How could Artificial Intelligence become dangerous?

[Hay Dude]

If that was real, it would have to be much lower because of the risk of a head-on with someone going much faster.

No worries as it is clearly BS.

OK I was thinking railroads where chances of a head-on are pretty low

 

[rontaki]

There have only been 2 meltdowns. Both in Ukraine.

How many nuclear power plants have melted down? - Answers

Short answer: 2 More details: There have only been two full meltdowns, both in Ukraine (Prypait and Chernobyl). These were due to inadequate safety systems, as the USSR didn't exactly care about the safety of it's citizens. There have, however, been many partial meltdowns. These are usually due...

www.answers.com

3 meltdowns. I had one yesterday...

 

[MossRoad]

Because nobody wants radioactive waste transported through their town to offsite storage. (which doesn't exist anyway).

Remember the railcars scattered around a town after a recent derailment ? And here's the granddaddy of the type - an entire railyard destroyed. Roseville Railyard Disaster. They're still finding shrapnel 50 years later.
Woke me up 15 miles away!

Also an entire trainload of pesticides derailed into the headwaters of the Sacramento River a little later.

There will emerge a lot of NIMBYs if routine transport of radioactive waste is ever considered again.

Diagram source

Better description and of course Wikipedia.

Never heard of it. I was 12 at the time.

 

[Torvy]

Never heard of it. I was 12 at the time.

Also has zero to do with nuclear waste. Some people must have the false impression that nuclear rods are volatile and explosive. They aren't. Also are not liquid or ooze like they do on TV.

Thick canisters with a few rods, usually with concrete filling the rest of the canister.

Nuclear waste is more fear than risk.

 

[MossRoad]

They need to put out the more modern reactors, the old ones had way too many flaws and complications.
But the new ones cost a lot and no one wants to chance it after so many melt downs.

We were at the Yankee nuclear plant when we were in our teens for a tour.
The guide said the canisters they use to transport waste were good up to 80mph impact.
My brother asked what happens at 90MPH like everyone does on the highway, the guide went silent and then moved on. Did not instill confidence.

Here's an interesting video...
The tests were conducted up to around 80mph. They didn't test higher speeds at that time anywhere that I can find.
Still, like you said, everybody asks what happens at 90? All you can do is shrug your shoulders and move along...

 

[Torvy]

Here's an interesting video...
The tests were conducted up to around 80mph. They didn't test higher speeds at that time anywhere that I can find.
Still, like you said, everybody asks what happens at 90? All you can do is shrug your shoulders and move along...

1978. Speed limit was 55 then. Why test higher?...besides, they have improved the containers since then.

 

[MossRoad]

Also has zero to do with nuclear waste. Some people must have the false impression that nuclear rods are volatile and explosive. They aren't. Also are not liquid or ooze like they do on TV.

Thick canisters with a few rods, usually with concrete filling the rest of the canister.

Nuclear waste is more fear than risk.

I was replying to the train incident in general, nothing to do with nuclear waste. The train was hauling 6-7000 bombs headed to Vietnam in wooden boxcars, it parked around 7am, apparently there were some overheated brakes, the car caught on fire and major explosions continued for 4 hours, minors for 24 hours, shock was felt 15 miles away and could be heard for 40 miles away. No one was killed. The same railyard had a derailment that sent pesticides into the water.

Yes, nuclear waste in modern containers would probably have a 99.9999999% chance of ZERO release. I understand that. I was just commenting on the rail incident itself.

Personally, I'm very pro nuclear power. It's a clear winner for efficiency, less environmental damage than fossil fuels, etc... the US could get by with about 250 nuclear power plants for base load and have natural gas peaker plants for variations in load and we'd all be a lot better off.

 

[Torvy]

Sorry Moss. Laziness on my part...not scrolling up to the post to which you replied.

 

[kenmbz]

1978. Speed limit was 55 then. Why test higher?...besides, they have improved the containers since then.

We were on the highway going to the reactor, trucks were passing us and we were going close to 80. Lots of trucks,

New style reactors have less waste and need to transport. Why I think they should focus on newer ones and top reconditioning the old ones. The old ones are too complicated and very hard to keep up and expensive enough to refurb that it kinda makes sense to go new.

 

[MossRoad]

We were on the highway going to the reactor, trucks were passing us and we were going close to 80. Lots of trucks,

I can't drive 55!