Talk:National Atomic Energy Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Please read this before editing the article

Recent vandalism in this article has been unstoppable, please discuss changes here before editing the article. All edits with no consensus will be considered vandalism and removed without any advise. Thanks. --OneEuropeanHeart 22:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If you try to carry that out, I promise you that you will get into trouble. --Tony Sidaway 17:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

In order to enforce the above, I've just protected the page. This is a total protection (no users except administrators can edit the page). Comment and discuss here. Sign your posts properly, be civil, and settle this as soon as possible so that the page can be unprotected. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm unprotecting. There has been no discussion since it was protected, which was a couple of weeks ago. --Tony Sidaway 17:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Please keep this page on your watchlist, so you can see what happens. OneEuropeanHeart (talk • contribs) may have been harsh above, but he's warning a repeat vandal that masquerades under a lot of IPs (see Talk:Huemul Project, as well as history and contribs of anon users with IP starting in 200.43.*, 200.45.* and others). If you choose to unprotect Huemul Project also, please keep it in your watchlist too. I think a semi-protection against vandalism is the right thing to do. This is a very serious problem and I can assure you it's not a POV dispute. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
He's back. [1] And Splash (talk • contribs) unprotected Ronald Richter and the vandal started immediatly to edit. [2] Oh God... --OneEuropeanHeart 17:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no vandalism here, although the information he has added obviously needs to be fact-checked and corrected for bias. Feel free to perform such edits. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is a mess right now, from the strictly point of view of coherence, and it also should be clear that this vandal has some sort of grudge against the CNEA. A large part of the text should be elsewhere. I have neither the time nor the patience to research and put together a coherent article on the history of nuclear power in Argentina, especially since I know it will be vandalized like this one. Each editor is to be held responsible for what s/he inserts into an article. Now, try removing any of the biased or misplaced statements in the text, and see what happens. I repeat, this is very serious, not something a couple of us made up to accuse an innocent anonymous user of vandalism. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Pablo Flores, some sort of protection is needed in this and related pages. I have done some editing to correct minor mistakes (e.g. date of creation is 31 may 1950) and to introduce some new facts and a little organization to the material. Luzu 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your collaboration. I still think the paragraph about the U.S. nuclear agencies is irrelevant, at least as currently presented. It seems that the editor is trying to make a point, but it's not clear what it is. I'm not into that kind of politics and don't understand what section is doing in this article. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Remember that you can obtain page protection again if you think it's necessary (go to WP:RFPP)--I use my personal judgement which, if anything, tends to err on the side of unprotection. My own personal preference would be to grab whatever is usable and delete what is not. If something simply looks a little indigestible, just move it to the talk page and see if someone can make sense of it. --Tony Sidaway 03:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again?

My dear anonymous, you won't get your rage against CNEA and Balseiro into the article. You need to start writing clear, objective, well-sourced, and well-contextualized information, and you need to discuss it and get consensus, rather than dumping it into the article breaking that flow of text and confusing the readers. We've been through this already. I'm not going to try and dig up the facts from your text and tidy it up for you. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that a better patent reference shoul have the form:

  • US1991236 -- "Electrostatic Generator"--200.45.150.250 20:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Be my guest. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earlier History

CNEA was created in 1950 by decree 10936. The need to count with an official organism to provide an administrative framework to the level of investment to the Huemul Project, dependent so far upon the Dirección de Migraciones administrative branch, was evident to government officials around that date. In practice CNEA had only four members (Perón, González, Mendé and Richter; González left CNEA on april 1952 and was remplaced by Iraolagoitía) until 1955. After being assessed by two review panels (only the first panel visited the Island and meet Richter, the second panel based his conclusions on the reports written by the members of the first one), this line of research was closed and Richter was no longer a CNEA's member. Research in physics and technology continued in its former facilities, but no longer in secret or along Richter's original line.--200.45.150.250 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again and again

200.45.150.250, stop accusing people of bias, and stop reverting said alleged bias without justification (an edit summary is not a justification). Luzu, could you explain why you deleted what you deleted? What I've been doing is removing blatant POV from the article but I can't check all the facts (I don't know all the facts). I'm lost in this sea of contradictory edits, tired, and about to get out of here for good, but I won't hesitate to protect the article again before that; then you can settle the matter however you like, or get another admin to unprotect it. I think everybody watching this page has already seen what kind of "discussion" it generates. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Luzu explained below, in "recent edits". Jclerman 20:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Luzu did not explained yet why he deleted what he deleted.--200.82.18.5 22:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why did I RV 200.*.*.* ?

Because I read some adjectives that don't belong in an encyclopedic article. Not even in a tabloid. Stop writing demeaning comments on those you hate for reasons unknown to us, register with a non offending user name, explain your edits, discuss those which lack consensus, and talk as your peers do. Introduce facts rather than opinions unless attributed to a verifiable source. Jclerman 22:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Because I read some adjectives" which ones?--200.45.150.250 22:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

which ones?--200.82.18.5 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recente edits

I have performed some minor edits, to correct erroneous facts and irrelevant information, introduced by an anonymous user. The justification is the following: Balseiro was incorrectly credited as the leader of the commision when in fact he was just a member, the second comission (Richard Gans and Antonio Rodriguez did interview Richter) and it is largely irrelevant that his research was not in "nuclear" physics, he was a respected researcher with publications in related fields. Luzu 19:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Gans and Rodríguez meeting with Richter

Gans and Rodriguez were cited on october 20 08:00 AM to Mendé's office at the Pink House. Iraolagoitía explained them the situation and gave them the reports of the previous review panel along with Richter's reply. It took little time to understand the arguments of each party and to arrive to a conclusion without reservations. They concluded the redaction of their report in two hours. So they did not meet Richter in this regard.--200.43.201.109 16:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

 According to another account:

BALSEIRO CRONICA DE UNA ILUSION book by N. Badino and A. Lopez Davalos

Ed. FONDO DE CULTURA ECONÓMICA (Isbn: 950-557-357-X)

they did meet, although it was usually Richter, which refused to explain his ideas to his peers, not the scientific comunity which refused to listen. In any case, this level of detail is surely not relevant to an enciclpedia article. Luzu 20:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leading member

It is generally agreed that Balseiro's report was the leading one, the cause for which the project was discontinued. --200.43.201.109 17:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Bancora's report was also influential, and it is even more damaging to Richter because he makes it clear that Richter's apparatus is an old design used in the old days of radio (Poulsen's extension of Drudell's singing arc) http://www.obsolete.com/120_years/machines/arc/index.html http://www.obsolete.com/120_years/machines/arc/index.html and not a new revolutionary design in plasma physics. This is an interesting point, but again I doubt that this level of detail is relevant in Wikipedia. Luzu 20:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Balseiro's innovations in nuclear energy tech

"No specific innovation or discovery can be attributed to José Antonio Balseiro in the field of nuclear energy." If not true please cite the innovations, technology improvements or discoveries in the field due to him . --200.45.6.131 13:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the veracity of the statement.
The article is not about Balseiro, and you force that phrase inside a sentece about Balseiro taking the direction of the CNEA in 1955. Should we also say that he was wearing glasses? It is not pertinent, and it serves the only porpouse of attacking Balseiro, whose knowledge is not in question here. Mariano(t/c) 13:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
So, you are agreeing that the statement is the truth and nothing but the truth. --200.45.6.131 14:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, there is a similar clarification in ITER page related with the opinion of a Nobel laureate. --200.45.6.131 14:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't agree it to be true. And no, that comment in that page "(awarded the Prize for work completely unrelated to plasma or high-energy physics)" is not difamatory, it just states that the guy got the Nobel in another subject. Mariano(t/c) 14:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
"No specific innovation or discovery can be attributed to José Antonio Balseiro in the field of nuclear energy." is not a defamatory statement, it is just the truth unless there is a proof against it, and it is intended to inform the reader. --200.45.6.131 14:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
To inform the reader about what? Saying he had glasses would also inform the reader, but it's completely superfluous. Your statement is not only superflous in that context, it's tendencious, and you insint in having it in th etext in spite of several messages from several different users, just to desprestige a scientist. I truly don't care about Balseiro, but I do care about POV, and you just care about having things the way you whant them. And that, in this Encyclopedia of many Encyclopedist, is not possible. Mariano(t/c) 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


Please give a short list of Balseiro's innovations in nuclear energy technology. --200.45.150.83 20:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Read mariano's comments preceding your repetive request. Jclerman 21:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please give a short list of Balseiro's innovations in nuclear energy technology so I can withdraw my line. --200.45.150.83 22:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You ask something that's irrelevant within this context. PLEASE READ:

To inform the reader about what? Saying he had glasses would also inform the reader, but it's completely superfluous. Your statement is not only superflous in that context, it's tendencious, and you insint in having it in th etext in spite of several messages from several different users, just to desprestige a scientist. I truly don't care about Balseiro, but I do care about POV, and you just care about having things the way you whant them. And that, in this Encyclopedia of many Encyclopedist, is not possible. Mariano(t/c) 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Marianocecowski told you that: Balseiro's work has absolutelly nothing to do here. Insisting in such edits can only be considered vandalism, please stop it. You have been reverting it 3 or more times. Remember the rule.
After you register we can chat about what Balseiro told me about his research. It would be in your own discussion page, not within an article where such information is as relevant as whether he wore spectacles or as the list of your own scientific innovations.
Jclerman 00:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Please give a short list of Balseiro's innovations in nuclear energy technology so I can withdraw my line, otherwise it stands. --200.45.6.171 14:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You ask something that's irrelevant within this context. PLEASE READ: To inform the reader about what? Saying he had glasses would also inform the reader, but it's completely superfluous. Your statement is not only superflous in that context, it's tendencious, and you insint in having it in th etext in spite of several messages from several different users, just to desprestige a scientist. I truly don't care about Balseiro, but I do care about POV, and you just care about having things the way you whant them. And that, in this Encyclopedia of many Encyclopedist, is not possible. Mariano(t/c) 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Marianocecowski told you that: Balseiro's work has absolutelly nothing to do here. Insisting in such edits can only be considered vandalism, please stop it. You have been reverting it 3 or more times. Remember the rule. After you register we can chat about what Balseiro told me about his research. It would be in your own discussion page, not within an article where such information is as relevant as whether he wore spectacles or as the list of your own scientific innovations. Jclerman 00:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please give a short list of Balseiro's innovations in nuclear energy technology so I can withdraw my line, otherwise it stands.--200.45.6.82 14:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Balseiro was a practising scientist, see his publications in Physical Review: Phys. Rev. 73, 1346 (1948) and Phys. Rev. 71,79(1947). He also has two publications in spanish on magnetic moment of the deuteron, directed research of Susana Levy de Bollini on a model of the nuclear potential, and a few others. His life was too short for a long publication record, but this sample of his work will convince most people that the fact he has no "innovations in nuclear energy technology" is irrelevant and misleading. Luzu 20:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please use Balseiro's report estimates against Richter to predict the optimum non controversial Muon-catalyzed fusion temperature as described in Rafelski, et.al. "Cold Nuclear Fusion". Scientific American, 257, 1987, p. 84. Those authors reported an experimentally measured optimum reaction temperature of 900ºC.--200.43.201.253 13:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is getting way beyond the point. Muon-catalyzed fusion is a different matter altogether, the muon makes the whole difference, (hence the name muon-catalyzed) and neither Richter nor Balseiro nor anyone else at the time knew about this possibility. In any case, the reaction is not capable of producing energy, a fact which was recognized very soon by its discoverer LW Alvarez in 1957. He said that for a short time, they believed they had solved all the worlds energy needs when they first discovered the phenomenon. However they soon realized that the process used more energy than they generated.

This is the difference between a real scientists and Richter, They have the ability, the humility and the common sense of checking their results, and being critical about them, before calling a press conference. Luzu 13:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not beyond the point. It's a practical way to test Balseiro's arguments in a well known case of thermonuclear reactions to see if his calculations are capable to describe well measured results. If those calculations are not capable to reasonably describe the measurements, then surely you'll have the ability, the humility and the common sense to accept that Balseiro's calculations are inadequate. --200.43.201.253 14:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DNEA

This article is about CNEA not DNEA. --200.45.6.171 14:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Since DNEA was merged into CNEA, and contained important facilities, it is relevant to mention it. It also shows how research in atomic energy in Argentina started to diverge from Richter, even before the Huemul Project was shown to be misguided. Please re-introduce the sentence. Luzu 15:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "no longer in secret"

The Pilcaniyeu gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plant, located near Bariloche, was built in secret. Its existence was revealed in the '80s with a formal announcement. --200.45.150.61 15:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you prefer the deletion Luzu 20:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is intended to show others your bias. "no longer in secret", a false statement, was your line. --200.45.6.164 13:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you are accusing me of bias, I would like to clarify things. The instance you mentioned of secret research was an anomaly in the general way of doing things at Bariloche. I was working there, was not informed, was apalled at the way it was done. A majority of us rejected this way of doing things, in meetings in 1983 when democracy returned, and these activities became known. The secret research was during the (1976-1983) military dictatorship in Argentina, not really the way CNEA usually operates. But yes, some secret research was done, and some industrial secrets may remain although Argentina now has accepted mutual inspections from Brazil, and signed Tlatelolco and TNP treaties. In order not to enlarge this point, which I think would not be helpful given the degree of development of the article, I prefer you to have your way on this point. However, please accept the corrections of others, when they regard factual information. Thanks in advance. Luzu 16:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"The contract between INVAP and ANSTO, which is kept secret, ... radioactive waste would violate article 41 of the Argentine Constitucion." (2000, Democracy) FUNAM--200.43.201.253 12:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

INVAP is NOT CNEA, and keeps its own industrial or trade secrets, the discussion on this subject is beside the point, but much was written besides the quoted text, and the Argentine Congress approved the deal in the end.Luzu 13:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

But it shows that secret research has nothing to do with military dictatorship. On the contrary, it's a common research practice until proprietary rights are secured. --200.43.201.253 13:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isotope production

I have removed the sentence which cites Dr. Bressan as saying thet isotopes could not be produced at competitive prices, I belive it is better left out, until a relevant quotation can be supplied. Luzu 20:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] When not to use semi-protection

Semi-protection should not be used:

  • As a pre-emptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred;
  • As a response to regular content disputes, since it may restrict some editors and not others (see the protection policy for how to deal with this);
  • In the case of a static IP vandal hitting a page (blocking is preferable to semi-protection);
  • To prevent vandalism on the day's Featured Article. Semi-protection for a very brief period is acceptable to remove excessive vandalism from the page, or to combat a high number of dynamic IP edits. For a rationale of this, see Wikipedia:Don't protect Main Page featured articles. Other pages linked from the Main Page may be protected if under attack, though more leeway should be given with these than with most articles.
  • To prohibit anonymous editing in general.

200.45.150.227 15:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Our resident vandal

I ask those with knowledge of physics to correct or ratify the changes made by our long-time vandal with respect to units et al. I don't have the time or the patience to sift through libel and bias looking for possibly correct data. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi Pablo I have corrected the units. Our resident vandal may be right in some small matters... MWe means megaWatt electric, which is the electric POWER produced, MWh means megawatt - hour, which is a measure of ENERGY. All other additions are POV and rightly disregarded. Cheers Luzu 18:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/t/Talk%7ENational_Atomic_Energy_Commission_f500.html"