[OT] Radiation is good for you!
J. J. Lodder
has solved the problems with nuclear radiation for the Japanese,
and for all of mankind.
Radiation is good for you!
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_83
7512.html>
(an incredible number of) Scientists have known this for some time,
but the media (librul of course)
have hidden this fact from the public.
And for Bob: yes, they always come crazier
than you would have believed possible,
Jan
Randy C
Ann Coulter was on the O'Reilly show talking about this.
Imagine. Ann Coulter and O'Reilly talking about SCIENCE.
Maybe we could talk Ann into going into the Japanese reactors and
helping out...
Bob Berger
Coulter has a real proble with this one too. (It isn't so much a problem of her
getting things right as it is of her getting them too far right :-).
According to the EPA, 20,000+ Americans die each year as the result of exposure
to radioactive randon gas.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon
Interesting the media and politicians are ignoring that one, isn't it?
J. J. Lodder
Paul J Gans
><http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_83
>7512.html>
But she's clearly right or they'd not dose cancer patients
with radiation to cure them, would they?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Walter Bushell
And cancer cures smoking.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Desertphile
... that's how Godzilla happened.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Frank J
I'm guessing she means natural radiation. Actually it would not
surprise me that the low doses that life has withstood for billions of
years has some benefit. She might have even quote mined some studies
that conclude that. But to spin it as having any bearing on the
Japanese tragedy is beyond irresponsible. Adding to the breathtaking
chutzpah is the fact that in 2006, when peddling her book "Godless,"
and essentially admitting that the chapters on evolution were written
for her by the DI, she called herself a science "idiot." That needs to
be thown back in her face at every opportunity.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
>American conservative 'thinker' Ann Coulter
>has solved the problems with nuclear radiation for the Japanese,
>and for all of mankind.
>
>Radiation is good for you!
>
><http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_83
>7512.html>
>
>(an incredible number of) Scientists have known this for some time,
>but the media (librul of course)
>have hidden this fact from the public.
Yeah, Coulter's a loudmouthed idiot. This is news?
>And for Bob: yes, they always come crazier
>than you would have believed possible,
Hell, after studying European history during the period
1600-1940 (and beyond) I'd believe damn near any craziness
by damn near anyone. But I usually don't dwell on the
idiocies of a particular nation or ethnic group, since I
think using such a broad brush would say a great deal more
about me than about the subject of my dislike, none of it
good. YMMV.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Paul J Gans
>In article <imlkeu$g20$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>> >American conservative 'thinker' Ann Coulter
>> >has solved the problems with nuclear radiation for the Japanese,
>> >and for all of mankind.
>>
>> >Radiation is good for you!
>>
>> ><http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_83
>> >7512.html>
>>
>> >(an incredible number of) Scientists have known this for some time,
>> >but the media (librul of course)
>> >have hidden this fact from the public.
>>
>> >And for Bob: yes, they always come crazier
>> >than you would have believed possible,
>>
>> But she's clearly right or they'd not dose cancer patients
>> with radiation to cure them, would they?
>And cancer cures smoking.
It does that indeed.
jillery
Never a miscommunication :)
J. J. Lodder
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 06:40:10 -0700 (PDT), Randy C
> <randy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 26, 4:36 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > American conservative 'thinker' Ann Coulter
> > > has solved the problems with nuclear radiation for the Japanese,
> > > and for all of mankind.
> > >
> > > Radiation is good for you!
> > >
> > > <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_83
> > > 7512.html>
> > >
> > > (an incredible number of) Scientists have known this for some time,
> > > but the media (librul of course)
> > > have hidden this fact from the public.
> > >
> > > And for Bob: yes, they always come crazier
> > > than you would have believed possible,
> > >
> > > Jan
>
> > Ann Coulter was on the O'Reilly show talking about this.
> >
> > Imagine. Ann Coulter and O'Reilly talking about SCIENCE.
> >
> > Maybe we could talk Ann into going into the Japanese reactors and
> > helping out...
>
> ... that's how Godzilla happened.
And the Hulk too. She must be right,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> On Mar 26, 5:05 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > >American conservative 'thinker' Ann Coulter
> > >has solved the problems with nuclear radiation for the Japanese,
> > >and for all of mankind.
> > >Radiation is good for you!
> > ><http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_83
> > >7512.html>
> > >(an incredible number of) Scientists have known this for some time,
> > >but the media (librul of course)
> > >have hidden this fact from the public.
> > >And for Bob: yes, they always come crazier
> > >than you would have believed possible,
> >
> > But she's clearly right or they'd not dose cancer patients
> > with radiation to cure them, would they?
>
> I'm guessing she means natural radiation. Actually it would not
> surprise me that the low doses that life has withstood for billions of
> years has some benefit.
I doubt it very much, on the individual level.
You may argue that it is good in some higher sense,
by speeding up evolution.
That's not even good on the species level.
Pushing it leads to curious forms of theology,
or teleologism.
> She might have even quote mined some studies
> that conclude that. But to spin it as having any bearing on the
> Japanese tragedy is beyond irresponsible.
Agreed, that why I posted it here.
> Adding to the breathtaking
> chutzpah is the fact that in 2006, when peddling her book "Godless,"
> and essentially admitting that the chapters on evolution were written
> for her by the DI, she called herself a science "idiot." That needs to
> be thown back in her face at every opportunity.
Please do so,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:36:13 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >American conservative 'thinker' Ann Coulter
> >has solved the problems with nuclear radiation for the Japanese,
> >and for all of mankind.
> >
> >Radiation is good for you!
> >
> ><http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_83
> >7512.html>
> >
> >(an incredible number of) Scientists have known this for some time,
> >but the media (librul of course)
> >have hidden this fact from the public.
>
> Yeah, Coulter's a loudmouthed idiot. This is news?
It seems to be, to many Americans.
She is a bestselling author,
making frequent public appearances,
Jan
Nashton
Hey, that would be like a scientist talking about religion and
ridiculing Christianity. I mean that would never happen right?
Oh wait...
Frank J
>
> - Show quoted text -
The *average* scientist knows much more about religion than that self-
described "science idiot" knows about science. And for every scientist
who ridicules Christianity there's at least one - incuding many non-
Christians like me - who criticizes them for doing so.
My first clue that Coulter was an embarrassment even to mainstream
conservatives was when she said after 9/11 that we should capture all
the terrorists and *convert them to Christianity.* Either she's as
much an idiot of American history as of science, or she's every bit as
anti-American as she accuses "liberals" of being.
Bob Casanova
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:36:13 +0100, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder):
>>
>> >American conservative 'thinker' Ann Coulter
>> >has solved the problems with nuclear radiation for the Japanese,
>> >and for all of mankind.
>> >
>> >Radiation is good for you!
>> >
>> ><http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_83
>> >7512.html>
>> >
>> >(an incredible number of) Scientists have known this for some time,
>> >but the media (librul of course)
>> >have hidden this fact from the public.
>>
>> Yeah, Coulter's a loudmouthed idiot. This is news?
>
>It seems to be, to many Americans.
Pity you don't know as much as you imagine you do, then. Of
course, by "many" you may mean "a measurable minority",
which would cause me to retract my comment.
>She is a bestselling author,
>making frequent public appearances,
So? You think that loudmouthed idiots can't have bestselling
books and/or frequent public appearances? Your really
*don't* know much about fairly recent European history (say,
1900-1940), do you?
Jeffrey Turner
> Adding to the breathtaking
> chutzpah is the fact that in 2006, when peddling her book "Godless,"
> and essentially admitting that the chapters on evolution were written
> for her by the DI, she called herself a science "idiot." That needs to
> be thown back in her face at every opportunity.
She needn't have used the qualifier.
--Jeff
--
Money to get power;
Power to protect money.
--Medici family motto
Vend
I suppose that the public appearances are more due to her political
leanings than her popularity.
Frank J
> On 3/26/2011 7:24 PM, Frank J wrote:
>
> > Adding to the breathtaking
> > chutzpah is the fact that in 2006, when peddling her book "Godless,"
> > and essentially admitting that the chapters on evolution were written
> > for her by the DI, she called herself a science "idiot." That needs to
> > be thown back in her face at every opportunity.
>
> She needn't have used the qualifier.
If you mean because it's clear from her other words, I painfully have
to disagree. I think it's only clear to the few % of us who know some
science. Most people, across the political spectrum, fall for all
sorts of snake oil pitches from those who are clueless (or pretend to
be) about science, but claim to know what scientists don't know, or
"won't tell you."
J. J. Lodder
Darwin123
Darwin123
> In article <1jyp84k.17kchhilw5r...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >American conservative 'thinker' Ann Coulter
> >has solved the problems with nuclear radiation for the Japanese,
> >and for all of mankind.
>
> >Radiation is good for you!
>
> ><http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_83
> >7512.html>
>
> >(an incredible number of) Scientists have known this for some time,
> >but the media (librul of course)
> >have hidden this fact from the public.
>
> >And for Bob: yes, they always come crazier
> >than you would have believed possible,
>
> >Jan
>
> Coulter has a real proble with this one too. (It isn't so much a problem of her
> getting things right as it is of her getting them too far right :-).
>
> According to the EPA, 20,000+ Americans die each year as the result of exposure
> to radioactive randon gas.
radioactive decay in minerals. It is not caused by nuclear power
plants.
Coulter would say that only natural radioactivity is bad for you.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Darwin123
<drose...@yahoo.com>:
>On Mar 26, 2:51 pm, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <1jyp84k.17kchhilw5r...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >American conservative 'thinker' Ann Coulter
>> >has solved the problems with nuclear radiation for the Japanese,
>> >and for all of mankind.
>>
>> >Radiation is good for you!
>>
>> ><http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_83
>> >7512.html>
>>
>> >(an incredible number of) Scientists have known this for some time,
>> >but the media (librul of course)
>> >have hidden this fact from the public.
>>
>> >And for Bob: yes, they always come crazier
>> >than you would have believed possible,
>>
>> >Jan
>>
>> Coulter has a real proble with this one too. (It isn't so much a problem of her
>> getting things right as it is of her getting them too far right :-).
>>
>> According to the EPA, 20,000+ Americans die each year as the result of exposure
>> to radioactive randon gas.
> Radon gas is all natural.
I checked my local health products store ("Everything 100%
Natural!") but they seemed to be out. Can it be ordered
online? And can I also order Amanita mushrooms and foxglove
there?
> It is the natural biproduct of
>radioactive decay in minerals. It is not caused by nuclear power
>plants.
> Coulter would say that only natural radioactivity is bad for you.
>
>
Bob Berger
Darwin123 says...
Well then who the hell cares how many Americans die from exposure to it each
year... :-)
> Coulter would say that only natural radioactivity is bad for you.
Probably so.
Paul J Gans
Actually, I happened to see the interview on FOX. She was talking
about the radiation from the Japanese nuclear plants. She wanted
folks to stop worrying about it. Even the FOX host (I forget which
of the zombies it was) was horrified, and it showed.
Since then she's been very quiet.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Radon comes from uranium. Yes, naturally, but if you go digging the
uranium out of the ground and, for instance, shooting it at people -
well, that stopped being natural there somewhere.
Glenn
> In article <1jyp84k.17kchhilw5r...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >American conservative 'thinker' Ann Coulter
> >has solved the problems with nuclear radiation for the Japanese,
> >and for all of mankind.
>
> >Radiation is good for you!
>
> ><http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_83
> >7512.html>
>
> >(an incredible number of) Scientists have known this for some time,
> >but the media (librul of course)
> >have hidden this fact from the public.
>
> >And for Bob: yes, they always come crazier
> >than you would have believed possible,
>
> >Jan
>
> Coulter has a real proble with this one too. (It isn't so much a problem of her
> getting things right as it is of her getting them too far right :-).
>
> According to the EPA, 20,000+ Americans die each year as the result of exposure
> to radioactive randon gas.
>
saving" agenda.
J. J. Lodder
J. J. Lodder
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 10:42 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 2:51 pm, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article <1jyp84k.17kchhilw5r...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder says..
> >
> > > >American conservative 'thinker' Ann Coulter
> > > >has solved the problems with nuclear radiation for the Japanese,
> > > >and for all of mankind.
> >
> > > >Radiation is good for you!
> >
> > > ><http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_83
> > > >7512.html>
> >
> > > >(an incredible number of) Scientists have known this for some time,
> > > >but the media (librul of course)
> > > >have hidden this fact from the public.
> >
> > > >And for Bob: yes, they always come crazier
> > > >than you would have believed possible,
> >
> > > >Jan
> >
> > > Coulter has a real proble with this one too. (It isn't so much a
> > > problem of her getting things right as it is of her getting them too
> > > far right :-).
> >
> > > According to the EPA, 20,000+ Americans die each year as the result of
> > > exposure to radioactive randon gas.
> >
> > Radon gas is all natural. It is the natural biproduct of
> > radioactive decay in minerals. It is not caused by nuclear power
> > plants.
> > Coulter would say that only natural radioactivity is bad for you.
>
> Radon comes from uranium. Yes, naturally, but if you go digging the
> uranium out of the ground and, for instance, shooting it at people -
> well, that stopped being natural there somewhere.
Right. Actually the nuclear power program
is just a great clean-up operation.
Without human intervention all that dirty uranium
just sits there in the ground polluting the planet.
Us humans take care of that by digging up the dirt,
and converting it into shorter lived stuff
that will decay much sooner,
Jan
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org
The nuclear power industry do like to say that nuclear fission energy
reduces the amount of radiation in the environment - by removing the
need to operate coal power stations, in particular, whose tiny
proportion of radioactive material burned and gone up the chimney is
said to be definitely more than the accidental releases from nuclear
power. (Including the big ones? Hmm.)
I suppose the bigger releases may be from nuclear bomb tests, which
it's harder to see as a cleanup exercise against the human lifespan.
Still, science-fiction writers of the old school like to say that when
spacemen visit Earth in the future they had better wear lead-lined
shorts, and this is of people WHO LIVE IN OUTER SPACE. (I'm not sure
that science-fiction writers of the old school understood how much
serious radiation there is in space until rockets or balloons were
sent up into the sky to find out. The protagonist of _Out of the
Silent Planet_, not strictly a hard science text - adventures in the
Martian valleys that we know as "canals" - likes to sunbathe.)
Personally I want to see more effort go into fusion power, which
apparently is currently being investigated as though it isn't going to
matter any time very soon.
Bob Berger
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org says...
Agree!!!
>which apparently is currently being investigated as though it isn't
>going to matter any time very soon.
From what I've read and seen, fusion research is being carried out as a "Big
Science" research effort. The idea being to build the largest, most expensive
machine possible then publish as many papers on it as possible.
It's not goal oriented (ala the Manhattan Project), if the goal is power
generation via nuclear fusion
J. J. Lodder
Fusion will matter in thirty years time, forever,
(google "the trouble with fusion")
Jan
J. J. Lodder
For lack of a better idea.
> It's not goal oriented (ala the Manhattan Project), if the goal is power
> generation via nuclear fusion
The goal is not achievable in the forseeable future,
Jan
jillery
> American conservative 'thinker' Ann Coulter
> has solved the problems with nuclear radiation for the Japanese,
> and for all of mankind.
>
> Radiation is good for you!
>
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_83
> 7512.html>
>
> (an incredible number of) Scientists have known this for some time,
> but the media (librul of course)
> have hidden this fact from the public.
I got the impression Ann might want to bring back some of the
radiation-therapy treatments that were sold to the public in the first
part of the 20th century.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu96STA5BDA
Radioactive jock straps, anyone?
It also mentioned the case of Eben Byers, who was a consumer and
promoter of Radiothor. His case could be a cautionary tale of being
so open-minded your brains fall out. In Ann's case, she needn't worry.
John S. Wilkins
> On Mar 26, 5:36 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > American conservative 'thinker' Ann Coulter
> > has solved the problems with nuclear radiation for the Japanese,
> > and for all of mankind.
> >
> > Radiation is good for you!
> >
> > <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_83
> > 7512.html>
> >
> > (an incredible number of) Scientists have known this for some time,
> > but the media (librul of course)
> > have hidden this fact from the public.
>
>
> I got the impression Ann might want to bring back some of the
> radiation-therapy treatments that were sold to the public in the first
> part of the 20th century.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu96STA5BDA
X-rays for shoe fitting again? Worked so well last time.
>
> Radioactive jock straps, anyone?
>
> It also mentioned the case of Eben Byers, who was a consumer and
> promoter of Radiothor. His case could be a cautionary tale of being
> so open-minded your brains fall out. In Ann's case, she needn't worry.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu96STA5BDA
>
> X-rays for shoe fitting again? Worked so well last time.
Oh, yes. I had that demonstrated on me at a Poll Parrot shoe store. And
Clarabell squirted me with his seltzer gun.
One way to get a correct shoe fit, I suppose.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
His teeth, I gathered.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> In article <454cb233-2549-45c2-9090-b21421066...@z31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org says...
I find your explanation persuasive, and it explains the lack of
urgency. For scientific glory (as opposed to an immediate return upon
one's shareholding), you may as well study either safe high-yield
atomic power, or the rate of left-handedness in beetles of the
Amazonian rainforest. (I was going to say cockroaches, but a study of
cockroaches could be useful, for instance, are left-handed or right-
handed roach motels more effective.)
I have a vague understanding that transistors were first manufactured
by a private company (Bell) heavily investing in a concerted attack on
the problem lasting several years. We need a bit of that for nuclear
fusion power, I think - and not necessarily private only: all of the
developed world can benefit from the development of nuclear fusion
power.
I am assuming that it is safe and doesn't present a weapon of mass
destruction proliferation threat, unlike the nuclear fission energy
industry, but please disillusion me if I'm mistaken: I'd rather know
the sorry truth.
Walter Bushell
<099979e9-2086-4a6d...@27g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Radioactive jock straps, anyone?
I had one of those radium powered glow in the dark watches as a kid.
Wurst were the women who made them by painting the hands of the watch
with radium containing pigment, because they put the bushes in their
mouths to wet them.
Not a good scene.
Then there was my summer job, where we exposed animals to varying
amounts of radiation from a pulsed nuclear reactor to measure the
effects.
J. J. Lodder
Wrong on all counts. All tales of the benefits of fusion power
need the qualification ' with rspect to a fast breeder reactor'.
> but please disillusion me if I'm mistaken: I'd rather know
> the sorry truth.
Do google on "the trouble with fusion" or Lidsky.
The sorry truth has been known for thirty years.
We discussed this before in this forum.
The response of the fusion community
has been to shoot the messenger,
bury the message, and carry on
as if the message doesn't exist.
Fusion will never yield useful energy,
unles someone comes up with a much better idea.
Jan
Walter Bushell
<d063efad-5b4f-4365...@1g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,
"Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> I have a vague understanding that transistors were first manufactured
> by a private company (Bell) heavily investing in a concerted attack on
> the problem lasting several years. We need a bit of that for nuclear
> fusion power, I think - and not necessarily private only: all of the
> developed world can benefit from the development of nuclear fusion
> power.
Ah, but they were quasi governmental as they had a government enforced
monopoly so they could afford to do such things.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
<http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=249400>
links to a response to Lidsky (1983) amongst others.
I just want sustainable safe energy that doesn't offend the neerG
lobby.
I note that the counter offered to Lidsky saying that you can /too/
make fission bomb material in some of these fusion reactors is that
you could tell. But what if an Evil Foreign Country builds its own
fusion reactor and does it deliberately?
Bob Berger
Thanks for posting that search suggestion. I read Lidsky's article years ago,
but lost track of it and his name. It's a good reference in that it covers the
problem from an "insider's" perspective rather than from my quasi informed point
of view.
Ineresting isn't it that what he said nearly 30 years ago is still almost as
true now as it was then.
>Jan
>
Bob Berger
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org says...
There's no such. Birds fly into windmill blades. Solar panels deprive lizards of
sun. Dams block migrating fish. Ocean wave/current generation disrupts crab
navigation. Geothermal robs worms of the warmth they need. And witch burning
causes global warming, cooling, or some other form of climate change (I don't
quite remember which).
J. J. Lodder
> On Apr 2, 3:55 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org
> > <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
[massive snippage]
> > > I am assuming that it is safe and doesn't present a weapon of mass
> > > destruction proliferation threat, unlike the nuclear fission energy
> > > industry
> >
> > Wrong on all counts. All tales of the benefits of fusion power
> > need the qualification ' with rspect to a fast breeder reactor'.
> >
> > > but please disillusion me if I'm mistaken: I'd rather know
> > > the sorry truth.
> >
> > Do google on "the trouble with fusion" or Lidsky.
> > The sorry truth has been known for thirty years.
> >
> > We discussed this before in this forum.
> > The response of the fusion community
> > has been to shoot the messenger,
> > bury the message, and carry on
> > as if the message doesn't exist.
> >
> > Fusion will never yield useful energy,
> > unles someone comes up with a much better idea.
>
> <http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=249400>
> links to a response to Lidsky (1983) amongst others.
Sure, a lot has been said, and it got snowed under.
Many against one, and all opinions cout,
don't they?
The facts of physics don't change.
> I just want sustainable safe energy that doesn't offend the neerG
> lobby.
Impossible. You do need Santa Claus to lobby for it.
> I note that the counter offered to Lidsky saying that you can /too/
> make fission bomb material in some of these fusion reactors is that
> you could tell. But what if an Evil Foreign Country builds its own
> fusion reactor and does it deliberately?
Proliferation is a minor point by comparison.
It assumes that fusion reactors that produce power economically
are possible.
(on a ixed fusion/fission cycle)
Running them uneconomically (if that will turn out to be possible)
is a dumb way of producing weapons grade materials,
I expect that fusion will be used after all:
as an argument that we really have to put up
with those awful fast breeder reactors.
Sorry, we tried to avoid fast breeders, but fusion didn't work,
and we really do need all that energy, so ...
Jan
J. J. Lodder
There is solid fundamental physics behind his argument,
and that doesn't change,
Jan
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Hmm. What I meant to do there was to use or coin a shorter term for
anti-Green; the lobby that apparently carefully studies ideas of
ecologically concrned citizens, commentators, and groups, and takes
care to oppose every last one of them.
For instance, people protesting wind turbines as a danger to birds,
who the rest of the time regard birds as either of zero interest or an
outright nuisance, e.g. attacking crops.
Incidentally I heard the other day, on BBC Radio's "Science in Action"
show I think, that there's new thinking on why birds fly into human
contructions of all kinds and get hurt: they don't look where they're
going. They assume that the sky is basically empty of obstacles and
spend more time looking for things on the ground. We can probably do
something about that, although I'm not sure what; put the wind
turbines in forests, perhaps.
> > I note that the counter offered to Lidsky saying that you can /too/
> > make fission bomb material in some of these fusion reactors is that
> > you could tell. But what if an Evil Foreign Country builds its own
> > fusion reactor and does it deliberately?
>
> Proliferation is a minor point by comparison.
> It assumes that fusion reactors that produce power economically
> are possible.
> (on a ixed fusion/fission cycle)
> Running them uneconomically (if that will turn out to be possible)
> is a dumb way of producing weapons grade materials,
It's how fission plants operate, or used to - or was that your point?
The requirement is already met?
> I expect that fusion will be used after all:
> as an argument that we really have to put up
> with those awful fast breeder reactors.
> Sorry, we tried to avoid fast breeders, but fusion didn't work,
> and we really do need all that energy, so ...
Do we really /need/ it, or do we just want it?
Ernest Major
<51f6ef46-927e-49c9...@d19g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>> > I just want sustainable safe energy that doesn't offend the neerG
>> > lobby.
>>
>> Impossible. You do need Santa Claus to lobby for it.
>
>Hmm. What I meant to do there was to use or coin a shorter term for
>anti-Green; the lobby that apparently carefully studies ideas of
>ecologically concrned citizens, commentators, and groups, and takes
>care to oppose every last one of them.
The term Brown has been used.
>
>For instance, people protesting wind turbines as a danger to birds, who
>the rest of the time regard birds as either of zero interest or an
>outright nuisance, e.g. attacking crops.
>
But possibly isn't an exact match for your intended denotation.
--
alias Ernest Major
Vend
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com>
> Incidentally I heard the other day, on BBC Radio's "Science in Action"
> show I think, that there's new thinking on why birds fly into human
> contructions of all kinds and get hurt: they don't look where they're
> going. They assume that the sky is basically empty of obstacles and
> spend more time looking for things on the ground.
I think it depends on the species. I remember a little bird (don't
know what species was) that once got inside the house and, instead of
exiting from the open windows, kept flying up into the ceiling
injuring itself and leaving blood stains all over the place.
Pigeons, instead, seem quite able to navigate inside buildings.
Vend
> Fusion will never yield useful energy,
> unles someone comes up with a much better idea.
I'm not an expert, but my impression is that if commercial nuclear
fusion was possible with the technology that can be developed with
modern physics, it would have already been done in the last 60 years.
Unless there is some new major discovery in physics, or a major
technological development in some seemingly unrelated area, I doubt
that commercial nuclear fusion will ever become feasible.
jillery
IIUC correctly, his teeth, his entire jaw (upper and lower) and more
holes in his head than a diapsid.
> > In Ann's case, she needn't worry.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
jillery
> In article
> <099979e9-2086-4a6d-92ef-a0e2d15af...@27g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
>
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Radioactive jock straps, anyone?
>
> I had one of those radium powered glow in the dark watches as a kid.
> Wurst were the women who made them by painting the hands of the watch
> with radium containing pigment, because they put the bushes in their
> mouths to wet them.
>
> Not a good scene.
I suppose nobody can be blamed. But to face such a miserable deaths
over such a trivial cause still leaves me breathless.
> Then there was my summer job, where we exposed animals to varying
> amounts of radiation from a pulsed nuclear reactor to measure the
> effects.
Thank you for that image. I thought I had the worst summer job in
collecting semen from horses. I feel much better now :)
jillery
Absolutely. As you might know, the trigger mechanism for a nuclear
bomb involves a fission bomb. That's because it's really, really hard
to get atomic nuclei close enough for nuclear forces to overcome
electrostatic forces.
OTOH we don't know what we don't know. I would hate to be the one who
says something is impossible just before someone else discovers a way
to do it.
Vend
> OTOH we don't know what we don't know. I would hate to be the one who
> says something is impossible just before someone else discovers a way
> to do it.
Yes, one should always avoid expressing absolute judgments.
However, from what we know of history of technology, we can tell that
technological fields typically enjoy a period of rapid development and
then they reach technological maturity (stagnation), and progress
becomes slow, small and costly. Only some radical new development in
some other field can start another rapid development era in a
technological mature field.
It seems to me that controlled nuclear fusion already reached
technological maturity before yielding any useful application, hence
it is unlikely that it will have some major development on its own.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Yeah, you were kind of right the first time.
(Rich guy uses stupid patent medicine, becomes horribly deformed,
dies, tee hee. I guess it's mainly me finding this seriously
amusing. Am I a bad person? Yes. So I may as well enjoy it.)
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Well, there's ongoing progress in materials, and also computation.
The physical laws are pretty much those available to the Manhattan
Project, but they didn't have stuff like fullerenes. And there's a
Star Trek novel (I /know/) where an antimatter "warp drive" fails
(nearly) because an enemy agent erased the software from the computer
that keeps the reactor stable. Back in reality, the kind of fusion
reaction they're considering apparently requires careful management
with complicated calculation to keep it alive.
By the way, how is the alternate plan, of having a small capsule of
hydrogen that is blasted with an extraordinarily intense laser beam
and achieves fusion, playing out, these days? That laser is another
thing that they... didn't? have sixty years ago.
jillery
Mature? Do you mean something like steam-powered airplanes? If so, I
agree the few ways we know to extract fusion energy aren't likely to
work for making commercially practical powerplants. But perhaps there
is some yet-to-be-discovered quantum mechanism that allows atomic
nuclei to tunnel through their mutual electrostatic repulsion.
Perhaps dark matter, dark energy, or gravitons will help. I can't
even guess what we don't know.
J. J. Lodder
> On Apr 2, 10:52 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <099979e9-2086-4a6d-92ef-a0e2d15af...@27g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Radioactive jock straps, anyone?
> >
> > I had one of those radium powered glow in the dark watches as a kid.
> > Wurst were the women who made them by painting the hands of the watch
> > with radium containing pigment, because they put the bushes in their
> > mouths to wet them.
> >
> > Not a good scene.
>
>
> I suppose nobody can be blamed. But to face such a miserable deaths
> over such a trivial cause still leaves me breathless.
You suppose wrongly.
The dangers of radioactivity were discovered right at the start.
Becquerel himself suffered a nasty radiation burn,
(painful, slow to heal)
caused by carrying a piece of uranium ore around
in his waistcoat pocket,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> On Apr 3, 8:56 am, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 4:55 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >
> > > Fusion will never yield useful energy,
> > > unles someone comes up with a much better idea.
> >
> > I'm not an expert, but my impression is that if commercial nuclear
> > fusion was possible with the technology that can be developed with
> > modern physics, it would have already been done in the last 60 years.
> >
> > Unless there is some new major discovery in physics, or a major
> > technological development in some seemingly unrelated area, I doubt
> > that commercial nuclear fusion will ever become feasible.
>
>
> Absolutely. As you might know, the trigger mechanism for a nuclear
> bomb involves a fission bomb. That's because it's really, really hard
> to get atomic nuclei close enough for nuclear forces to overcome
> electrostatic forces.
Well, despite all its disadvantages,
the 'hole in the ground' fusion reactor
really does work.
> OTOH we don't know what we don't know. I would hate to be the one who
> says something is impossible just before someone else discovers a way
> to do it.
Why not invent a perpetuum mobile instead?
Jan
Vend
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 1:56 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 2, 4:55 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > > Fusion will never yield useful energy,
> > > unles someone comes up with a much better idea.
>
> > I'm not an expert, but my impression is that if commercial nuclear
> > fusion was possible with the technology that can be developed with
> > modern physics, it would have already been done in the last 60 years.
>
> > Unless there is some new major discovery in physics, or a major
> > technological development in some seemingly unrelated area, I doubt
> > that commercial nuclear fusion will ever become feasible.
>
> Well, there's ongoing progress in materials, and also computation.
> The physical laws are pretty much those available to the Manhattan
> Project, but they didn't have stuff like fullerenes. And there's a
> Star Trek novel (I /know/) where an antimatter "warp drive" fails
> (nearly) because an enemy agent erased the software from the computer
> that keeps the reactor stable. Back in reality, the kind of fusion
> reaction they're considering apparently requires careful management
> with complicated calculation to keep it alive.
But with all the modern accessory technologies, the efficiency record
was set in 1998, and it still far below the efficiency required to
achieve a energy return on investment greater than one. (And the
process lasted only a few seconds, if I understand correctly).
Since then, despite huge investments, better computers and better
materials, that record stands unbeaten.
It doesn't look like a rapidly developing field.
> By the way, how is the alternate plan, of having a small capsule of
> hydrogen that is blasted with an extraordinarily intense laser beam
> and achieves fusion, playing out, these days? That laser is another
> thing that they... didn't? have sixty years ago.
They have been working on it for 40 years.
Some critics claim it's actually more about running military-oriented
nuclear tests that are more discrete and environment-friendly than
blowing up nukes, than about producing energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ignition_facility#Criticisms
jillery
And Marie Curie died of aplastic anemia. So yes, it was clear from
the beginning that large amounts of radiation can seriously alter your
lifestyle. The more subtle question is how much exposure is harmful?
As illustrated in this thread, some people think ingestion of small
amounts of radioactive particles is an acceptable risk.
So, yes, those ladies should have known not to put the brushes in
their mouths. My point is nobody told them. Nobody had the
responsibility to tell them. Hopefully you aren't blaming the victims
here?
Inez
> On 3/26/11 10:40 AM, Randy C wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 4:36 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >> American conservative 'thinker' Ann Coulter
> >> has solved the problems with nuclear radiation for the Japanese,
> >> and for all of mankind.
>
> >> Radiation is good for you!
>
> >> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_83
> >> 7512.html>
>
> >> (an incredible number of) Scientists have known this for some time,
> >> but the media (librul of course)
> >> have hidden this fact from the public.
>
> >> than you would have believed possible,
>
> >> Jan
>
>
> > Imagine. Ann Coulter and O'Reilly talking about SCIENCE.
>
> > Maybe we could talk Ann into going into the Japanese reactors and
> > helping out...
>
> Hey, that would be like a scientist talking about religion and
> ridiculing Christianity. I mean that would never happen right?
>
> Oh wait...-
Does that mean you think it's great for scientists to ridicule
Christianity, or bad for Ann and Bill to talk about science?
jillery
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 8:56 am, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
> > > On Apr 2, 4:55 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > > > Fusion will never yield useful energy,
> > > > unles someone comes up with a much better idea.
>
> > > I'm not an expert, but my impression is that if commercial nuclear
> > > fusion was possible with the technology that can be developed with
> > > modern physics, it would have already been done in the last 60 years.
>
> > > Unless there is some new major discovery in physics, or a major
> > > technological development in some seemingly unrelated area, I doubt
> > > that commercial nuclear fusion will ever become feasible.
>
> > Absolutely. As you might know, the trigger mechanism for a nuclear
> > bomb involves a fission bomb. That's because it's really, really hard
> > to get atomic nuclei close enough for nuclear forces to overcome
> > electrostatic forces.
>
> Well, despite all its disadvantages,
> the 'hole in the ground' fusion reactor
> really does work.
If your intent is to make a big radioactive hole in the ground, then
yes, it works. ISTM such a thing has limited applications. YMMV.
> > OTOH we don't know what we don't know. I would hate to be the one who
> > says something is impossible just before someone else discovers a way
> > to do it.
>
> Why not invent a perpetuum mobile instead?
I would if I could but I can't so I won't. OTOH you suggest we know
everything that can be known. Admitting there are still things about
the Universe we can't yet imagine is not all the same as proposing
something that violates the known laws of physics.
Vend
Yes, that what we would consider some novel major scientific
discovery.
J. J. Lodder
> On Apr 4, 3:20 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 2, 10:52 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <099979e9-2086-4a6d-92ef-a0e2d15af...@27g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Radioactive jock straps, anyone?
> >
> > > > I had one of those radium powered glow in the dark watches as a kid.
> > > > Wurst were the women who made them by painting the hands of the watch
> > > > with radium containing pigment, because they put the bushes in their
> > > > mouths to wet them.
> >
> > > > Not a good scene.
> >
> > > I suppose nobody can be blamed. But to face such a miserable deaths
> > > over such a trivial cause still leaves me breathless.
> >
> > You suppose wrongly.
> > The dangers of radioactivity were discovered right at the start.
> > Becquerel himself suffered a nasty radiation burn,
> > (painful, slow to heal)
> > caused by carrying a piece of uranium ore around
> > in his waistcoat pocket,
>
> And Marie Curie died of aplastic anemia.
Which was not caused by radium ingestion.
Marie Curie was a careful worker after all,
who made sure to avoid radium ingestion.
> So yes, it was clear from
> the beginning that large amounts of radiation can seriously alter your
> lifestyle.
>
> The more subtle question is how much exposure is harmful?
> As illustrated in this thread, some people think ingestion of small
> amounts of radioactive particles is an acceptable risk.
>
> So, yes, those ladies should have known not to put the brushes in
> their mouths. My point is nobody told them.
So somebody -can- be blamed.
> Nobody had the responsibility to tell them.
Then someone higher up -can- be blamed.
(at least for negligence)
The dangers of radium were known
when those girls started painting dials.
> Hopefully you aren't blaming the victims here?
Where do you read that?
Jan
*Hemidactylus*
> Desertphile<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 06:40:10 -0700 (PDT), Randy C
>> <randy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 26, 4:36 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>>> American conservative 'thinker' Ann Coulter
>>>> has solved the problems with nuclear radiation for the Japanese,
>>>> and for all of mankind.
>>>>
>>>> Radiation is good for you!
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_83
>>>> 7512.html>
>>>>
>>>> (an incredible number of) Scientists have known this for some time,
>>>> but the media (librul of course)
>>>> have hidden this fact from the public.
>>>>
>>>> And for Bob: yes, they always come crazier
>>>> than you would have believed possible,
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>
>>> Ann Coulter was on the O'Reilly show talking about this.
>>>
>>> Imagine. Ann Coulter and O'Reilly talking about SCIENCE.
>>>
>>> Maybe we could talk Ann into going into the Japanese reactors and
>>> helping out...
>>
>
> And the Hulk too. She must be right,
It's Coulter's only chance against godless Ayn Rand when she rises from
the dead and starts shooting laser beams from her eyes.
--
*Hemidactylus*
Chief Pastor
United Church of Jesus Christ the Procrastinator
"He's suffering performance anxiety"
Jeffrey Turner
> On Mar 27, 10:35 pm, Jeffrey Turner<jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> On 3/26/2011 7:24 PM, Frank J wrote:
>>
>>> Adding to the breathtaking
>>> chutzpah is the fact that in 2006, when peddling her book "Godless,"
>>> and essentially admitting that the chapters on evolution were written
>>> for her by the DI, she called herself a science "idiot." That needs to
>>> be thown back in her face at every opportunity.
>>
>> She needn't have used the qualifier.
>
> If you mean because it's clear from her other words, I painfully have
> to disagree. I think it's only clear to the few % of us who know some
> science. Most people, across the political spectrum, fall for all
> sorts of snake oil pitches from those who are clueless (or pretend to
> be) about science, but claim to know what scientists don't know, or
> "won't tell you."
She's an idiot, not a "science 'idiot'."
--Jeff
--
Money to get power;
Power to protect money.
--Medici family motto
*Hemidactylus*
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:42:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Darwin123
> <drose...@yahoo.com>:>>> In article<1jyp84k.17kchhilw5r...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> American conservative 'thinker' Ann Coulter
>>>> has solved the problems with nuclear radiation for the Japanese,
>>>> and for all of mankind.
>>>
>>>> Radiation is good for you!
>>>
>>>> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_83
>>>> 7512.html>
>>>
>>>> (an incredible number of) Scientists have known this for some time,
>>>> but the media (librul of course)
>>>> have hidden this fact from the public.
>>>
>>>> And for Bob: yes, they always come crazier
>>>> than you would have believed possible,
>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>
>>> getting things right as it is of her getting them too far right :-).
>>>
>>> According to the EPA, 20,000+ Americans die each year as the result of exposure
>>> to radioactive randon gas.
>
>> Radon gas is all natural.
>
> Natural!") but they seemed to be out. Can it be ordered
> online? And can I also order Amanita mushrooms and foxglove
> there?
>
Many things are natural, but are they native? Diamondback rattlesnake
venom is natural and native to my area, therefore I should prefer it
over king cobra venom. Bottoms up.
OTOH artificial sweeteners are synthetic yet oleander tea is natural.
Which is most likely to kill you?
UV bulbs are synthetic and sunlight natural. A live oak tree limb
falling on your head is natural where a piece of roof tile blown by a
tornado is synthetic.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@hotmail.com>:
That won't actually hurt you (either one, AFAIK); snake
venom doesn't survive digestion. In fact, one source I read
a while back claimed that raw egg white, being a foreign
protein, would cause most of the same effects as hemotoxic
(rattlesnake, not cobra) venom if injected.
>OTOH artificial sweeteners are synthetic yet oleander tea is natural.
>Which is most likely to kill you?
;-)
I think that was my point...
>UV bulbs are synthetic and sunlight natural. A live oak tree limb
>falling on your head is natural where a piece of roof tile blown by a
>tornado is synthetic.
Depends; how about if it's a cedar shake roof? ;-)
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
jillery
And neither were Berquerel's burns. Another invented controversy.
> > So yes, it was clear from
> > the beginning that large amounts of radiation can seriously alter your
> > lifestyle.
>
> > The more subtle question is how much exposure is harmful?
> > As illustrated in this thread, some people think ingestion of small
> > amounts of radioactive particles is an acceptable risk.
>
> > So, yes, those ladies should have known not to put the brushes in
> > their mouths. My point is nobody told them.
> > Nobody had the responsibility to tell them.
> So somebody -can- be blamed.
You are using "blame" differently here than I did. Another invented
controversy.
> Then someone higher up -can- be blamed.
> (at least for negligence)
> The dangers of radium were known
> when those girls started painting dials.
>
> > Hopefully you aren't blaming the victims here?
>
> Where do you read that?
You certainly make no effort to identify who you want to blame. Just
another invented controversy.
If you have a useful point to make, then make it. Otherwise, wait for
my brother. He is much bigger and tastier than I am.
*Hemidactylus*
I was thinking ceramic tile.
J. J. Lodder
How do you mean invented?
The theory that Madame Curie died
from the effects of radium poisoning
was falsified when her bones were dug up.
She knew better than that. [1]
> > > So yes, it was clear from
> > > the beginning that large amounts of radiation can seriously alter your
> > > lifestyle.
> >
> > > The more subtle question is how much exposure is harmful?
> > > As illustrated in this thread, some people think ingestion of small
> > > amounts of radioactive particles is an acceptable risk.
> >
> > > So, yes, those ladies should have known not to put the brushes in
> > > their mouths. My point is nobody told them.
> > > Nobody had the responsibility to tell them.
>
>
> > So somebody -can- be blamed.
>
>
> You are using "blame" differently here than I did. Another invented
> controversy.
Why invented?
Those girls dying from radium poisoning
was a preventable tragedy,
with the knowledge available at the time.
> > Then someone higher up -can- be blamed.
> > (at least for negligence)
> > The dangers of radium were known
> > when those girls started painting dials.
> >
> > > Hopefully you aren't blaming the victims here?
> >
> > Where do you read that?
>
>
> You certainly make no effort to identify who you want to blame. Just
> another invented controversy. for the occasion
>
> If you have a useful point to make, then make it. Otherwise, wait for
> my brother. He is much bigger and tastier than I am.
Great solution to all problems.
Beware of my UZI, let him come with an armoured vehicle,
Jan
[1] The always brave French
had a lead coffin prepared for the occasion.
It wasn't needed.