>> >> >> In <k80410$41...@dont-email.me>, on 11/14/2012
>> >> >> at 07:56 AM, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> said:
>> >> >> >*That* sounds so much safer than nuclear. What happens if a
>> >> >> >container full of molten Sodium mounted 100 feet in the air
>> >> >> >ruptures?
>> >> >> Hey, it's better than a coal plant, which will kill people even in
>> >> >> normal operation.
>> >> >And radioisotopes decay, unlike mercury and such.
>> >> But isn't that the problem?
>> >> Sincerely,
>> >> Gene Wirchenko
>> > The thing is mercury will be around forever, whereas radioisotopes
>> > will disappear eventually. We've already burned enough coal to put
>> > limits on consumption of some ocean fish for some people and the
>> > amount of mercury in the larger predatory fish is probably not good
>> > for anyone.
>> > Fortunately we are overfishing the most problematic fish, so it may
>> > not be a long range problem.
>> You can have the best of both worlds.
>> Radioisotopes of mercury.
>> Mercury disappears in some sense, when it gets buried.
>> For example, in coffins.
> That lasts for a while, but eventually bodies get recycled.
Mostly they don’t. And the mercury in them doesn’t either.
> I suppose you could go for a lead lined coffin,
> but someone is liable to dig up the coffin.
>> >> In <k80410$41...@dont-email.me>, on 11/14/2012
>> >> at 07:56 AM, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> said:
>> >> >*That* sounds so much safer than nuclear. What happens if a
>> >> >container full of molten Sodium mounted 100 feet in the air
>> >> >ruptures?
>> >> Hey, it's better than a coal plant, which will kill people even in
>> >> normal operation.
>> >And radioisotopes decay, unlike mercury and such.
>> But isn't that the problem?
>> Sincerely,
>> Gene Wirchenko
> The thing is mercury will be around forever, whereas radioisotopes
> will disappear eventually. We've already burned enough coal to put
> limits on consumption of some ocean fish for some people and the
> amount of mercury in the larger predatory fish is probably not good
> for anyone.
But that effect is swamped by the mercury in their teeth.
> On 11/16/2012 12:23 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:30:42 -0800 (PST)
>> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> One book said cinder block in buildings could be radioactive,
>>> depending on its source. Ground that yields high radon gas in
>>> basements is not a good source material for cinder block. How _much_
>>> radiation is emitted was not stated, and that issue is signifcant.
>> Indeed it is, a friend who was watching when Rutherford's lab was
>> opened told me it went like this. Tech with Geiger counter opens door and
>> walks in waving counter tube followed by nervous BBC reporter, who asks >> "Is
>> there any radiation ?". The tech turns round, pointing the counter at the
>> reporter and says "Yes there's some right about there ...", the reporter
>> teleports out of the lab as the tech carries on, "... about as much as a
>> luminous wristwatch". BBC news that night showed the event, it was well
>> edited.
> I like the thought about people being evolved to tolerate or even need > small amounts of radiation. After all, we're surrounded by it from > natural sources - the sun, the soil (as others have pointed out), etc.
Its plausible that that has helped evolution, but not the individual.
> and the intensity has been the same for millions of years.
Nope. We stopped living in caves quite a while ago now.
> Back in the 1800s people with arthritis, gout, etc. used to lay in > radioactive salts or visit radium mines to alleviate their symptoms.
>>> Could you elaborate on "a few hundred as a result of the evaucation"?
>>> Does that mean when the area was evacuated due to the plant's
>>> radiation that a few hundred people died? If so, it sounds awfully
>>> high.
>> I'll have to go back and try to find where I read that (it does sound
>> high, but in US disasters they tend to count the people who had heart
>> attacks from the stress, etc.
> It may be apocryphal
Bet its just another urban myth.
> but I've been told that there was a detectable spike in US death rates > after the Chernobyl explosion. But the spike occurred when the news was > announced not when the radiation cloud passed over. It was attributed to > survivalists having road accidents as they headed for the hills.
Bet you can't actually provide any evidence that anything of the sort happened.
>> >> >> In <k80410$41...@dont-email.me>, on 11/14/2012
>> >> >> at 07:56 AM, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> said:
>> >> >> >*That* sounds so much safer than nuclear. What happens if a
>> >> >> >container full of molten Sodium mounted 100 feet in the air
>> >> >> >ruptures?
>> >> >> Hey, it's better than a coal plant, which will kill people even in
>> >> >> normal operation.
>> >> >And radioisotopes decay, unlike mercury and such.
>> >> But isn't that the problem?
>> >> Sincerely,
>> >> Gene Wirchenko
>> > The thing is mercury will be around forever, whereas radioisotopes >> > will disappear eventually. We've already burned enough coal to put >> > limits on consumption of some ocean fish for some people and the >> > amount of mercury in the larger predatory fish is probably not good >> > for anyone.
>> > Fortunately we are overfishing the most problematic fish, so it may >> > not be a long range problem.
>> You can have the best of both worlds.
>> Radioisotopes of mercury.
>> Mercury disappears in some sense, when it gets buried.
>> For example, in coffins.
> That lasts for a while, but eventually bodies get recycled. I suppose > you could go for a lead lined coffin, but someone is liable to dig up > the coffin.
You mean that a "perpetual" burial plot isn't forever?
Just kidding of course.
I inherited a perpetual maintenance plot bought in the 1930s.
Put my MIL in it and a few months later, the church owning the land
wanted me to "renew" the perpetual maintenance.
Peter Flass wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 9:24 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Peter Flass wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2012 9:28 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Dave Garland wrote:
>>>>> On 11/12/2012 7:29 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>>> Philipp Thomas wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11 Nov 2012 14:03:39 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> There is no such thing as living without risks, especially generating
>>>>>>>> electricity.
>>>>>>> Who said no risks? It's the amount of risk your'e taking that's
>>>>>>> important and nuclear power has too much for my liking. I'd rather pay
>>>>>>> more and make cuts in my consumption.
>>>>>> Paying more isn't the problem.
>>>>> Then it would be acceptable to require nuclear plants to have
>>>>> non-cancellable private insurance and plans for taking care of the
>>>>> waste until it's reasonably safe?
>>>>> The problem is depending on another
>>>>>> political entity, who was not happy about giving up East Germany,
>>>>>> for fuel resources.
>>>>> Single-sourcing is always dangerous.
>>>> Yet that is what these countries are doing, including Japan.
>>>>> With nuclear power, the generation can be done
>>>>>> even it there's a problem obtaining new fuel. The next level
>>>>>> of fuel, which has a lot of energy stored in it, are fossil fuels
>>>>>> which have the same problem. Wind and solar aren't good resources
>>>>>> because they don't furnish 100%. Biofuels get wonderful press but
>>>>>> the side effects of that is a reduction in people food.
>>>>> Depends on what the fuels are. It's true of corn (maize), which may
>>>>> even have a negative whole-system contribution. That may be less true
>>>>> of other feedstocks like sugar cane and sawgrass. And certainly is of
>>>>> the biofuels that are otherwise waste products, but those will
>>>>> probably never amount to a major percentage.
>>>> You are forgetting that, if sawgrass is more profitable to the farmer,
>>>> s/he will plant that rather than grains or corn for feedstock. Prices
>>>> for feed go up; meat prices go up. When the subsidies go away, the
>>>> US meat market is going to be a mess. There still is no farm bill.
>>>>>> AFAICT, nuclear is the "safest". The Japanese problem was tsunami,
>>>>>> not the nuclear power plant.
>>>>> Wrong. The Japanese problem was the tsunami PLUS the nuclear power
>>>>> plant. If it had been another type of power plant, the damage would
>>>>> have been minimal (outside of having to rebuild the plant).
>>>> This is an awfully big assumption. mega-tons of moving water will smash
>>>> anything to pieces. I don't see how a newer design would have not
>>>> been mashed.
>>>>> Possibly
>>>>> other nuclear technologies (e.g. thorium) would have risks comparable
>>>>> to non-nuclear plants, but I don't think that those are commercially
>>>>> viable at this time (if I'm wrong no doubt mrr will correct me).
>>>>> Besides the force of water smashing
>>>>>> everything, the backup generators also got swamped. I've never
>>>>>> understood why those are put in the basements instead of above
>>>>>> ground.
>>>>> I expect it's cheaper. After all, the dikes are good for a 100-year
>>>>> event, so what could go wrong?
>>>> The 101st birthday.
>>>> /BAH
>>> A lot of New York's infrastructure was built by General McClellan after
>>> the Civil War.
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> writes:
>>Patrick Scheible wrote:
>>> Again you think all the power plants in the world are either fossil fuel
>>> or nuclear. Waste heat is not a big problem for the hydro plants we run
>>> on, or the wind turbines....
>>Wind turbines are being tested here. We have no hills high enough for
hydro.
> Yet there are 100 hydro generation facilities in Michigan, with 400MW
capacity
> (less than half of a single typical gas-turbine or coal plant). Some of the
> output goes to Wisconsin and Indiana.
Hudson, Mass also had its own hydro station (until it decided to go with big
power). The spill was about 4'.
I thought we were talking about big power stations, not locals.
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> On 11/15/2012 9:24 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2012 9:28 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>> Dave Garland wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/12/2012 7:29 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>>>> Philipp Thomas wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11 Nov 2012 14:03:39 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> There is no such thing as living without risks, especially generating
>>>>>>>>> electricity.
>>>>>>>> Who said no risks? It's the amount of risk your'e taking that's
>>>>>>>> important and nuclear power has too much for my liking. I'd rather pay
>>>>>>>> more and make cuts in my consumption.
>>>>>>> Paying more isn't the problem.
>>>>>> Then it would be acceptable to require nuclear plants to have
>>>>>> non-cancellable private insurance and plans for taking care of the
>>>>>> waste until it's reasonably safe?
>>>>>> The problem is depending on another
>>>>>>> political entity, who was not happy about giving up East Germany,
>>>>>>> for fuel resources.
>>>>>> Single-sourcing is always dangerous.
>>>>> Yet that is what these countries are doing, including Japan.
>>>>>> With nuclear power, the generation can be done
>>>>>>> even it there's a problem obtaining new fuel. The next level
>>>>>>> of fuel, which has a lot of energy stored in it, are fossil fuels
>>>>>>> which have the same problem. Wind and solar aren't good resources
>>>>>>> because they don't furnish 100%. Biofuels get wonderful press but
>>>>>>> the side effects of that is a reduction in people food.
>>>>>> Depends on what the fuels are. It's true of corn (maize), which may
>>>>>> even have a negative whole-system contribution. That may be less true
>>>>>> of other feedstocks like sugar cane and sawgrass. And certainly is of
>>>>>> the biofuels that are otherwise waste products, but those will
>>>>>> probably never amount to a major percentage.
>>>>> You are forgetting that, if sawgrass is more profitable to the farmer,
>>>>> s/he will plant that rather than grains or corn for feedstock. Prices
>>>>> for feed go up; meat prices go up. When the subsidies go away, the
>>>>> US meat market is going to be a mess. There still is no farm bill.
>>>>>>> AFAICT, nuclear is the "safest". The Japanese problem was tsunami,
>>>>>>> not the nuclear power plant.
>>>>>> Wrong. The Japanese problem was the tsunami PLUS the nuclear power
>>>>>> plant. If it had been another type of power plant, the damage would
>>>>>> have been minimal (outside of having to rebuild the plant).
>>>>> This is an awfully big assumption. mega-tons of moving water will smash
>>>>> anything to pieces. I don't see how a newer design would have not
>>>>> been mashed.
>>>>>> Possibly
>>>>>> other nuclear technologies (e.g. thorium) would have risks comparable
>>>>>> to non-nuclear plants, but I don't think that those are commercially
>>>>>> viable at this time (if I'm wrong no doubt mrr will correct me).
>>>>>> Besides the force of water smashing
>>>>>>> everything, the backup generators also got swamped. I've never
>>>>>>> understood why those are put in the basements instead of above
>>>>>>> ground.
>>>>>> I expect it's cheaper. After all, the dikes are good for a 100-year
>>>>>> event, so what could go wrong?
>>>>> The 101st birthday.
>>>>> /BAH
>>>> A lot of New York's infrastructure was built by General McClellan after
>>>> the Civil War.
I seem to recall that this came up in the context of 9/11. The WTC footprint was pretty close to land that Little Mac reclaimed from the Hudson with fill an a stone seawall. If the wall had collapsed the river would have flooded the entire subway system - worse than Sandy because you would have had to build a cofferdam before you could begin pumping. Fortunately Mac seems to have been a better engineer than a general and the thing held.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:43:24 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> The point was to put the risk of nuclear power into perspective by
>pointing out that it has, over the last half century or so, killed a lot
>less people than cars *even* if we include all those killed by nuclear
>bombs.
But it's not killing alone, it's also the radioactice contamination
which doesn't directly kill but can lead to mutations or different
forms of cancer. No car accident can make landscapes inhabitable for
thousands of years but a nucear one can.
<rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>It hasn't even got the potential to do that with nuclear weapons
>either.
Ahh, and the still uninhabitable parts of the Bikini atoll are a mere
myth? Nice living if it all has to happen underground because above
ground is soaked in radioactivity.
The only relief is that a lot of animals and plants will probably
survive the stupidity of mankind to wipe itself off the face of this
planet. My only hope is that it won't happen in my lifetime.
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote
>> The point was to put the risk of nuclear power into perspective by
>> pointing out that it has, over the last half century or so, killed a lot
>> less people than cars *even* if we include all those killed by nuclear
>> bombs.
> But it's not killing alone, it's also the radioactice contamination
> which doesn't directly kill but can lead to mutations
Have fun listing any that have done that.
> or different forms of cancer.
Which happen even without the nuke power stations,
because of what the coal fired power stations put into
the atmosphere radioactivity wise.
> No car accident can make landscapes inhabitable > for thousands of years but a nucear one can.
Have fun listing even a single one which has done that.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> It hasn't even got the potential to do that with nuclear weapons either.
> Ahh, and the still uninhabitable parts of the Bikini atoll are a mere > myth?
Nope, but nothing like your stupid claim.
> Nice living if it all has to happen underground
> because above ground is soaked in radioactivity.
That didn't even happen with Bikini atoll.
> The only relief is that a lot of animals and plants will probably survive
Corse they will.
> the stupidity of mankind to wipe itself off the face of this planet.
Taint gunna happen. If it didn't happen when we still did
bomb tests, it aint gunna happen with nuke power stations.
> My only hope is that it won't happen in my lifetime.
So you stupidly want to put a hell of a lot more radioactivity
into the atmosphere with coal fired power stations instead.
It isnt even possible to have nothing but hydro and wind
and solar because they need the coal fired power stations
to produce what is used to construct them and hardly any
of us want to 'live' a MUCH less viable lifestyle if we only
ever use anything that's been entirely produced with 'green'
power and never ever buy anything from china etc again.
You're completely off with the fucking fairys.
Fortunately no one who matters a damn policy wise takes any
notice of fools as stupid as you and is actually stupid enough
to do things the way fools like you want to see them done.
<rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Have fun listing any that have done that.
Like the mutated insect species that are being found around fukushima?
>Not one of the bomb tests did anything like that.
Yeah, and surface testing of nuclear weapons was banned for pure
political reasons.
Seems the discussion is going nowhere as I am fed up of being called
an idiot just because I don't share your technocratic POV. I'll just
add an entry to my kill filter and be done.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Philipp Thomas <ktho...@linux01.gwdg.de> wrote
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote
>>>> The point was to put the risk of nuclear power into perspective by
>>>> pointing out that it has, over the last half century or so, killed a >>>> lot
>>>> less people than cars *even* if we include all those killed by nuclear
>>>> bombs.
>>> But it's not killing alone, it's also the radioactice contamination
>>> which doesn't directly kill but can lead to mutations
>> Have fun listing any that have done that.
> Like the mutated insect species that are being found around fukushima?
We've seen those ever since we started using insecticides.
And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed
that we have seen mutations of insects for countless
millennia anyway even before humans ever showed up.
>>> or different forms of cancer.
>> Which happen even without the nuke power stations,
>> because of what the coal fired power stations put into
>> the atmosphere radioactivity wise.
>>> No car accident can make landscapes inhabitable
>>> for thousands of years but a nucear one can.
>> Have fun listing even a single one which has done that.
>> Not one of the bomb tests did anything like that.
> Yeah, and surface testing of nuclear weapons
> was banned for pure political reasons.
Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant
hysterical hyperventilation and lying.
> Seems the discussion is going nowhere
Yep, you've never ever had a fucking clue about anything
at all, ever. And not even Germany is actually stupid
enough to do what fools like you want.
> as I am fed up of being called an idiot
You behave like an idiot, you get that pointed out, idiot.
> just because I don't share your technocratic POV.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying on that.
> I'll just add an entry to my kill filter and be done.
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamt...@library.lspace.org
> blec <b...@nospam.com> wrote
>>Philipp Thomas <ktho...@linux01.gwdg.de> wrote
> Now and again one has to apply the Ruler of Reason to the Knuckles of > Stupidity.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>Bill Palmer <Bi...@none.not> wrote
>>> blec <b...@nospam.com> wrote
>>>> Philipp Thomas <ktho...@linux01.gwdg.de> wrote
>>> Now and again one has to apply the
>>> Ruler of Reason to the Knuckles of Stupidity.
>>Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
> Good point. Even *I* couldn't imagine a ruler big enough for knuckles of > that size.
You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:44:46 +1100 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com>
wrote in Message id: <ah3pl2Fptu...@mid.individual.net>:
>Bill Palmer <Bi...@none.not> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>Bill Palmer <Bi...@none.not> wrote
>>>> blec <b...@nospam.com> wrote
>>>>> Philipp Thomas <ktho...@linux01.gwdg.de> wrote
>>>> Now and again one has to apply the
>>>> Ruler of Reason to the Knuckles of Stupidity.
>>>Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
>> Good point. Even *I* couldn't imagine a ruler big enough for knuckles of >> that size.
>You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
Have you ever had an original thought, Roddles? Or is that still in the
early planning stages?
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:44:46 +1100 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com>
> wrote in Message id: <ah3pl2Fptu...@mid.individual.net>:
>>Bill Palmer <Bi...@none.not> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>Bill Palmer <Bi...@none.not> wrote
>>>>> blec <b...@nospam.com> wrote
>>>>>> Philipp Thomas <ktho...@linux01.gwdg.de> wrote
>>>>> Now and again one has to apply the
>>>>> Ruler of Reason to the Knuckles of Stupidity.
>>>>Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
>>> Good point. Even *I* couldn't imagine a ruler big enough for knuckles of
>>> that size.
>>You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
> Have you ever had an original thought, Roddles?
No point in asking you that, the answer is obvious.
>"Bill Palmer" <Bi...@none.not> wrote in message >news:vclpa8lpsb1k1k9n1h9bs5f65scfqrh5jl@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:44:46 +1100 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com>
>> wrote in Message id: <ah3pl2Fptu...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>Bill Palmer <Bi...@none.not> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>Bill Palmer <Bi...@none.not> wrote
>>>>>> blec <b...@nospam.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Philipp Thomas <ktho...@linux01.gwdg.de> wrote
>>>>>> Now and again one has to apply the
>>>>>> Ruler of Reason to the Knuckles of Stupidity.
>>>>>Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
>>>> Good point. Even *I* couldn't imagine a ruler big enough for knuckles of
>>>> that size.
>>>You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>> Have you ever had an original thought, Roddles?
>No point in asking you that, the answer is obvious.
In article <07vla8l2ohf158fbjqdgqdac0tnu26t...@4ax.com>,
ktho...@linux01.gwdg.de (Philipp Thomas) writes:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:22:59 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Have fun listing any that have done that.
> Like the mutated insect species that are being found around fukushima?
THEM!
-- /~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:24:25 +1100, "blec" <b...@nospam.com> wrote:
>We've seen those ever since we started using insecticides.
Does that make better in any way?
>And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed
>that we have seen mutations of insects for countless
>millennia anyway even before humans ever showed up.
And even someone antisocial as you (and thus being the real idiot)
would have to admit that natural mutation in almost all cases never
leads to sterility as has been observed in Japan.
>Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant hysterical hyperventilation and
>lying.
OK, another PLONK and killfile entry.
>Fat lot of good that will ever do you, fuckwit.
Oh, another coward that is using language he never would face to face
as he knows he'd land in court for it.
