New Paper out today
Jackie Mulheron
splurging out and spoiling myself?
http://www.scottishstandard.com/
Cory Bhreckan
>
> <uk.local.glasgow , Jackie Mulheron , JackieM...@aol.com>
> <39945pF...@individual.net>
> <Wed, 9 Mar 2005 20:21:26 -0000>
>
> > Anyone read the print copy? Just wanted to know what it was like before
> > splurging out and spoiling myself?
> >
> > http://www.scottishstandard.com/
> >
>
> background colour .
>
> --
> www.krustov.co.uk
> (krustys tv pick of the week)
Maybe the print copy is printed on grey paper?
The Real Fifeshire Bimbo
> Anyone read the print copy? Just wanted to know
> what it was like before splurging out and spoiling
> myself?
Och ... just go ahead and splurge! You only live once you know!
> http://www.scottishstandard.com/
I wonder if this was what Chic was talking about?
--
Cheers, Helen
hramsay at cogeco dot ca
The Tattie Howker
But hey, we'll read it if we want to, OK? No need to post items here.
TTH
Danny
Jeez, a paper which advocates a political stance. Christ, staying well away.
--
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine
Richard Tobin
Jackie Mulheron <JackieM...@aol.com> wrote:
>Anyone read the print copy? Just wanted to know what it was like before
>splurging out and spoiling myself?
That's not a newspaper. I trust the SNP will be declaring it as part
of their election expenses.
-- Richard
Duke of URL
news:422F6FE6...@maelstrom.com...
> Krustov wrote:
>> <uk.local.glasgow , Jackie Mulheron , JackieM...@aol.com>
>> <39945pF...@individual.net>
>> <Wed, 9 Mar 2005 20:21:26 -0000>
>>
>> > Anyone read the print copy? Just wanted to know what it was like before
>> > splurging out and spoiling myself?
>> > http://www.scottishstandard.com/
>>
>> Somebody should tell them not everybody uses the default windows white
>> background colour .
Why? Black on white is the (by far) easiest to read combination there is.
>
> Maybe the print copy is printed on grey paper?
Salmond seems to be rather deranged.
"He also claims it would lead to an increase in cancer-causing particles in
our seas, along our shores and in the atmosphere. Green and Socialist MSPs
have joined with the SNP and environmental campaigners in vowing to fight
any moves towards creating a new generation of nuclear energy."
Someone should sit him down with some basic nuclear physics texts and
explain that there is FAR more radioactive pollution from burning coal & oil
than from any competently-built reactor. Note, I am excluding anything the
Russians build...
S Viemeister
>
> > http://www.scottishstandard.com/
>
> I wonder if this was what Chic was talking about?
>
push for a referendum on independence.
Sheila
Jackie Mulheron
"The Tattie Howker" <the_tatt...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:82LXd.1135$QN1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Unhappily I don't think I can - damn!
Jackie Mulheron
"Danny" <notmyema...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:399emuF...@individual.net...
> Jackie Mulheron wrote:
>> Anyone read the print copy? Just wanted to know what it was like
>> before splurging out and spoiling myself?
>>
>> http://www.scottishstandard.com/
>
> Jeez, a paper which advocates a political stance. Christ, staying well
> away.
That must rule out all the dailies in your house then.
Jackie Mulheron
"Richard Tobin" <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d0o7ce$2m8n$1...@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk...
> In article <39945pF...@individual.net>,
> Jackie Mulheron <JackieM...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Anyone read the print copy? Just wanted to know what it was like before
>>splurging out and spoiling myself?
>
> That's not a newspaper.
How so?
> I trust the SNP will be declaring it as part of their election expenses.
Why?
Jackie Mulheron
"Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote in message
news:112v9jj...@corp.supernews.com...
So why not exclude the British as well? They're not the French you know?
Nevertheless they build theirs on rivers flowing out off France so they
don't seem to be so utterly confident about competence themselves.
Jackie Mulheron
"S Viemeister" <firstname...@which.net> wrote in message
news:422FA6FE...@which.net...
It's been in the press. Frank Doran's comments are quite funny in a paranoid
sort of way. Or is it that they are revealing?
SUSPICION GREETS NEW GROUP'S INDEPENDENCE CALL
Custos Custodum
<tnnurse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <399emuF...@individual.net>,
> "Danny" <notmyema...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jackie Mulheron wrote:
>> > Anyone read the print copy? Just wanted to know what it was like
>> > before splurging out and spoiling myself?
>> >
>> > http://www.scottishstandard.com/
>>
>> Jeez, a paper which advocates a political stance. Christ, staying well away.
>
>Wasn't there a briefly lived paper in the early 80s called The Scottish
>Standard? Maybe only lasted 6 months or so?
Sunday Standard? I think it lasted a bit longer, though. Maybe 18
months.
Duke of URL
message news:423060d6$0$2649$4c56...@master.news.zetnet.net...> news:1130m7g...@corp.supernews.com...
> <snip>
>> Hydroelectric generators, wind turbines, tidal generators ... I like them
>> all.
>> But that doesn't make a decent nuclear plant dangerous or bad.
>> What sorts of "particles" were found? How much?
> As to sort, "Metallic" - not much more than that is publicly stated.
> According to UKAEA "Regrettably, at some point in the past, fragments of
> nuclear fuel got into the sea discharge system at Dounreay"
> http://www.ukaea.org.uk/dounreay/particles.htm .
>
> http://www.sepa.org.uk/radioactivity/dpag/ will provide more details about
> as impartially as you are going to get.
You are probably correct, but I spent twenty minutes trying to find the
info.
That has to be a world-record-setter of a
hide-the-information-by-burying-it-under-bureacratic-BS site!
S Viemeister
>
> As far as I am concerned, nuclear power plants would have to be
> exceedingly safe, both in themselves and from natural disasters or
> terrorist attack, and governments and the industry would have to be much
> more honest and open than they have ever shown themselves to be in the
> past, before I think the majority of people in this country would accept
> nuclear power again.
>
If if the plants themselves can be made reliably safe, I wouldn't support
nuclear power until the waste disposal problem is satisfactorily resolved.
Sheila
Ian Morrison
> "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote in message
> news:1130m7g...@corp.supernews.com...
> <snip>
>
>>Hydroelectric generators, wind turbines, tidal generators ... I like them
>>all.
>>But that doesn't make a decent nuclear plant dangerous or bad.
>>What sorts of "particles" were found? How much?
>
> As to sort, "Metallic" - not much more than that is publicly stated.
> According to UKAEA "Regrettably, at some point in the past, fragments of
> nuclear fuel got into the sea discharge system at Dounreay"
> http://www.ukaea.org.uk/dounreay/particles.htm .
The UKAEA also states, in relation to the setting up of a Steering Group
to oversee public consultation on this problem -
"UKAEA has awarded a contract to NNC to develop a process for public
participation that is open and honest."
The main reason for massive public distrust of nuclear power in this
country, and its near-abandonment as an energy source, is that the
industry has been anything but "open and honest" in the past. It is not
all that long ago that it was finally admitted that the main reason for
locating an experimental fast-breeder reactor in north Caithness was its
distance from the main centres of population.
The severity of the Windscale accident of 1957 was also hushed up, as
far as it was possible when milk production over a wide area was
suddenly halted.
There are also the unresolved issues over the so-called "leukaemia
clusters" around certain nuclear plant, one of which is supposed to
exist around Dounreay.
Nuclear energy is still also tainted with the enthusiasm of Thatcher.
I was in favour of nuclear power until the late 60s, when I was involved
in some research into radioactivity in milk. Scientific consensus seemed
to be that the main sources of radioactive minerals in UK milk in the
60s were the Windscale accident and nuclear weapons testing in the
atmosphere.
After a few years of, more or less, neutrality on the issue, I swung
against it in the mid-late 70s as more and more cover-ups and
distortions, not to mention safety problems, became apparent. It is only
in the last few years that I have begun to reconsider my position. I
suspect I am not alone.
As far as I am concerned, nuclear power plants would have to be
exceedingly safe, both in themselves and from natural disasters or
terrorist attack, and governments and the industry would have to be much
more honest and open than they have ever shown themselves to be in the
past, before I think the majority of people in this country would accept
nuclear power again.
------
Ian O.
Stephen Copinger
> "Stephen Copinger" <stephen....@highlandlaw.bounce.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:423060d6$0$2649$4c56...@master.news.zetnet.net...
>> As to sort, "Metallic" - not much more than that is publicly stated.
>> According to UKAEA "Regrettably, at some point in the past, fragments of
>> nuclear fuel got into the sea discharge system at Dounreay"
>> http://www.ukaea.org.uk/dounreay/particles.htm .
>
> date have been below the level of radioactivity which independent experts
> say would represent a significant risk to the public." IOW, no dangerous
> inadvertent emissions occurred.
But OTOH the obvious response to that is "well they would say that, wouldn't
they".
You will see that the anti-nuclear site all say that the particles are so
deadly they are presumably irradiating Iceland, the UKAEA says it is
terrible because it shouldn't have happened but it was harmless anyway, and
SEPA seem to be saying something in between but burying it under red tape
until they can prove exactly what the position is.
Beannachd leibh
Stephen
--
This is a personal email, which does not necessarily express the views or
position of Highland Law Practice.
Stephen Copinger
<snip>
> Hydroelectric generators, wind turbines, tidal generators ... I like them
> all.
> But that doesn't make a decent nuclear plant dangerous or bad.
> What sorts of "particles" were found? How much?
According to UKAEA "Regrettably, at some point in the past, fragments of
nuclear fuel got into the sea discharge system at Dounreay"
http://www.ukaea.org.uk/dounreay/particles.htm .
http://www.sepa.org.uk/radioactivity/dpag/ will provide more details about
as impartially as you are going to get.
Beannachd leibh
Danny
There was one in the 90s, the Sunday Scot, I believe.
Duke of URL
message news:423060d6$0$2649$4c56...@master.news.zetnet.net...
> news:1130m7g...@corp.supernews.com...
> <snip>
>> Hydroelectric generators, wind turbines, tidal generators ... I like them
>> all.
>> But that doesn't make a decent nuclear plant dangerous or bad.
>> What sorts of "particles" were found? How much?
> As to sort, "Metallic" - not much more than that is publicly stated.
> According to UKAEA "Regrettably, at some point in the past, fragments of
> nuclear fuel got into the sea discharge system at Dounreay"
> http://www.ukaea.org.uk/dounreay/particles.htm .
Now, THIS one was coherent and helpful. "All the particles at Sandside to
Sam Wilson
<MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
> "T N Nurse" <tnnurse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tnnurseNOUCE99-FD9...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk...
> > In article <112v9jj...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
> >> > Krustov wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Somebody should tell them not everybody uses the default windows white
> >> >> background colour .
> >>
> >> Why? Black on white is the (by far) easiest to read combination there is.
> >
> > No. Black on yellow is. That's why safety signs tend to be those colours.
> > Mind you, it can be a bit hard on the eyes.
> >
> Apples&Oranges ... Black on Yellow is, as you say, the
> most-attention-getting. But I was referring to easiest to /read/.
The Encyclopedia Britannica (now there's a misnomer!) used to make a
virtue of the fact that their books were printed in dark grey on light
grey to reduce contrast and make reading less of a strain. If you want
high contrast try red on blue, or light red on a slightly textured blue
background. In industrial and marine environments hazards are often
marked with white and (dayglo) orange/pink.
Sam
Danny
But at least they don't wear their leanings on their
>> sleeves.
>
> Really? Most of them make no secret of their political leanings.
> Take the Daily Retard for example.
Quite, but does it subtitle its name with 'we are the biggest lefties out
there'?
Will.Cormack
> sleeves.
Really? Most of them make no secret of their political leanings. Take the
Daily Retard for example.
>
neutron
"Jackie Mulheron" <JackieM...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:39945pF...@individual.net...
> Anyone read the print copy? Just wanted to know what it was like before
> splurging out and spoiling myself?
>
> http://www.scottishstandard.com/
>
>
Wouldn't wipe my arse with it.
Tim Bradshaw
> In chronological order-
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/430082.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/839148.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1592383.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1592383.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2806643.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2934413.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4272199.stm
I do like these bits (from the latest one):
`The potentially dangerous particles [...]'
and
`A group of independent experts is currently reviewing what risks the
particles pose to public health.'
Or in other words: they found some stuff (which is bad, I agree),
which got released a fairly long time ago (1960s, again from the same
article), but no one knows if it's actually dangerous, although it
might be. And if it is dangerous, how dangerous is it? Is it more or
less dangerous than the byproducts which escape when generating that
much electricity with coal, say?
Ah, but it's RADIOACTIVE so it *must* be bad, right?
--tim
Ian Morrison
> If if the plants themselves can be made reliably safe, I wouldn't support
> nuclear power until the waste disposal problem is satisfactorily resolved.
Yes, I agree that is a vital part of the whole issue of safety. Disposal
of the waste from coal and oil working is hard enough, as can be seen
(to an ever-decreasing extent, admittedly) here in West Lothian. Some
nuclear waste, of course, can be re-processed, which Sellafield used to
specialise in doing, and may well still do for all I know.
We could always just dump it all in the middle of Yellowstone NP and
wait for the inevitable "supervolcano" eruption there - subject of a BBC
documentary to be shown in the next few days, I believe. In fact, if we
got enough nuclear waste together, a (relatively) small explosion might
help trigger the big eruption, now approximately 40,000 years overdue.
Closer to home, Vesuvius is also overdue for an eruption. IIRC, the last
one was in 1944 and they usually come along every fifty years or so.
Letting a volcano do the work of dispersing the waste on a global scale
strikes me as the most energy efficient solution to the problem.
------
Ian O.
Danny
They're all BS. But at least they don't wear their leanings on their
sleeves.
--
Tim Bradshaw
> Someone should sit him down with some basic nuclear physics texts and
> explain that there is FAR more radioactive pollution from burning coal & oil
> than from any competently-built reactor. Note, I am excluding anything the
> Russians build...
How much (if any?) of Scotland is granite? Does he worry about the
radon &c too?
Alex Hunsley
> <uk.local.glasgow , Jackie Mulheron , JackieM...@aol.com>
> <39945pF...@individual.net>
> <Wed, 9 Mar 2005 20:21:26 -0000>
>
>>splurging out and spoiling myself?
>>
>>http://www.scottishstandard.com/
>>
>
>
Duke of URL
news:tnnurseNOUCE99-FD9...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk...
> In article <112v9jj...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
>
> No. Black on yellow is. That's why safety signs tend to be those colours.
> Mind you, it can be a bit hard on the eyes.
>
Apples&Oranges ... Black on Yellow is, as you say, the
most-attention-getting. But I was referring to easiest to /read/.
>>
>> Salmond seems to be rather deranged.
>> "He also claims it would lead to an increase in cancer-causing particles
>> in
>> our seas, along our shores and in the atmosphere. Green and Socialist
>> MSPs
>> have joined with the SNP and environmental campaigners in vowing to fight
>> any moves towards creating a new generation of nuclear energy."
>> explain that there is FAR more radioactive pollution from burning coal &
>> oil
>> than from any competently-built reactor. Note, I am excluding anything
>> the
>> Russians build...
>
> Hunterston where large quantities of radio active particles have been
> found on the shores despite earlier claims that coal and oil generate far
> more etc, etc. Additionally, the alternatives being considered are not
> coal or oil. Hydro generates something like a quarter of all Scotland's
> power. Offshore windfarms and wave power are also being considered. Gas
> turbines are also a possibility.
Angus Rae
> Krustov wrote:
>> Somebody should tell them not everybody uses the default windows white
>> background colour .
>
> Why?
Because all their images are composed with white backgrounds, not
transparent - so if you're not using white as the background all the
pictures look a bit kludgy. Try it and see.
However, at least they haven't made either of the the even more common
mistakes;
1) anti-aliasing or feather-pasting the pictures before turning the
background transparent - if you do that you end up with a little halo of
the background colour used in compositing around the pictures, which can
looking anything from bad to nasty depending on what your background is.
2) Setting a background image on a page which is a dark set of colours
and setting the text to white to show up on top of it, without also
setting the background colour to black so that the text will actually
show up should the user not be displaying images.
--
Angus G Rae Science & Engineering Support Team
University of Edinburgh
The above opinions are mine, and Edinburgh University can't have them
Custos Custodum
wrote:
>Someone should sit him down with some basic nuclear physics texts and
>explain that there is FAR more radioactive pollution from burning coal & oil
>than from any competently-built reactor.
>
Perhaps, but quality is far more important than mere quantity where
radiation is concerned.
Jackie Mulheron
> Will.Cormack wrote:
> But at least they don't wear their leanings on their
>>> sleeves.
>>
>> Really? Most of them make no secret of their political leanings.
>> Take the Daily Retard for example.
>
> Quite, but does it subtitle its name with 'we are the biggest lefties out
> there'?
Firstly that would be misleading since they support Labour, and secondly,
even if they were would it not be more honest rather than project an image
that is misleading?
Jackie Mulheron
"Tim Bradshaw" <t...@cley.com> wrote in message
news:ey3acpb...@cley.com...
Well the Government never shows much confidence in it when they site them
miles away from their centre of power.
Jackie Mulheron
> Jackie Mulheron wrote:
>> "Danny" <notmyema...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:399emuF...@individual.net...
>>> Jackie Mulheron wrote:
>>>> Anyone read the print copy? Just wanted to know what it was like
>>>> before splurging out and spoiling myself?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.scottishstandard.com/
>>>
>>> Jeez, a paper which advocates a political stance. Christ, staying
>>> well away.
>>
>> That must rule out all the dailies in your house then.
>
> They're all BS. But at least they don't wear their leanings on their
> sleeves.
You prefer them to be mendacious and sell you something they are not?
Jackie Mulheron
> In article <39aj8tF...@individual.net>,
> "Jackie Mulheron" <JackieM...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Richard Tobin" <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:d0o7ce$2m8n$1...@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk...
>> > In article <39945pF...@individual.net>,
>> > Jackie Mulheron <JackieM...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>Anyone read the print copy? Just wanted to know what it was like before
>> >>splurging out and spoiling myself?
>> >
>>
>> How so?
>
> Doesn't say it's registered as one.
It is on the print copy.
>> > I trust the SNP will be declaring it as part of their election
>> > expenses.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because 14 William Street, PA1 2LZ - the publication office - is
> also the constituency office of one Stewart Maxwell, the SNP MSP for
> West of Scotland.
So?
Jackie Mulheron
"neutron" <neutron(not real)@a.b.c.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d0ps7i$1jc$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
Why not? Too expensive?
Danny
>>
>> Quite, but does it subtitle its name with 'we are the biggest
>> lefties out there'?
>
> Firstly that would be misleading since they support Labour,
Actually, Labour is left wing. Well, they're supposed to be...
> and
> secondly, even if they were would it not be more honest rather than
> project an image that is misleading?
Perhaps. Just wish *no* papers would have political bias. That would make
them 8% less crap.
Danny
>>> That must rule out all the dailies in your house then.
>>
>> They're all BS. But at least they don't wear their leanings on their
>> sleeves.
>
> You prefer them to be mendacious and sell you something they are not?
Nah, I just wish political bias could be kept out of the news.
To an extent, ignorance is bliss so yes, let them lie.
Pierre Fidoux
Viemeister <firstname...@which.net> :
>Ian Morrison wrote:
>>
>> As far as I am concerned, nuclear power plants would have to be
>> exceedingly safe, both in themselves and from natural disasters or
>> terrorist attack, and governments and the industry would have to be much
>> more honest and open than they have ever shown themselves to be in the
>> past, before I think the majority of people in this country would accept
>> nuclear power again.
>>
>If if the plants themselves can be made reliably safe, I wouldn't support
>nuclear power until the waste disposal problem is satisfactorily resolved.
Now *there's" a possible use for the Millenium Dome !!!
-- TDS
Netizen
> Jackie Mulheron wrote:
> >>
> >> Quite, but does it subtitle its name with 'we are the biggest
> >> lefties out there'?
> >
> > Firstly that would be misleading since they support Labour,
>
> Actually, Labour is left wing. Well, they're supposed to be...
Ha! Not since Blair became leader...
> > and
> > secondly, even if they were would it not be more honest rather than
> > project an image that is misleading?
>
> Perhaps. Just wish *no* papers would have political bias. That would make
> them 8% less crap.
That is an impossibility. Calling for "no political bias" is itself a
political stance.
Chris Malcolm
>and
You're not keeping up with the times. These days "everyone knows" that
radiation is bad for you. That's why those folk standing in the
daylight in the street are phoning each other with mobiles clapped to
their skulls about the radiation hazard from a mobile phone cell
transmitter mast on top of a pole somewhere.
I can remember being taught far more than "everyone knows" about
radiation and radioactivity at the age of 6 by a primary school
teacher in a class about Marie Curie. No, it wasn't on the curriculum,
she simply thought it was something we ought to know about. That was
way back in the old days when teachers were allowed to educate
children.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Tim Bradshaw
>> Ah, but it's RADIOACTIVE so it *must* be bad, right?
> Well the Government never shows much confidence in it when they site them
> miles away from their centre of power.
You trust the government to make sensible decisions?
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote in message
news:112v9jj...@corp.supernews.com...
> there is FAR more radioactive pollution from burning coal & oil
> than from any competently-built reactor.
> Note, I am excluding anything the
> Russians build...
Did the Russians build the one in Caithness, or the one in Three mile
island, or Sellafield etc.
And what do you propose to do with the waste for the next 800,000 years or
so? Bury it?
A W-S
Danny
>>
>> Actually, Labour is left wing. Well, they're supposed to be...
>
> Ha! Not since Blair became leader...
Indeed ;)
New Labour Old Tories, as it's said.
>>
>> Perhaps. Just wish *no* papers would have political bias. That would
>> make them 8% less crap.
>
> That is an impossibility. Calling for "no political bias" is itself a
> political stance.
Neutrality doesn't show impartiality?
Adam Whyte-Settlar
>That's why safety signs tend to be those colours.
No it isnt. It's used because humans have an instinctive re-action to black
and yellow as a danger signal.
Wasps, hornets, customs and excise shore patrols, that sort of thing
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Stephen Copinger" <stephen....@highlandlaw.bounce.co.uk> wrote in
message news:423060d6$0$2649$4c56...@master.news.zetnet.net...
>
> "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote in message
> news:1130m7g...@corp.supernews.com...
> <snip>
> > Hydroelectric generators, wind turbines, tidal generators ... I like
them
> > all.
> > But that doesn't make a decent nuclear plant dangerous or bad.
Possibly not, but Sod's Law does.
> > What sorts of "particles" were found? How much?
> As to sort, "Metallic" - not much more than that is publicly stated.
> According to UKAEA "Regrettably, at some point in the past, fragments of
> nuclear fuel got into the sea discharge system at Dounreay"
The managment just threw radioactive waste down an old mine shaft for years
until it eventually blew up.
People often think I'm joking when I tell them that - they don't know the
Highland attitude to work and the environment as I do.
It's a classic Highland tale:
The Dounreay Shaft - Responsibility Dumped With Radioactive Waste
The Dounreay shaft is an example of some of the worst radioactive waste
management and disposal practices in the global experience of such activity.
The nuclear power development establishment at Dounreay in the North of
Scotland was started in the early 1950s for the development of fast-breeder
reactors (FBRs) and of FBR fuel reprocessing. It was built in a remote area
close to a site at Wick - now used as the local airport for Dounreay -
which, at the same time as Dounreay was constructed, was considered by the
UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), Dounreay's owner operators, as a
possible site for the testing of UK nuclear weapons.
In 1955, the UKAEA built an underground discharge pipe 65 meters deep for
the discharge of radioactive liquid waste into the sea. It also built a 4.6
meter diameter shaft in order to take out the rock spoil. When the discharge
pipe was installed the shaft was sealed at the bottom. Instead of condemning
the shaft, or keeping it intact to inspect the discharge pipe, the UKAEA was
authorised in 1959 to dump so-called intermediate radioactive waste in the
shaft. All kinds of radioactive wastes were dumped in the 75 cubic meter
shaft without any precautions as to their radiological or chemical content.
There is no precise inventory of the dumped waste, but the shaft is thought
to contain 147 kg of highly enriched uranium and 2.2 kg of plutonium, and
more than a hundred pieces of fuel elements. The UKAEA was conscious of
risks of criticality and in 1968 it dumped powdered boronated glass into the
shaft - as if a nuclear reaction could be controlled as you put salt into a
pot of soup.
On 10 may 1977, a hydrogen explosion burst the shaft open and dispersed some
of the shaft's contents into the surrounding environment. The explosion was
completely covered up by the authorities at the time.
Now, some thirty years after waste was first introduced into the shaft and
twenty years after the explosion, UKAEA is trying to find a contractor
willing to empty the shaft. Costs for cleaning-up, retrieving and
repackaging the waste and also dealing with the shaft, are estimated to
range up to 500 million pounds and could take 10 to 15 years.
During Autumn 1997, finally, the Scottish Office barred the catching of fish
or shellfish for a two kilometre radius around the discharge pipe of the
whole nuclear complex, after divers found fragments of irradiated nuclear
fuel in seabed sediments. Other hot particles had already been found in the
Dounreay environment, for which the plant operators were strongly criticised
by RWMAC in recent reports.
The nuclear industry monthly Nuclear Engineering International considers
that the Dounreay shaft explosion "created one of the most interesting
radwaste problems facing the British nuclear industry".
That's one way to put it.
A W-S
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Ian Morrison" <iomor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:NCZXd.24102.
> governments and the industry would have to be much
> more honest
Yeah - that's going to happen right?
Most people prattle on about how safe the reactor is going to be.
To my mind it's more important to figure out some way to get rid of the
waste.
To summarise; the industries answer goes something like "We are going to
seal it in class and then bury it" to which my reply is "Yes, and *then*
what are you going to do with it?"
A W-S
Ian Morrison
> "Ian Morrison" <iomor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:NCZXd.24102.
>
>
>>governments and the industry would have to be much
>>more honest
>
>
> Yeah - that's going to happen right?
You're just an old cynic....
Of course your attitude is hardly surprising, given past experience. I
remember visiting the much-lauded exhibition at Dounreay in teh early
1980s. No expense had been spared to use every interactive means
available at the time to convince peoople of the overwhelming safety of
the whole place. I remember a game wheer you had to control the reactor
and make sure it didn't go into meltdown. I carefully removed all the
control rods until lights started to flash, bells began to ring etc.,
and the "failsafe" devices came into operation. "B*gg*r", I thought.
Then I moved on to view a revolving plate, laden with various
radioactive substances, including a luminous watch dial; a piece of
Burmese glass; a piece of plutonium; and so forth. Guess which sample
gave the lowest count on the geiger counter? That's right - plutonium -
the safest substance known to man....
>
> Most people prattle on about how safe the reactor is going to be.
> To my mind it's more important to figure out some way to get rid of the
> waste.
> To summarise; the industries answer goes something like "We are going to
> seal it in class and then bury it" to which my reply is "Yes, and *then*
> what are you going to do with it?"
I gave a few suggestions upthread.
------
Ian O.
Jackie Mulheron
Jackie Mulheron
> Jackie Mulheron wrote:
>>>> That must rule out all the dailies in your house then.
>>>
>>> They're all BS. But at least they don't wear their leanings on their
>>> sleeves.
>>
>> You prefer them to be mendacious and sell you something they are not?
>
> Nah, I just wish political bias could be kept out of the news.
Wouldn't bwe all but who decides that at the end of the day?
> To an extent, ignorance is bliss so yes, let them lie.
But how would you then know that you are being played by the politically
biased?
Jackie Mulheron
> Jackie Mulheron wrote:
>>>
>>> Quite, but does it subtitle its name with 'we are the biggest
>>> lefties out there'?
>>
>> Firstly that would be misleading since they support Labour,
>
> Actually, Labour is left wing. Well, they're supposed to be...
Well, they say they are but that's only to keep some voters on side. Brown
is a bigger charlatan than Blair in that regard.
>> and
>> secondly, even if they were would it not be more honest rather than
>> project an image that is misleading?
>
> Perhaps. Just wish *no* papers would have political bias. That would make
> them 8% less crap.
But we don't live in such a world. we live in one where politics is governed
by the impressions voters get. Having newspapers on your side is one of them
but what is more dishonest. One which is upfront on a single political
belief or one which plays at being somewhat neutral for most weeks of the
year until an election is on the horizon?
Tim Bradshaw
> Did the Russians build the one in Caithness, or the one in Three mile
> island, or Sellafield etc.
No. And which of those dumped more (or even nearly as much)
radioactivity into the environment than generating the equivalent
energy by burning coal / oil?
> And what do you propose to do with the waste for the next 800,000 years or
> so? Bury it?
I plan to use it to make wind turbines.
Tim Bradshaw
> You're not keeping up with the times. These days "everyone knows" that
> radiation is bad for you. That's why those folk standing in the
> daylight in the street are phoning each other with mobiles clapped to
> their skulls about the radiation hazard from a mobile phone cell
> transmitter mast on top of a pole somewhere.
I often wish that everyone was taught E = h nu and what it means ( a
much more useful formula than E - mc^2!). As well as *something*
about risk assessment.
> That was
> way back in the old days when teachers were allowed to educate
> children.
... but we can't have that. If we taught people to actually think
about, say, risks, then they'd realise all sorts of inconvenient stuff
(such as, for instance, to recognise the bullshit we are all being
told about terrorism).
--tim
Duke of URL
news:4231...@clear.net.nz...
NOTE: the TMI "disaster" is a myth. Nothing measurable escaped to the
outside when a few gallons of mildly-radioactive secondary water spilled. It
was all promptly cleaned up. The containment system worked, doing precisely
what it was supposed to.
I've never heard of Sellafield - did they have a core-rupture or something?
I have heard of Caithness - did they have a core-rupture or something?
And yes, burying it in geologically-stable locations is the sensible thing
to do with waste. There are already methods being developed that will allow
the waste to be re-processed into usable fuel.
anthony.j....@gmail.com
there is.
>No. Black on yellow is. That's why safety signs tend to be those
colours.
No it's black on white.
>Mind you, it can be a bit hard on the eyes.
And that's why it's not easy to read.
Danny
>>
>> Actually, Labour is left wing. Well, they're supposed to be...
>
> Well, they say they are but that's only to keep some voters on side.
> Brown is a bigger charlatan than Blair in that regard.
Debatable who's worse.
>
> But we don't live in such a world. we live in one where politics is
> governed by the impressions voters get. Having newspapers on your
> side is one of them but what is more dishonest. One which is upfront
> on a single political belief or one which plays at being somewhat
> neutral for most weeks of the year until an election is on the
> horizon?
I wouldn't judge either way in terms of honesty. If you get 50 weeks of
impartiality then 2 of sheer election propaganda (All of which you take with
a pinch of salt), isn't that better than 52 weeks of sheer propaganda?
Danny
> "Danny" <notmyema...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39bu4pF...@individual.net...
>> Jackie Mulheron wrote:
>>>>> That must rule out all the dailies in your house then.
>>>>
>>>> They're all BS. But at least they don't wear their leanings on
>>>> their sleeves.
>>>
>>> You prefer them to be mendacious and sell you something they are
>>> not?
>>
>> Nah, I just wish political bias could be kept out of the news.
>
> Wouldn't bwe all but who decides that at the end of the day?
Don't know. Do tell.
>
>> To an extent, ignorance is bliss so yes, let them lie.
>
> But how would you then know that you are being played by the
> politically biased?
Because I don't take any single source at face value.
Alex Hunsley
> Alex Hunsley wrote:
>
>> Krustov wrote:
>>
>>> Somebody should tell them not everybody uses the default windows
>>> white background colour .
>>
>>
>> Why?
>
>
> Because all their images are composed with white backgrounds, not
> transparent - so if you're not using white as the background all the
> pictures look a bit kludgy. Try it and see.
Oh, you mean they don't set the background colour explicitly? I thought
the original poster was complaining that they used white as a web page
background and that it was so passe etc.
>
> However, at least they haven't made either of the the even more common
> mistakes;
>
> 1) anti-aliasing or feather-pasting the pictures before turning the
> background transparent - if you do that you end up with a little halo of
> the background colour used in compositing around the pictures, which can
> looking anything from bad to nasty depending on what your background is.
>
> 2) Setting a background image on a page which is a dark set of colours
> and setting the text to white to show up on top of it, without also
> setting the background colour to black so that the text will actually
> show up should the user not be displaying images.
Where did they do that on the site?
lex
Tim Bradshaw
> I've never heard of Sellafield - did they have a core-rupture or something?
Windscale, 1957. Fire in an air-cooled (yes!) reactor which then
threw a fair amount of crud into the atmosphere. I think it should
definitely be excluded from any list of competently built reactors.
--tim
CCMcGill
"Netizen" <net...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:1gt90p8.11fmlek12jei2oN%net...@nowhere.org...
Having a philosophy doesn't mean you have a political ideology.
Actually politics these days seem to have extremely little to do with
ethics. Although, politics are supposed to involve being "shrewd or
prudent in practical matters; tactful; diplomatic" they more currently
follow the definition of "exercising or seeking power in governmental or
public affairs."
Nothing's wrong with that if the person doing so has "good" ethics and a
rational philosophy..............
Fact is that in a democracy, individuals in the community ARE the government
and their day-to-day actions produce the administration that ends up
representing them. If the people are too apathetic and don't pay attention
to what they believe are bottom-line ethics and don't represent their chosen
values in day-to-day life, then inevitably that allows the "government" to
become corrupted by greedy, careless, for-the-moment-and-my-term-only,
subjective, A-holes. Corruption is the constant and must always be
confronted. Can't have 'good' without the "evil."
Therefore, it's important to give a shit, but technically, true journalism
is supposed to be unbiased - it never is in reality because there's always
the spin. Science is the same way. Research results, no matter what the
outcome, can often be spun to support either opposing side.
I've become a firm believer in the bottom-line ethic of checks and
balances - in politics and personal life - may hold things up a bit, but in
the end, the results are often the best possible scenario among a vast
variety of individuals.
We just have to be sure and have the best possible system of checks and
balances. That's still be worked out, ye see. It's a process. It's most
important to be reasonable, rational, well-informed (a cinch these days with
the internet), honest, and to participate in an ongoing dialogue that
reflects those traits.
Much like ulg, eh??? <flinch, grimace>
--
~CC
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you
really make them think, they'll hate you."
Don Marquis
CCMcGill
After my previous post about jouranlism, I might add that as conscious
thinking creatures, humans in doing what they wish as individuals while not
harming the freedom of others (a tall order these days in the highly
populated global world in which we live), has the tool of persuasion at
their disposal.
Persuasion is the one valid way we can try to come to terms, therefore,
propoganda is not a bad thing unless it is purely ad hominem and/or
fallacious, i.e. Hitler's Nazi machine, or the Bush Admin's WMD. (here's a
great relevant link BTW: http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm)
In order to be rational, we must be open to information - in order to be
healthy and physically/mentally balanced, we must know when and for how long
to turn off that information, but we should always come back to it
eventually, in good time.
Sam Wilson
<MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4231...@clear.net.nz...
> > "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote in message
> > news:112v9jj...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >> there is FAR more radioactive pollution from burning coal & oil
> >> than from any competently-built reactor.
> >
> >
> >> Note, I am excluding anything the
> >> Russians build...
> >
> > Did the Russians build the one in Caithness, or the one in Three mile
> > island, or Sellafield etc.
> > And what do you propose to do with the waste for the next 800,000 years or
> > so? Bury it?
>
> NOTE: the TMI "disaster" is a myth. ...
"Myth"? It was a darned close thing. Read the report:
<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.ht
ml>. I think it's the only actual core meltdown that there's been in a
commercial reactor apart from Chernobyl.
> ... Nothing measurable escaped to the
> outside when a few gallons of mildly-radioactive secondary water spilled. It
> was all promptly cleaned up. The containment system worked, doing precisely
> what it was supposed to.
Not quite. Slightly radioactive gas was vented to atmosphere, not
contained. I think radioactive water stayed in the plant but in places
it wasn't expected. I have a more detailed account at home that I'll
check.
> I've never heard of Sellafield - did they have a core-rupture or something?
As Tim said, a fire. I'm surprised there seem to be no useful
references to Cockcroft's Folly in Google. Apparently we were saved
from a major radioactive release because Cockcroft insisted on massive
filters on the outlets from the reactors.
> I have heard of Caithness - did they have a core-rupture or something?
No, but (very) small pieces of radioactive material have been found,
particularly on the beach, which appear to have escaped from dumped
material stored in underground shafts. I haven't heard (I haven't
looked for) any explanations of how this happened.
> And yes, burying it in geologically-stable locations is the sensible thing
> to do with waste. There are already methods being developed that will allow
> the waste to be re-processed into usable fuel.
All of which is still rife with technical and political risks and
uncertainties. Whether it's worth doing is debatable.
Sam
CCMcGill
> Jackie Mulheron wrote:
>>>> That must rule out all the dailies in your house then.
>>>
>>> They're all BS. But at least they don't wear their leanings on their
>>> sleeves.
>>
>> You prefer them to be mendacious and sell you something they are not?
>
> Nah, I just wish political bias could be kept out of the news.
>
> "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
> administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine
>
>
apparently not dead, so you can't possibly have renounced reason, can you?!
Just put on some (the) Prodigy, take a long hot bath and have a massage and
come back to the world ready to take on any of the crap it throws at you,
IOW - Never let the bastards get you down. ;P
btw - I finally did pick up an old Prodigy cd, The Fat of The Land - always
did like Firestarter. :)>
But right now I'm way into Ego Likeness, Collide, Qntal, and Neuroticfish.
Going out tonight to the Goth/Fetish Club to celebrate my B-day!!! Gotta
sign off this joyful debate and get stuff done so I can go to the ball -
takes hours to get properly gothed-up. ;)
CCMcGill
>
>>
>>> To an extent, ignorance is bliss so yes, let them lie.
>>
>> But how would you then know that you are being played by the
>> politically biased?
>
> Because I don't take any single source at face value.
>
> --
> "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
> administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine
>
>
Good on ya, Danny boy! And nobody should.
CCMcGill
>question............Good one, Adam.
neutron
"Jackie Mulheron" <JackieM...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:39bm63F...@individual.net...
>
> "neutron" <neutron(not real)@a.b.c.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d0ps7i$1jc$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "Jackie Mulheron" <JackieM...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:39945pF...@individual.net...
> >> Anyone read the print copy? Just wanted to know what it was like before
> >> splurging out and spoiling myself?
> >>
> >> http://www.scottishstandard.com/
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Wouldn't wipe my arse with it.
>
> Why not? Too expensive?
>
>
You cant clean up shit with shit.
Bryn
<JackieM...@aol.com> writes
>Anyone read the print copy? Just wanted to know what it was like before
>splurging out and spoiling myself?
>
>http://www.scottishstandard.com/
An uncontrolled splurge does definitely spoil the pleats in your kilt...
>
>
--
Bryn
To email remove GREMILNS
CCMcGill
Again the next question should be, WHERE? In your own back yard like they
used to drill oil wells?
Not a lot wrong with wind turbines there, but radioactive wind turbines?
For a nice waste disposal disaster check out info on the Hanford site in
Washington State USA:
http://www.agls.uidaho.edu/etoxweb/resources/Case%20Study/HANFORD.PDF
AND how would you transport the waste and what would be the risks to
communities it was transported through?
Locally to my town here in the U.S., a proposed nuclear transport route goes
through such congested areas that if the train carrying the waste ever had
an accident hundreds of thousands of folk would be exposed to high levels of
radiation and ill health effects along with shortened life span (before
cancer that is) if not death.
You may not be aware that radioactive waste may in future be used to make
useful objects like...silverware. Yum Yum -
http://www.gracelinks.org/nuke/wasterecycling/
Good thing none of us have to worry about the cancer epidemic or realizing
that our actions have anything to do with it.
Choose
A) ignorance over real progress
B) Stick our heads in the sand and it will go away
C) Party like it's 1999
D) embrace the Brave New World without thought or question, dismissing all
that it means to be able to reason, and wait for the next mass extinction
Or are there other options? Hmmmmmm......
Steven Hill
Ah, so the old switcheroo worked then... If we call is something
different, no-one will know we fucked up...
As far as waste disposal goes, I kind of like the theory about burying it
at a subduction zone, and let the Earth's core recycle it.
S.
--
Steven Hill
I rant, therefore I am.
Danny
>> --
>> "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
>> administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine
>>
>>
> Ignorance is Bliss?!!!
To an extent, I qualified it with, to an *extent*!
> Ach! I can't believe YOU said that, Danny!
Obviously ignorance is not bliss, but as far as the media goes we're damned
if we do, and damned if we don't.
> You're apparently not dead, so you can't possibly have renounced
> reason, can you?!
You seem to have *slightly* bastardised Paine's philisophy there ;)
>
> Just put on some (the) Prodigy,
Been listening to Crystal Method a lot as well actually.
> take a long hot bath
Ain't had a bath in a very long time.
And before any smart alecs say it, I shower, ok?
> and have a
> massage and come back to the world ready to take on any of the crap
> it throws at you, IOW - Never let the bastards get you down. ;P
I never do. I generally *am* one of those bastards :)
>
> btw - I finally did pick up an old Prodigy cd, The Fat of The Land -
> always did like Firestarter. :)>
I've been listening to just about everything, though permanently on my MP3
player/Mobile phone these days is Always Outnumbered Never Outgunned.
>
> But right now I'm way into Ego Likeness, Collide, Qntal, and
> Neuroticfish. Going out tonight to the Goth/Fetish Club to celebrate
> my B-day!!!
Happy birthday to you love.
> Gotta sign off this joyful debate and get stuff done so
> I can go to the ball - takes hours to get properly gothed-up. ;)
Have fun :)
MacRobert
<iomor...@yahoo.co.uk> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
Ian, I know you will view this with suspicion, but given your
background I really am curious: Why can't nuclear waste be
encapsulated and buried deep into a subduction zone? It seems
achievable with current technology, for we could drill down a ways,
inject 'slugs' of waste and not worry for the next 2.5 billion years
while it circulates down to the mantle and spews back up in Italy.
Stephen
Mat Wilson
Thorburn scored the first
> televised 148 (1973)
>
:-)
Mat Wilson
Ian Morrison
> Ian, I know you will view this with suspicion,
Why should I?
> but given your
> background I really am curious: Why can't nuclear waste be
> encapsulated and buried deep into a subduction zone? It seems
> achievable with current technology, for we could drill down a ways,
> inject 'slugs' of waste and not worry for the next 2.5 billion years
> while it circulates down to the mantle and spews back up in Italy.
I'm not sure that *is* achievable with current technology, or any
technology that is likely to be around for the next few hundred years,
at least on a cost-effective basis. You would have to ask the engineers.
My knowledge of subduction zones etc. dates back over thirty years, but
I don't think they work quite as predictably as you are suggesting.
I think it might be cheaper, and would only use technology we already
have, to explode it all into space.
Of course any alien life forms out there would be perfectly entitled to
get a bit miffed when we fling our radioactive waste at them as if all
those dreadful TV and radio shows are not bad enough. Who knows, but a
couple of them might not pick up a weapon and explode *us* into space?
------
Ian O.
("Born to Be Wild")
MacRobert
<iomor...@yahoo.co.uk> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>MacRobert wrote:
>
>> Ian, I know you will view this with suspicion,
>
>Why should I?
>
> > but given your
>> background I really am curious: Why can't nuclear waste be
>> encapsulated and buried deep into a subduction zone? It seems
>> achievable with current technology, for we could drill down a ways,
>> inject 'slugs' of waste and not worry for the next 2.5 billion years
>> while it circulates down to the mantle and spews back up in Italy.
>
>I'm not sure that *is* achievable with current technology, or any
>technology that is likely to be around for the next few hundred years,
>at least on a cost-effective basis. You would have to ask the engineers.
>My knowledge of subduction zones etc. dates back over thirty years, but
>I don't think they work quite as predictably as you are suggesting.
It is possible I place too much faith in breathless infobabes who
report on tsunamis. Crumbs. I thought it would be feasible if not
politically correct to pack stuff down a mohole. No?
>
>I think it might be cheaper, and would only use technology we already
>have, to explode it all into space.
Harley a cost-effective solution, though. Think of all the CFC's
those rockets generate on the way up. On the other hand, it might be
worth it to lob stuff at, say, Jupiter and watch the clouds go 'plop'.
Equally neat would be to swizzle the rings of Saturn.
>
>Of course any alien life forms out there would be perfectly entitled to
>get a bit miffed when we fling our radioactive waste at them as if all
>those dreadful TV and radio shows are not bad enough. Who knows, but a
>couple of them might not pick up a weapon and explode *us* into space?
Just a sec, let me check the Guide...
Stephen
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Ian Morrison wrote:
>
> I think it might be cheaper, and would only use technology we already
> have, to explode it all into space.
Based on the premise that we've a foolproof
rocket which won't a) explode prior to leaving
the atmosphere and b) won't make a sudden
U-turn back to Earth. Either scenario would
put a whole new spin on the word "disastrous."
Deirdre
"Once it goes up, who cares where it comes down?
That's not my department, says Werner von Braun".
--Tom Lehrer
Nebulous
> "Stephen Copinger" <stephen....@highlandlaw.bounce.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:423060d6$0$2649$4c56...@master.news.zetnet.net...> > news:1130m7g...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > <snip>
> >> Hydroelectric generators, wind turbines, tidal generators ... I like
them
> >> all.
> >> But that doesn't make a decent nuclear plant dangerous or bad.
> >> What sorts of "particles" were found? How much?
>
> > As to sort, "Metallic" - not much more than that is publicly stated.
> > According to UKAEA "Regrettably, at some point in the past, fragments
of
> > nuclear fuel got into the sea discharge system at Dounreay"
> > http://www.ukaea.org.uk/dounreay/particles.htm .
>
> Now, THIS one was coherent and helpful. "All the particles at Sandside to
> date have been below the level of radioactivity which independent experts
> say would represent a significant risk to the public." IOW, no dangerous
> inadvertent emissions occurred.
>
Some *nglish fishing village had a radioactive harbour that the government
swore was safe. So they filled a lorry load of sand and dumped it in London.
None of the London council staff would clear it up until they were issued
with radiation suits.
This highlights several issues- you can consider lots of things as safe, but
having them on your doorstep focuses thinking and the government have been
very careful to keep the large centres of population insulated from the
risks.
Neb
MacRobert
<finch.e...@rcn.com> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
There's a LOT of disaster waiting oort there, Deirdre. I was hoping
Conway or Bryn could give us an eye-witness account!
MacR
Ian Morrison
news:423207F1...@rcn.com
>
>
> Ian Morrison wrote:
> >
> > I think it might be cheaper, and would only use technology we already
> > have, to explode it all into space.
>
> Based on the premise that we've a foolproof
> rocket which won't a) explode prior to leaving
> the atmosphere and b) won't make a sudden
> U-turn back to Earth. Either scenario would
> put a whole new spin on the word "disastrous."
Provided that the waste is (a) vitrified and (b) gets up high enough to
burn up in our atmosphere, it will be dispersed sufficiently that nobody
on the planet should get excessive exposure to radiation. It might cause
a few tens of thousands of extra cases of c*nc*r, but that will be
masked by all the carcinogens that we are perfectly capable of
generating without recourse to nuclear energy. So, there shouldn't be
any possibility of any "victims" making a claim against any
multinational corporations on Earth, which is all that matters.
------
Ian O.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Duke of URL
news:110320051620016215%Sam.W...@ed.ac.uk...
>> I've never heard of Sellafield - did they have a core-rupture or
>> something?
>
> As Tim said, a fire. I'm surprised there seem to be no useful
> references to Cockcroft's Folly in Google. Apparently we were saved
> from a major radioactive release because Cockcroft insisted on massive
> filters on the outlets from the reactors.
Key phrase: "saved from ... by the installed filters"
>
>> I have heard of Caithness - did they have a core-rupture or something?
>
> No, but (very) small pieces of radioactive material have been found,
> particularly on the beach, which appear to have escaped from dumped
> material stored in underground shafts. I haven't heard (I haven't
> looked for) any explanations of how this happened.
>
Key words: "very small"; "did not come from reactor, but from dump-shaft"
>> And yes, burying it in geologically-stable locations is the sensible
>> thing
>> to do with waste. There are already methods being developed that will
>> allow
>> the waste to be re-processed into usable fuel.
>
> All of which is still rife with technical and political risks and
> uncertainties.
So was the development of petroleum fuels...
So, to summarize, with the exception of Chernobyl, your examples of "nuclear
plant disaster" are all insignificant, did no harm to any person, miniscule
harm to property, and were easily cleaned up.
IOW, nuclear plants have a far, far better record than coal- or oil-plants.
Duke of URL
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.050311...@kerouac.projectcolo.org.uk...
Not on yer life! That junk will likely become very valuable as re-processing
techniques advance. Easy enough to store it (I favor the cast glass blocks,
myself) in a wasteland or underground in a stable area until needed. If
someone eksully invents cold fusion and room-temp superconductors, so we no
longer need the waste, weel then, fine - Mindanao Trench it is.
Bryn
<Cann...@rsed2look.itup> writes
That's the problem with this planet, just when you get something
organised,
!!! KAPOW !!!
Then start over !!!
Sodding tedious....
10,000 years to get from East London to Darwin at a mile a day... And
nothing to eat but shellfish...
Custos Custodum
<br...@GREMILNSfinhall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <39945pF...@individual.net>, Jackie Mulheron
><JackieM...@aol.com> writes
>>Anyone read the print copy? Just wanted to know what it was like before
>>splurging out and spoiling myself?
>>
>>http://www.scottishstandard.com/
>
>An uncontrolled splurge does definitely spoil the pleats in your kilt...
>>
Just ask Monica Lewinsky.
TheMgt
Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > That was
> > way back in the old days when teachers were allowed to educate
> > children.
>
> ... but we can't have that. If we taught people to actually think
> about, say, risks, then they'd realise all sorts of inconvenient stuff
> (such as, for instance, to recognise the bullshit we are all being
> told about terrorism).
Speaking of which, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4341269.stm.
<rant>
Wankers. Utterly useless, spineless, incompetent wankers. I see my local MP Lazarowicz voted along with the rest of Blairs sheep. Aaaaarrgghh.
</rant>
--
TheMgt
Duke of URL
news:42320d3d$0$2778$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
staff!
Reminds me of the city of Berkeley (California): the City Council passed an
ordinance which basically (I don't have a copy of the wording) forbade
anything to do with nuclear radiation within the city limits.
The first to point out what clottin' idiots they were - hospitals with
Nuclear Medicine Clinics, CAT scanners, Xray machines...
The next was a newspaper which asked when they were going to erect the big
lead umbrella to keep all that nasty dangerous radiation off from the big
reactor in the sky...
Custos Custodum
<grawi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Stephen Copinger" <stephen....@highlandlaw.bounce.co.uk> wrote in
>message news:423060d6$0$2649$4c56...@master.news.zetnet.net...
>>
>> "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote in message
>> news:1130m7g...@corp.supernews.com...
>> <snip>
>> > Hydroelectric generators, wind turbines, tidal generators ... I like
>them
>> > all.
>> > But that doesn't make a decent nuclear plant dangerous or bad.
>
>Possibly not, but Sod's Law does.
>
>> > What sorts of "particles" were found? How much?
>
>> As to sort, "Metallic" - not much more than that is publicly stated.
>> According to UKAEA "Regrettably, at some point in the past, fragments of
>> nuclear fuel got into the sea discharge system at Dounreay"
>
>The managment just threw radioactive waste down an old mine shaft for years
>until it eventually blew up.
>People often think I'm joking when I tell them that - they don't know the
>Highland attitude to work and the environment as I do.
>It's a classic Highland tale:
>
>
>The Dounreay Shaft - Responsibility Dumped With Radioactive Waste
>
>The Dounreay shaft is an example of some of the worst radioactive waste
>management and disposal practices in the global experience of such activity.
>The nuclear power development establishment at Dounreay in the North of
>Scotland was started in the early 1950s for the development of fast-breeder
>reactors (FBRs) and of FBR fuel reprocessing. It was built in a remote area
>close to a site at Wick - now used as the local airport for Dounreay -
>which, at the same time as Dounreay was constructed, was considered by the
>UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), Dounreay's owner operators, as a
>possible site for the testing of UK nuclear weapons.
>
>In 1955, the UKAEA built an underground discharge pipe 65 meters deep for
>the discharge of radioactive liquid waste into the sea. It also built a 4.6
>meter diameter shaft in order to take out the rock spoil. When the discharge
>pipe was installed the shaft was sealed at the bottom. Instead of condemning
>the shaft, or keeping it intact to inspect the discharge pipe, the UKAEA was
>authorised in 1959 to dump so-called intermediate radioactive waste in the
>shaft. All kinds of radioactive wastes were dumped in the 75 cubic meter
>shaft without any precautions as to their radiological or chemical content.
>There is no precise inventory of the dumped waste, but the shaft is thought
>to contain 147 kg of highly enriched uranium and 2.2 kg of plutonium, and
>more than a hundred pieces of fuel elements. The UKAEA was conscious of
>risks of criticality and in 1968 it dumped powdered boronated glass into the
>shaft - as if a nuclear reaction could be controlled as you put salt into a
>pot of soup.
>
Well, actually, it could. Boron is a very effective absorber of
thermal neutrons - the sort that cause fission - and would act like
the control rods in a reactor. The main difficulty would be getting it
to where it was most needed.
Nebulous
>
> I think it might be cheaper, and would only use technology we already
> have, to explode it all into space.
>
vehicles delivering satellites into space I wouldn't like to see it tried.
Neb
Pierre Fidoux
Wilson" <w...@ss.com> :
>
>
>Thorburn scored the first
>> televised 148 (1973)
>>
> :-)
You saw it too ?
-- TDS
>
>
>Mat Wilson
>
>
Michilín
Or if you're right about the aliens, "Born to Be Vaporized!")
Michilín
Michilín
I doubt you'll get an option. In politics, everything works perfectly,
right up to the moment they're scraping your children off the tarmac.
Michilín