh that I have a Uranium reactor which I built. Right now I'm trying to work out where the hell I last put it. Anyhow, wherever it is right now it's happliy converting Uranium to other stuff. It's never going to melt down, it sure as hell isn't going to produce any power. It's pathetically not radioactive and it's always funny to show non-beleivers turning it on and off can the change in the tiny neutron flux when that happens.
If you havent worked out how harmless this reactor is it acheves about 5 fission reactions per second when running. A nuclear power reactor has about 100 billion reactions per second.


Bottom line... power generation diversity is the best way forward. Coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, solar and wind.
And within nuclear there is also diversity. Uranium and Thorium in an open and closed fuel cycles. Light water and heavy water reactors.

[Uncle Fester]

Look Trash, it doesn't matter shyte what you think or I think.

If there is any chance Australia would back flip on a nuclear ban then molten salt Thorium could have a chance.
There are differences that you apparently have not comprehended yet.
Maybe start with Wikipedia.
This is not some greenwash koolaid rubbish talk. Are you a mate of that pathetic George guy who eventually got banned here?

Do you think the Chinese would bother about all this if it is BS?
I am very certain about one thing: The Chinese gov does NOT buy BS.

[lsemmens]

Don't worry Fester, with Trash talking weaponization of radioactive isotopes, the boys from ASIO will be taking him in for "questioning"....

[Ah-Those-Old-Days!]

Being fairly *new* here on this Forum, I feel "Blown Away" (excuse the pun!), about how 'Trash' talks at times?? He *smacks* of sounding like a professional
Nuclear Physicist with some of his writings, and I hope he is only trying to be funny by saying... "I have a Uranium reactor which I built. Right now I'm trying
to work out where the hell I last put it. " (The part in bold anyway!). And "I actually do have a bucket of Thorium in my shed. I also have a bucket of Uranium"?
It just seems UN-professional for someone to loosely brag about such things?? in a domestic environment.

[Al Bundy]

Being fairly *new* here on this Forum, I feel "Blown Away" (excuse the pun!), about how 'Trash' talks at times?? He *smacks* of sounding like a professional
Nuclear Physicist with some of his writings, and I hope he is only trying to be funny by saying... "I have a Uranium reactor which I built. Right now I'm trying
to work out where the hell I last put it. " (The part in bold anyway!). And "I actually do have a bucket of Thorium in my shed. I also have a bucket of Uranium"?
It just seems UN-professional for someone to loosely brag about such things?? in a domestic environment.

Uh Oh…..

[trash]

There are differences that you apparently have not comprehended yet.

Don't buy the bullshit, don't sell the bullshit.

This is not some greenwash koolaid rubbish talk.

Yes it is. That's exactly what it is. It's not the Greens sanitising it, it's everyday idiots who do not understand it.
Listen to yourself. Thorium is magically better. Molten salt is magically better. These reactors are magically safer.
They're not. They are not inherently better nor are they inherently worse. You're polishing a thorium turd. I can polish a uranium turd to the same luster.

I'm not putting down Thorium, I'm very pro-thorium. (Pro-nuclear) The difference between you and me is that you think thorium's shit don't stink.
I know the advantages of Thorium but you haven't mentioned any of them. All you have done is preach Thorium lore. That's why I'm on this case.
Thorium is good, it's not better, it's different. Petrol and Diesel are a very good analogue to explain the kinds of differences.

Imagine if I said Petrol is better than Diesel because it doesn't produce black smoke exhaust. Therefore trucks should use it.
It's a bullshit statement.

Do you think the Chinese would bother about all this if it is BS?
I am very certain about one thing: The Chinese gov does NOT buy BS.

No they don't, but they do sell it in various forms, it's very profitable and cheap to produce. But that is a bullshit argument. Affirming the consequent. The Chinese are using Thorium because it works, not because it validates your Thorium sales pitch. India uses thorium too. It's mainly because they have lots of thorium, not because it has a safe chakra or they give a fvck about nuclear proliferation

And it is completely understandable how you have come to believe Thorium is magic. The media love to talk about it in the way you do. They see an engineering factoid and then pervert it. "Burns nuclear waste" ... Ordinary people don't know any better. They just buy the bullshit because it is based on some truth, not that it is true. But what happens next is they recite it and others then believe the magic because everybody believes it. And before you know it, unicorns are farting thorium rainbows.

"Thorium, the nice nuclear". If this statement fits in any context, then you might be sipping the koolaid and not know it.

Let me take into the future where Nuclear Fusion is the new nuclear that doesn't create radioactive waste.
If that statement sounds correct, then you are sipping the flavouraid. Fusion wont produce the same radioactive waste as fission (Th,U,Pu). It will produce what ordinary people might call intermediate radioactive waste. This might sound better, but reality is that it is just different. "Better" is not so simple to define.

I can easily spin bullshit into rainbows too. But when I polish a nuclear turd, I make sure it loses none of the stink.
It's important with nuclear to know all the bad news up front. Speak the truth, not just what you think is nice.

Being fairly *new* here on this Forum, I feel "Blown Away" (excuse the pun!), about how 'Trash' talks at times?? He *smacks* of sounding like a professional
Nuclear Physicist with some of his writings, and I hope he is only trying to be funny by saying... "I have a Uranium reactor which I built. Right now I'm trying
to work out where the hell I last put it. " (The part in bold anyway!). And "I actually do have a bucket of Thorium in my shed. I also have a bucket of Uranium"?
It just seems UN-professional for someone to loosely brag about such things?? in a domestic environment.

No, it's all true. I really don't know where it is at the moment. But it highlights how people easily misunderstand something simple and harmless.
I'm not a nuclear professional. A nuclear hobbiest yes. And there are lots of us. Plenty of people who have even built working fusion reactors.

You don't have to be a professional to have a good working knowledge of things. I'm not a mechanic but I understand how an engine works.
I'm not a professional astronomer, but you can see I have a good working knowledge of astronomy.
I'm not a professional pilot, but I have no trouble flying real simulator. I'm not a professional aircraft builder but I've built lots of planes that fly.
I've crashed a lot of aircraft and I'm not a terrorist.
And you've highlighted what nuclear hobbiests love, that ordinary people lose their shit about anything radioactive. It's mysterious and scary.
I know of at least two other people on this forum who collect radioactive things like I do. There's nothing illegal, dangerous or sinister about it.
But if you think that, then it amuses us.

And then there is other people. Everybody is good at something. Some of the stuff people know and can do is amazing. You just have to get them started or watch them on youtube.

OK, so maybe you just need a little bit of help with rational thinking.
Do you know children can buy explosives in a toy shop? Party poppers.
Hell, they can buy model rocket engines and build what is basically an unguided ballistic missile.
There's nothing sinister here.

This is where normal people just say "Oh yeah!"
People like me look at these things and reverse engineer them and associate them and re-apply that knowledge.

I was in the Smithsonian a couple of years ago. A guy was giving a talk and great display of space suits to a small crowd.
To involve them he would ask them questions. Which was met with mystified silence.
"What problems do you think an astronaut might face in space?" <crickets>
OK, I'll pipe up a list of 20 or so hazards. The guy giving the talk asked honestly, "Did you work for NASA?"
"No, I'm a scuba diver, the technology is much the same" Then I had to explain that to him.


And yes you should always consider my posts as humour. Like my points above directed at Fester, I'm not angry at him. You can safely assume that I am saying things with a lot of humour, sarcasm and I am always laughing at anything that deviates from normal or reality.