12:57:17 PM Jul 26th 2017
Why does the article not have an Umlaut in it? IIRC, it was Ragnarök or Ragnarøk, not "Ragnarok" - is it possible to have this moved?
01:02:43 PM Jul 26th 2017
Well the English language speakers have some claim to Norse Mythology too you know...what with the days of the week coming from The Viking Age. Ragnarok is not linguistically perfect but it's a common colloquialism in the Anglophone and its widely used and recognized that way. Compare that to Götterdämmerung where the Germanic form of the same concept is known by the original spelling.
03:03:56 PM Jul 26th 2017
Well let's just hope for the people who mangle foreign languages like that, that they never get in a situation where the difference between "peine" and "pene" is relevant... Or something...
06:24:11 PM Jul 26th 2017
Ragnarok refers to something specific and it's esoteric anyway. For most people end of the world is apocalypse or judgement day. In the case of this trope it probably won't cause too much fuss But someone can customize the wikiword to make it better orthographically
12:45:34 PM Jul 27th 2017
There's a WikiWord in the slide-down in the More bar on the Right... I put a request and if they say yes, then it will show the spelling as you request...
07:55:41 AM Feb 8th 2011
edited by Fanra
edited by Fanra
I removed: "** Fortunately, all of the nastiest stuff will have decayed to background levels after only six, or seven hundred years. The longest lived stuff is barely radioactive (there is an inverse relationship between half-life and radioactivity). If the Romans had nuclear power for a while and buried all of the evidence, the only telltales would be finds of depleted uranium — like at Oklo, careful chemical analysis would reveal the truth, but one of the signs is that it would be less radioactive than expected." Since it isn't true. Especially, "The longest lived stuff is barely radioactive (there is an inverse relationship between half-life and radioactivity)." Is total crap. Plutonium, which arguably is the most deadly substance on Earth (the only argument is that I guess the poison Ricin or Botox might be considered more deadly if you managed to get some, but those pretty much have to be given to one person at a time, while Plutonium can just be scattered) has a half life of anywhere from 88 years to 80 million years, depending on the isotope. The Plutonium part of spent civilian power reactor fuel typically has under 70% Pu-239 (half life of 24,100 years) and around 26% Pu-240 (half life of 6563 years), the rest being made up of other plutonium isotopes,
07:35:03 AM Jul 25th 2010
- Totally incorrect, as the National Academy of Sciences says the time of peak risk might approach a period of one million years. See this page on The Other Wiki. Of particular concern are two long-lived fission products, Technetium-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and Iodine-129 (half-life 15.7 million years), which dominate spent nuclear fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and Plutonium-239 (half-life 24,000 years).
07:46:13 AM Feb 8th 2011
Please show some links to reliable sources, because right now "six, seven hundred years" is not backed by anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel#Fuel_composition_and_long_term_radioactivity If using a thorium fuel to produce fissile U-233, the Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) will have U-233, with a half-life of 159,200 years.
06:57:33 PM Jun 16th 2010
Below I removed, as I feel that it was getting stupid. Revert if you can prove otherwise.
- Fortunately, all of the nasty stuff will have decayed to background levels after only six, or seven hundred years. The long lived stuff is barely radioactive (there is an inverse relationship between half-life and radioactivity). If the Romans had nuclear power for a while and buried all of the evidence, the only telltales would be finds of depleted uranium— like at Oklo, careful chemical analysis would reveal the truth, but one of the signs is that it would be less radioactive than expected.
- Exactly. And this thing is stupid, non Restricted knowledge will simply not be lost in Modern times bar Apocalypse. Anything of the scale that will leave the future without knowledge of the Cold War and nuclear power will give the future more pressing problems to worry about than a few semi radioactive landfills.
- Not really. If society utterly collapsed today, took 6000 years to rebuild again (approximately first agricultural societies to modern), then repeat a few times, at the end of the third cycle some of it wouldn't be through a single half-life.
- And the entire point mentioned above is that something has a half-life of 18,000 years, its radioactivity is so piss-weak you wouldn't even be able to find it without sensitive equipment and knowing what to look for.
10:47:11 AM Jun 16th 2010
edited by TrevMUN
edited by TrevMUN
I removed this part of the introduction:
- The timeline they predict can be found here.