>>> Uncle Steve wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 07:39:56PM +0000, Bernard Peek wrote:
>>>>> On 12/11/12 18:26, Uncle Steve wrote:
>>>>> >>Note that half of Japan uses 50hz and the other half uses 60hz
>>>>> >>AC power, so it's not so simple to transport power between regions.
>>>>> >That's really stupid. Whose bright idea was that?
>>>>> America.
>>>> Part of the reconstruction program. What a mind-bogglingly stupid
>>>> thing for them to do.
>>> The US should covert to 50 Hz instead? !!!! That would have been
>>> stupidester.
>> No one advocated the U.S. converting to 50 Hz. What would have been so
>> wrong about Japan continuing to use 50 Hz instead of converting part of
>> Japan to 60 Hz?
> US manufacturing would have to change their methods to make 50 thingies
> instead of 60 thingies. Japan wasn't making the stuff at that time.
Wikipedia says the mixed frequencies in Japan go back to the 1890s, with
the purchase of generators from AEG in 1895 for Tokyo and generators
from General Electric in 1896 for Osaka. Interestingly, Southern
California Edison was using 50 Hz up to the late 1940s. We should have
sent our used equipment to Japan!
>> No one advocated the U.S. converting to 50 Hz. What would have been so
>> wrong about Japan continuing to use 50 Hz instead of converting part of
>> Japan to 60 Hz?
> US manufacturing would have to change their methods to make 50 thingies
> instead of 60 thingies. Japan wasn't making the stuff at that time.
> /BAH
50Hz and 60Hz, resulted in Japanese factories being able to export to both Europe and the USA. Western firms only knew how to make single frequency equipment.
> 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.
>> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> writes:
>>>> Uncle Steve wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 07:39:56PM +0000, Bernard Peek wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/11/12 18:26, Uncle Steve wrote:
>>>>>> >>Note that half of Japan uses 50hz and the other half uses 60hz
>>>>>> >>AC power, so it's not so simple to transport power between regions.
>>>>>> >That's really stupid. Whose bright idea was that?
>>>>>> America.
>>>>> Part of the reconstruction program. What a mind-bogglingly stupid
>>>>> thing for them to do.
>>>> The US should covert to 50 Hz instead? !!!! That would have been
>>>> stupidester.
>>> No one advocated the U.S. converting to 50 Hz. What would have been so
>>> wrong about Japan continuing to use 50 Hz instead of converting part of
>>> Japan to 60 Hz?
>> US manufacturing would have to change their methods to make 50 thingies
>> instead of 60 thingies. Japan wasn't making the stuff at that time.
> Japan also uses 100 volts instead of 110-125, so just carrying your
> U.S. appliances to Japan and plugging them in won't work even aside from
> the frequency.
> On 15/11/2012 14:24, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Patrick Scheible wrote:
> {snip}
>>> No one advocated the U.S. converting to 50 Hz. What would have been so
>>> wrong about Japan continuing to use 50 Hz instead of converting part of
>>> Japan to 60 Hz?
>> US manufacturing would have to change their methods to make 50 thingies
>> instead of 60 thingies. Japan wasn't making the stuff at that time.
> 50Hz and 60Hz, resulted in Japanese factories being able to export to both > Europe and the USA.
Yes.
> Western firms only knew how to make single frequency equipment.
>>>Except that in New York they put them on the second floor or so,
>>>but the fuel supplies and pumps were in the basements. Somewhere,
>>>Computerworld maybe, had a story about one company where the
>>>employees were carrying diesel in buckets up 15 flights of stairs
>>>to keep the generators going.
>>I saw that on television. Stupid to put the generator up there.
>Eh? It would've been flooded and unable to produce electricity at
>all.
>The real problem is that the pumps in the basement became
>inoperable. As I understand it, the pumps stopped working because
>the safety systems interpreted the water flooding of the basement as
>a "fuel leak", so the fuel pumps were stopped.
I said nothing aobut putting the pumps in the basement.
Putting them half way up, so on floor 7 or 8, would have been better
than the basement or the roof.
>"Andrew Swallow" <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >news:HrmdnU97H5A6sjjNnZ2dnUVZ8u-dnZ2d@bt.com...
>> On 15/11/2012 14:24, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>> {snip}
>>>> No one advocated the U.S. converting to 50 Hz. What would have been so
>>>> wrong about Japan continuing to use 50 Hz instead of converting part of
>>>> Japan to 60 Hz?
>>> US manufacturing would have to change their methods to make 50 thingies
>>> instead of 60 thingies. Japan wasn't making the stuff at that time.
>> 50Hz and 60Hz, resulted in Japanese factories being able to export to both >> Europe and the USA.
>Yes.
That doesn't make much sense. The USA has been shipping 50hz capital
equipment for close to a century to pretty much every 50hz country in the
world. At Burroughs we had 50hz power available so we could test equipment
destined for those parts of the world, even Convergent Technologies had 50hz
available to test the CTOS and megaframe systems. You can bet that GE was perfectly
happy to build 50hz generators, even locally.
Given that there was a lot of big-iron that required 400hz, motor-generators became
relatively inexpensive and widely available whatever the target frequency.
Modern switching power supplies really don't care about the mains frequency
any more (or even the line voltage for that matter).
>>"Andrew Swallow" <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>news:HrmdnU97H5A6sjjNnZ2dnUVZ8u-dnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> On 15/11/2012 14:24, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>>> {snip}
>>>>> No one advocated the U.S. converting to 50 Hz. What would have been >>>>> so
>>>>> wrong about Japan continuing to use 50 Hz instead of converting part >>>>> of
>>>>> Japan to 60 Hz?
>>>> US manufacturing would have to change their methods to make 50 thingies
>>>> instead of 60 thingies. Japan wasn't making the stuff at that time.
>>> 50Hz and 60Hz, resulted in Japanese factories being able to export to >>> both
>>> Europe and the USA.
>>Yes.
> That doesn't make much sense.
Makes no sense at all, as I said.
> The USA has been shipping 50hz capital equipment for close
> to a century to pretty much every 50hz country in the world.
> At Burroughs we had 50hz power available so we could test
> equipment destined for those parts of the world, even
> Convergent Technologies had 50hz available to test
> the CTOS and megaframe systems.
Sure, but that was well after the war being discussed.
> You can bet that GE was perfectly happy
> to build 50hz generators, even locally.
Yeah, its more likely that what was seen in Japan was
just a continuation of their situation before the war.
I'm not convinced that Britain was exporting much of that
sort of stuff just after the war had ended, but I might be wrong.
> Given that there was a lot of big-iron that required 400hz,
> motor-generators became relatively inexpensive and
> widely available whatever the target frequency.
> Modern switching power supplies really don't care about the
> mains frequency any more (or even the line voltage for that matter).
Sure, but those hadn't showed up at the time being discussed.
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
<spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
> The radioactivity[1] in fly ash is from rare earths that decay very
> slowly.
> [1] Yes, the fly ash from coal plants is radioactive. So is the
> smoke from the cigarettes the protestors at the nuclear plant
> are smoking.
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.
> On Nov 12, 8:53 pm, Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>> How many people, if any at all, ended up being killed by solely the
>>> Japanese nuclear plant troubles?
>> "Solely" is a loaded word, isn't it?
> No, not at all. Just trying to isolate the number of people who died
> because of the nuclear reactor radiation problems, not the tsuanmi or
> its after effects.
>> It doesn't sound like many. 3 employees due to the tsunami. A few
>> hundred "as a result of the evacuation". Ultimate totals estimated
>> to be from the low tens to the low ten thousands, depending on
>> assumptions.
> 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.
>> If 1M people have a 1% chance of dying, does that count as "solely"?
>> How about if the exposure exacerbates another condition? [Adjust
>> numbers to suit.]
> If they can predict with realistic statistical accuracy the eventual
> deaths due to radiation from the plant, then those numbers would
> count. Where it gets tricky is if someone say dies at age 70 from
> radiation exposure when they otherwise would've died at age 75.
I didn't claim it would be easy to calculate. Just that logically and statistically it should count, even if not as a whole death. On an overly simplified scale, if it increases your mortality by 10%, 10 such people should count as one death.
>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:HrmdnU97H5A6sjjNnZ2dnUVZ8u-dnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> On 15/11/2012 14:24, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>>> {snip}
>>>>> No one advocated the U.S. converting to 50 Hz. What would have been so
>>>>> wrong about Japan continuing to use 50 Hz instead of converting part of
>>>>> Japan to 60 Hz?
>>>> US manufacturing would have to change their methods to make 50 thingies
>>>> instead of 60 thingies. Japan wasn't making the stuff at that time.
>>> 50Hz and 60Hz, resulted in Japanese factories being able to export to both
>>> Europe and the USA.
>> Yes.
> That doesn't make much sense. The USA has been shipping 50hz capital
> equipment for close to a century to pretty much every 50hz country in the
> world. At Burroughs we had 50hz power available so we could test equipment
> destined for those parts of the world, even Convergent Technologies had 50hz
> available to test the CTOS and megaframe systems. You can bet that GE was perfectly
> happy to build 50hz generators, even locally.
> Given that there was a lot of big-iron that required 400hz, motor-generators became
> relatively inexpensive and widely available whatever the target frequency.
> Modern switching power supplies really don't care about the mains frequency
> any more (or even the line voltage for that matter).
> scott
The having to have 50Hz power available is it all. Few small companies can afford to have a generator just for design tests.
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.
-- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
>> 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 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.
> 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. and the intensity has been the same for millions of years. Back in the 1800s people with arthritis, gout, etc. used to lay in radioactive salts or visit radium mines to alleviate their symptoms.
> >> 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.
> >> "So the lack of control makes the nuclear thing more scarey" Exactly!
> >> That is why people tend to be much more afraid of flying than driving.
> >> It's not a rational fear.
> > Driving you have no control of the yahoos eating, drinking, texting on
> > the cell phone and shaving or applying makeup.
> But I *can* practice "defensive driving"... being aware of the yahoos and > morons, and trying to give them a "wide berth". Essentially, I try to stay > out of their way as much as possible. But that keeps me *active* as a > participant in the driving situation... one can *not* avoid all the danger, > but one *can* mitigate much of it by watching out for the other guy/gal.
> My wife and mother hated riding with other drivers... because they rue the > lack of control of what's happening. *Not* that they are really better > drivers, but they would like to feel they are in charge of what is > happening.
> --
> numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
OTGH, if someone else is driving when and you get injured you have someone else's insurance company to sue.
>> >> 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.
> >> >> 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.
In article <proto-1AE4FF.09422116112...@news.panix.com>, pr...@panix.com
(Walter Bushell) writes:
> 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.
Charlie Farquharson, Don Harron's characteron the comedy show Hee Haw,
once said that when he was young he worried about the game warden
pulling him over for having too much fish in his Mercury.
> Fortunately we are overfishing the most problematic fish, so it may
> not be a long range problem.
<sarcasm>
What's good for The Economy is good for the planet.
</sarcasm>
-- /~\ 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!
In article <k85bnc$4j...@dont-email.me>, Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com
(Peter Flass) writes:
> 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.
> and the intensity has been the same for millions of years. Back in
> the 1800s people with arthritis, gout, etc. used to lay in radioactive
> salts or visit radium mines to alleviate their symptoms.
I once read a science fiction story that described an intelligent
species which evolved on a planet with a high amount of background
radiation, in such a way that it was essential to their biological
processes. The sad conclusion was that their attempts to colonize
other planets would be forever doomed.
-- /~\ 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!
In article
<ea936bfa-f814-49a7-a24c-e2269286b...@v3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com (hancock4) writes:
> On Nov 15, 8:08 pm, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> <spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>> The radioactivity[1] in fly ash is from rare earths that decay very
>> slowly.
>> [1] Yes, the fly ash from coal plants is radioactive. So is the
>> smoke from the cigarettes the protestors at the nuclear plant
>> are smoking.
> 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.
The story I heard is that a nuclear plant could never be built in
Grand Central Station because the background radiation from the
granite from which it's built exceeds regulatory limits.
-- /~\ 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!
