A Clever Plan to Fix the Reactor Problem
Private Party
Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
and provided the wind is blowing the right way
the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
area in under a year rather than have this drag on
for years!
NO, I am not kidding.
--
Private Party
"Though lovers be lost love shall not;
And death shall have no dominion."
Mac
<usenetcontac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>
>Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
>nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
>and provided the wind is blowing the right way
>the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
>having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
>People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
>They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
>area in under a year rather than have this drag on
>for years!
>
>NO, I am not kidding.
Deinstitutionalization has its price.
John Hatpin
> I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>
> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
> and provided the wind is blowing the right way
> the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
> having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
> People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
> They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
> area in under a year rather than have this drag on
> for years!
>
> NO, I am not kidding.
Fans of Blackadder will tell you it's supposed to be a *cunning* plan.
Oh, and it's supposed to be cunning, or even clever.
--
John Hatpin
Greg Goss
>I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>
>Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
>nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
>and provided the wind is blowing the right way
>the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
>having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
>People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
>They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
>area in under a year rather than have this drag on
>for years!
I think that H had about a ton of uranium and that N had somewhat less
than that of more-poisonous plutonium. Power plants have hundreds of
tons of either Uranium or mixed Uranium / Plutonium.
Scale would be vastly different.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Private Party
Little Boy had about 64 kilograms of U-235 The rest was explosive
and tamper used for inertial containment. Fat Man had about 13.6
pounds of P-239 with the great majority of the weight being the
explosive lenses used to compress the physics package. I think
your estimate of power plant uranium/plutonium fuel is also
way off. The "Demon Core" was not much bigger than a softball.
If you want to read about a nasty accident, Google that. Two men
were killed by momentary criticality incidents of the same
physics package.
In any event, when you consider what is going to be involved
if they fail to calm this situation down, a NUDET would be
far easier to manage in the long run. If they keep up the way
they are going it might not be resolved in our lifetimes.
dilbert firestorm
> I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>
> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
> and provided the wind is blowing the right way
> the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
> having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
> People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
> They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
> area in under a year rather than have this drag on
> for years!
>
> NO, I am not kidding.
>
I think you're a very good candidate to get fragged.
--
<---=««-Dilbert Firestorm-»»=--->
Zizzle that Fire - it's Zizzle Time !!!!!!!
Shawn Wilson
priv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>
> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
> and provided the wind is blowing the right way
> the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
> having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
> People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
> They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
> area in under a year rather than have this drag on
> for years!
>
> NO, I am not kidding.
But you don't know about nuclear power. No, detonating a nuclear
weapon will not cause radioactive materials in the vicinity to go
critical.
danny burstein
>But you don't know about nuclear power. No, detonating a nuclear
>weapon will not cause radioactive materials in the vicinity to go
>critical.
I wouldn't be quite so certain. If you irradiate
the uranium isotopes sufficiently to get lots
of plutonium...
I'd have to pull out some envelopes and scribble
enough figures to get some eyebrows raised
in my direction.
(I doubt it would be an issue, but I'm not quite
so quick to say it can't possibly be).
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Zbicyclist
Heck, why don't we just send the nuclear plant an eviction notice? Or
a cease-and-desist order?
Shawn Wilson
> >But you don't know about nuclear power. No, detonating a nuclear
> >weapon will not cause radioactive materials in the vicinity to go
> >critical.
>
> I wouldn't be quite so certain. If you irradiate
> the uranium isotopes sufficiently to get lots
> of plutonium...
Detonate a nuke on it and what you get is uranium gas (well, plasma).
Intentionally designed nukes sometimes fail to go off properly, you
can't get one to go BANG! casually. Uranuium is not gunpowder. It
will not detonate be mere 'example'.
danny burstein
[snippeth]
>> I wouldn't be quite so certain. If you irradiate
>> the uranium isotopes sufficiently to get lots
>> of plutonium...
>Detonate a nuke on it and what you get is uranium gas (well, plasma).
Neutrons travel much faster than the shock wave...
>Intentionally designed nukes sometimes fail to go off properly, you
>can't get one to go BANG! casually. Uranuium is not gunpowder. It
>will not detonate be mere 'example'.
Uranium + neutrons => plutonium. (I'll leave the isotopes
for the student). A lump of plutonium can undergo criticiality.
I doubt it's a real possibility, but as I said before I'd
have to sketch out some calculations that would get people
very interested in me...
>>
>> I'd have to pull out some envelopes and scribble
>> enough figures to get some eyebrows raised
>> in my direction.
>>
>> (I doubt it would be an issue, but I'm not quite
>> so quick to say it can't possibly be).
>>
>> --
>> _____________________________________________________
>> Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0dan...@panix.com
Private Party
I never said it would make them go critical. It would vaporize the
whole mess and disperse the problem into the upper atmosphere.
But I guess it is a bad idea. We can see how the forthright and
competant Japanese are quickly and efficiently dealing with the
situation.
Private Party
> On Mar 17, 12:18 am, "Private Party" <usenetcontact2011-
> priv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>>
>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
>> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
>> and provided the wind is blowing the right way
>> the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
>> having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
>> People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
>> They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
>> area in under a year rather than have this drag on
>> for years!
>>
>> NO, I am not kidding.
>
> a cease-and-desist order?
Well yeah! Our stern admonitions have stopped Gaddafi!
Bob
priv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.
Private Party
You know, I bet you might be right.
Greg Goss
>Neutrons travel much faster than the shock wave...
... and ...
>Uranium + neutrons => plutonium. (I'll leave the isotopes
>for the student). A lump of plutonium can undergo criticiality.
Doesn't it turn into something else that takes several days to turn
into plutonium? So the conversion doesn't "help" the blast being
examined.
Greg Goss
I think that this argument would have been helpved if PP had actually
provided a verb in that sentence. Different people are inserting
different implied verbs, with differing resulting arguments.
Snidely
Which sentence? "Take out" is a verb, as is "fission". And that's 2
sentences.
/dps
Greg Goss
Withdrawn. I was reading it wrong. The verb is present, but the
statement is now wrong.
Rick B.
@f2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
I think I'll change my name to Max Neutron.
art...@yahoo.com
Back when I was in college, there was an earthquake awareness day.
Some people were passing around a petition to ban earthquakes.
Tragically, nobody took them seriously.
Lee Ayrton
What will your superpower be?
Lee Ayrton
No, it is a bad idea in the same way that dispersing a pot of flaming fry
oil evenly over the kitchen floor is a bad idea.
Peter Boulding
wrote in <ilvq8k$ac5$4...@reader1.panix.com>:
>>>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical nuclear strike.
>>>> All the fissionables fission at once
>>>
>>> You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
>>> Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.
>>
>> I think I'll change my name to Max Neutron.
>
>What will your superpower be?
The ability to produce jerky freeze-frame wit when viewed through an
electron microscope.
--
Regards, Peter Boulding
pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal Music and Images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/ and
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240&content=music
Rick B.
news:4pr6o6tu8p5g7gkgk...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:29:40 +0000 (UTC), Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.nul>
> wrote in <ilvq8k$ac5$4...@reader1.panix.com>:
>
>>>>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical nuclear strike.
>>>>> All the fissionables fission at once
>>>>
>>>> You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
>>>> Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.
>>>
>>> I think I'll change my name to Max Neutron.
>>
>>What will your superpower be?
>
> The ability to produce jerky freeze-frame wit when viewed through an
> electron microscope.
As opposed to my current ability to produce jerky wit on Usenet.
Peter Boulding
<Xns9EAC7145F...@130.133.4.11>:
>>>>>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical nuclear strike.
>>>>>> All the fissionables fission at once
>>>>>
>>>>> You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
>>>>> Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.
>>>>
>>>> I think I'll change my name to Max Neutron.
>>>
>>>What will your superpower be?
>>
>> The ability to produce jerky freeze-frame wit when viewed through an
>> electron microscope.
>
>As opposed to my current ability to produce jerky wit on Usenet.
Jerk.
art...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:29:40 +0000 (UTC), Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.nul>
> wrote in <ilvq8k$ac...@reader1.panix.com>:
>
> >>>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical nuclear strike.
> >>>> All the fissionables fission at once
>
> >>> You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
> >>> Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.
>
> >> I think I'll change my name to Max Neutron.
>
> >What will your superpower be?
>
> The ability to produce jerky freeze-frame wit when viewed through an
> electron microscope.
That's quite SEM superpower you got there.
Peter Ward
>
> On 18 Mar 2011 15:08:22 GMT, "Rick B." <deep...@sprynet.com.aq> wrote in
> <Xns9EAC7145F...@130.133.4.11>:
>
> >>>>>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical nuclear strike.
> >>>>>> All the fissionables fission at once
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
> >>>>> Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think I'll change my name to Max Neutron.
> >>>
> >>>What will your superpower be?
> >>
> >> The ability to produce jerky freeze-frame wit when viewed through an
> >> electron microscope.
> >
> >As opposed to my current ability to produce jerky wit on Usenet.
>
> Jerk.
Mmmmm, chicken!
--
Peter, from outside the asylum
I'm an alien
email: usenet at peterward dot adsl24 dot co dot uk
http://blowinsmoke.wordpress.com/
Home is where the cat is.
- Greg Goss
John Hatpin
The Most Dangerous Man in the Universe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n3TsWRpLrk
--
John Hatpin
Charles Wm. Dimmick
to be inertia.
Charles
Bill Turlock
> as is "fission".
not in my dic. I'd use "fiss".
Peter Boulding
<cdim...@snet.net> wrote in <im0n0u$vi1$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>Well, since neutrons have mass but no charge, his superpower is likely
>to be inertia.
For the Tammy Wynette earworm, no charge.
Boron Elgar
<pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:40:30 -0400, "Charles Wm. Dimmick"
><cdim...@snet.net> wrote in <im0n0u$vi1$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>>Well, since neutrons have mass but no charge, his superpower is likely
>>to be inertia.
>
>For the Tammy Wynette earworm, no charge.
Why did I read that as Tranny Wynette?
Boron
Paul Madarasz
"@sonnnic.invalid> wrote, perhaps among other things:
Hence, "little fission" = "fizzle"
Paul Madarasz
I was thinking about buying his first album.
Paul Madarasz
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote, perhaps among other things:
Pre-op country singers aren't exactly a dime a dozen.
D.F. Manno
"Private Party" <usenetcontac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>
> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
> and provided the wind is blowing the right way
> the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
> having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
> People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
> They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
> area in under a year rather than have this drag on
> for years!
>
> NO, I am not kidding.
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem - neat,
plausible, and wrong."
--
D.F. Manno
dfm...@mail.com
D.F. Manno
<7456a81a-a0fb-44f4...@s18g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But you don't know about nuclear power.
And you're some kind of nuclear physicist?
--
D.F. Manno
dfm...@mail.com
Mac
wrote:
>In article
><7456a81a-a0fb-44f4...@s18g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But you don't know about nuclear power.
>
>And you're some kind of nuclear physicist?
There's no end of subjects you can gain mastery of by not having a
degree in them.
Bill Turlock
essen/fessen
art...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:16:43 +0000, Peter Boulding
>
> >On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:40:30 -0400, "Charles Wm. Dimmick"
>
> >>Well, since neutrons have mass but no charge, his superpower is likely
> >>to be inertia.
>
> >For the Tammy Wynette earworm, no charge.
>
> Why did I read that as Tranny Wynette?
>
> Boron
Does she (he?) cover "A Boy Named Sue"?
Paul Madarasz
fressen, no?
Shawn Wilson
> >> I wouldn't be quite so certain. If you irradiate
> >> the uranium isotopes sufficiently to get lots
> >> of plutonium...
> >Detonate a nuke on it and what you get is uranium gas (well, plasma).
>
> Neutrons travel much faster than the shock wave...
At yet slower than gamma rays. Uranium plasma.
> >Intentionally designed nukes sometimes fail to go off properly, you
> >can't get one to go BANG! casually. Uranuium is not gunpowder. It
> >will not detonate be mere 'example'.
>
> Uranium + neutrons => plutonium. (I'll leave the isotopes
> for the student). A lump of plutonium can undergo criticiality.
What we are dealing with HERE is a lump of URANIUM.
> I doubt it's a real possibility, but as I said before I'd
> have to sketch out some calculations that would get people
> very interested in me...
No one would care. it's a homework problem in physics.
Shawn Wilson
> Back when I was in college, there was an earthquake awareness day.
> Some people were passing around a petition to ban earthquakes.
> Tragically, nobody took them seriously.
People STILL sign petitions to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide though...
Shawn Wilson
> > But you don't know about nuclear power.
>
> And you're some kind of nuclear physicist?
Compared to YOU I am the god of all knowledge...
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>In article
><7456a81a-a0fb-44f4...@s18g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But you don't know about nuclear power.
>
>And you're some kind of nuclear physicist?
I bet he knows as much about nuclear physics as he does about econ.
art...@yahoo.com
Water you talking about?
Charles Bishop
Dimmick" <cdim...@snet.net> wrote:
Or fishin'
Charles
Tim Wright
That's just damp foolish.
--
Tim W
art...@yahoo.com
Yeah, but I am the God of Hellfire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOErZuzZpS8
Much cooler
And his name is Arthur
Mac
The sad thing is that you think that would be an insult.
Nick Spalding
<ctbishop-190...@global-66-81-246-18.dialup.o1.com>
on Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:58:05 -0800:
Welcome back!
--
Nick Spalding
Greg Goss
>> Uranium + neutrons => plutonium. (I'll leave the isotopes
>> for the student). A lump of plutonium can undergo criticiality.
>
>
>What we are dealing with HERE is a lump of URANIUM.
Reactors #3 and #4 use MOX (Mixed Oxide) fuel. The reprocessing
spikes the "spent" Uranium with Plutonium, so it acts like the fresh
fuel once acted. I have no idea what the proportions are here. The
example in wikipedia is 7% Pu / 93% U.
The Pu is far more poisonous if it's scattered.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Greg Goss
A lamp I had as a kid (from a "junk box" from an auction) was
inscribed (through the reflector's paint with nail or something) "I am
the god of hellfire and I bring you popcorn."
I always wondered if it was a quote from somewhere. Perhaps only 95%
of it was.
groo
Cahlres? Where you been, boy?
--
"Pudding can't fill the emptiness inside me... but it'll help!" - Captain
Hank Murphy, Sealab 2021
Lee Ayrton
That would be my guess as well, but S is well off on a toot right now.
Speaking of econ, the other day in the stock market panic(s) there was
some TeeVee commentary about market indices falling through "support"
prices. It was apparent to me that they were talking about certain
patterns in the tea leaves and coloring of the chicken's entrails and a
sheep at the back of the herd that might have muttered "wolf".
Boron Elgar
I like to play a bit with the stock market. I also like to play slots
in Vegas.
Boron
art...@yahoo.com
> The Pu is far more poisonous if it's scattered.
And so is the poo.
Greg Goss
>Speaking of econ, the other day in the stock market panic(s) there was
>some TeeVee commentary about market indices falling through "support"
>prices. It was apparent to me that they were talking about certain
>patterns in the tea leaves and coloring of the chicken's entrails and a
>sheep at the back of the herd that might have muttered "wolf".
There are three kinds of investors. "Market breadth investors" invest
in the broadest possible index -- Shawn supports this philosophy.
"Modern Portfolio Theory" is a variant of this that Shawn attacked,
but I'm not into holding that argument at this time.
The other two kinds of investors are the "fundies" and the
"technicians". Fundamental investors look at the company in depth to
decide whether or not it's worth more to them than the general market,
considering that stock's perceived riskiness.
And "technical analysis" fans believe that any actual information
relevant to companies is absorbed by the market faster than you can
react, so the only thing available to you is planning based on the
overall mood of the market towards a particular stock. This mood is
driven by a balancing of the fear/greed gradient and OTHER people
watching the same entrails you're watching. If everyone thinks a
stock will go up, everyone buys it and it DOES go up. If everyone
thinks a stock is going to crash, everyone gets out and it DOES crash.
"Support" is a line, either horizontal, or angled (depending on which
theory of entrails you're subscribing to) that the stock price
repeatedly "bounces" off. If everyone thinks that $45 is a good price
for a stock, then they all jump in as it approaches $45.10, driving
the price back up again. If they all think that $52 is pretty
expensive for the same stock, they all bail out as it rises through
$51.80. The line along the "getting pretty expensive" boundary is
called "resistance", and the line along "getting pretty cheap" is
called support.
If your stock price line "breaks [through] support", then "pretty
cheap" isn't cheap enough. It's now out-of-pattern and unpredictable,
and people want it to be quite a bit cheaper before they'll buy back
in, to reward them for what they percieve as the greater risk. The
old support line now becomes the new resistance line. Instead of
buying as the price approaches this line from above, they now sell as
it approaches this line from below.
I use fundamentals to decide what stock I want to buy, but often play
with the simpler technical chicken guts to decide WHEN to buy or sell
within a couple-of-week margin.
There are wheels within wheels in the Technical analysis crowd. New
support and resistance ranges are related to previous ranges by the
golden mean ("Fibonacci") ratio in ways I've never internalized.
Descending, ascending and neutral wedges have particular meanings.
The "neckline" of a particular shape of triple peak "head and
shoulders" shape is a particularly disastrous support line to break
through. Unless it's upside down -- Then it's a sign of runaway
money.
Then there are the oriental technicals "Candlestick analysis". I've
never really looked at those patterns. I suspect that they're the
same thing. If everyone thinks a stock is about to go up, they
reinforce the belief.
I suspect that Shawn will tell you to translate this entire oversized
post as "Ooga-booga". I'm going to smile sweetly and refuse to argue
with him. grin.
Bill Turlock
>
> Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.nul> wrote:
>
> >Speaking of econ, the other day in the stock market panic(s) there was
> >some TeeVee commentary about market indices falling through "support"
> >prices. It was apparent to me that they were talking about certain
> >patterns in the tea leaves and coloring of the chicken's entrails and a
> >sheep at the back of the herd that might have muttered "wolf".
..............
> I suspect that Shawn will tell you to translate this entire oversized
> post as "Ooga-booga". I'm going to smile sweetly and refuse to argue
> with him. grin.
There's the mark of a wise man!
Jared
[...]
> I suspect that Shawn will tell you to translate this entire oversized
> post as "Ooga-booga". I'm going to smile sweetly and refuse to argue
> with him. grin.
One may ask, who is the "Warren Buffett" of technical analysis?
Greg Goss
The founder of technical analysis was Charles Dow, the founder of the
Wall St. Journal. He invented the idea of stock indexes so as to have
numbers to plug into his formulas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Theory
Ralph Elliott was the founder of Elliott Wave Theory. If Dow theory
is goat entrails, then Elliott Wave is sheep entrails. The two
theories don't intersect much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_wave_principle
I'm not sure who the top guy for the chicken entrails version that I
(occasionally) use would be. One of the louder self-proud guys is Jim
Sinclair, a gold mine owner currently living in Tanzania. He doesn't
seem to have a wikipedia page. I thought everyone but me had one.
http://jsmineset.com/ is his website / blog. He doesn't seem to have
anything particularly "technical" up there at the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_analysis
Lee Ayrton
Don't you just love it when people who know fuck-all offer an absolute
opinion? It always reminds me of those who insist that had they'd been
there they would have dispatched that shooter, what hey.
Lee Ayrton
I stepped in some. Yesterday.
Lesmond
Yes, fressen.
--
If there's a nuclear winter, at least it'll snow.
Lesmond
There's a difference?
Lee Ayrton
Depends. Are you thinking real world or ideology?
D.F. Manno
Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> D.F. Manno <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
> > Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> But you don't know about nuclear power.
> >
> > And you're some kind of nuclear physicist?
>
> I bet he knows as much about nuclear physics as he does about econ.
He's a real De-naissance man.
--
D.F. Manno
dfm...@mail.com
D.F. Manno
<73708b0c-ccb7-4302...@z3g2000prz.googlegroups.com>,
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> D.F. Manno wrote:
>
> > > But you don't know about nuclear power.
> >
> > And you're some kind of nuclear physicist?
>
> Compared to YOU I am the god of all knowledge...
Too bad for you that I don't believe in gods.
--
D.F. Manno
dfm...@mail.com
Mac
The parts that many around here find unpalatable tend to be ones
where most economists agree, regardless of their social philosophies.
Things don't generally get cheaper by putting them under government
control. There may be valid reasons to do it anyway, but saving money
isn't one of them, -unless- there is genuine public concern, and
widespread public knowledge. Only smart buyers can keep the sellers
honest, whether the buyer is an individual, a corporation, or a
government agency. Government agencies have a very real tendency to
become less smart buyers over time, although there are plenty of
exceptions.
Shawn's problem is equivocation and begging the question; and
mistaking models for the reality . That, and a little megalomania, of
course. Hardly seems like any of that's confined to economists; if
anything, it sounds like a recipe for a politician, don't it?
bill van
Paul Madarasz <paul.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:41:58 -0800, Bill Turlock <"Bill Turlock
> "@sonnnic.invalid> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>
> >Paul Madarasz wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:00:51 -0800, Bill Turlock <"Bill Turlock
> >> "@sonnnic.invalid> wrote, perhaps among other things:
> >>
> >> >Snidely wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> scribbled something like ...
> >> >>
> >> >> > Bob <rob...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>On Mar 17, 1:18 am, "Private Party" <usenetcontact2011-
> >> >> >>priv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
> >> >> >>> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
> >> >> >>Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think that this argument would have been helpved if PP had actually
> >> >> > provided a verb in that sentence. Different people are inserting
> >> >> > different implied verbs, with differing resulting arguments.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which sentence? "Take out" is a verb,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> as is "fission".
> >> >
> >> >not in my dic. I'd use "fiss".
> >>
> >> Hence, "little fission" = "fizzle"
> >
> >essen/fessen
>
> fressen, no?
Fressen no, Calif.?
bill
Peter Ward
But no one's ever amassed enough Ningis to own one Pu.
--
Peter, from outside the asylum
I'm an alien
email: usenet at peterward dot adsl24 dot co dot uk
http://blowinsmoke.wordpress.com/
...being old takes all day.
- Dover Beach
Boron Elgar
I certainly placed it in real world.
Shawn has gone out of his way to indicate how a little knowledge is a
not only dangerous thing, but in his case, usually an embarrassing
one, too.
But, I only poke jokes at Shawn once in awhile. I have him in the KF.
Well, truth be told, Mac is in there with him. He makes me yawn.
Boron.
Shawn Wilson
> Shawn's problem is equivocation and begging the question; and
> mistaking models for the reality .
Sigh... remember, I am a highly trained expert, and the read of you
are driven almost entirely by ignorance and prejudice. Every single
time we get into one of these contretemps I ask you to support your
position reasonably, and Every. Single. Time. you utterly fail to
do so.
The problem is that YOUR prejudices are simply wrong. I am not wrong
for disagreeing with them. I point out why you are wrong, and you
come up with bullshit about models not being reality. The models are
correct. Your PREJUDICES are wrong.
That, and a little megalomania, of
> course.
I am not a megalomaniac at all. I am a highly trained expert. You
are not. You can't even defend your position as a knowledgeable
amateur and respond to challenges to your (false) beliefs with
hysterical attacks. Since YOU can't keep up your end of a reasoned
discussion, none ensues.
groo
Be careful where you scrape the Pu off your shu.
--
If the enemy is in range, so are you.
M C Hamster
<zbicy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Heck, why don't we just send the nuclear plant an eviction notice? Or
>a cease-and-desist order?
Hey! Where have YOU been? Zbicycling through America?
--
"Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
Charles Bishop
<spal...@iol.ie> wrote:
>Charles Bishop wrote, in
[somethiung snipped]
>
>Welcome back!
Thanks. Glad to see you're still here.
--
charles