A Clever Plan to Fix the Reactor Problem

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Private Party

unread,
Mar 17, 2011, 1:18:51 AM3/17/11
to
I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)

Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
and provided the wind is blowing the right way
the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
area in under a year rather than have this drag on
for years!

NO, I am not kidding.

--
Private Party
"Though lovers be lost love shall not;
And death shall have no dominion."


Mac

unread,
Mar 17, 2011, 2:00:58 AM3/17/11
to
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:18:51 -0400, "Private Party"
<usenetcontac...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>
>Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
>nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
>and provided the wind is blowing the right way
>the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
>having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
>People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
>They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
>area in under a year rather than have this drag on
>for years!
>
>NO, I am not kidding.

Deinstitutionalization has its price.

John Hatpin

unread,
Mar 17, 2011, 2:32:40 AM3/17/11
to
Private Party wrote:

> I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>
> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
> and provided the wind is blowing the right way
> the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
> having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
> People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
> They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
> area in under a year rather than have this drag on
> for years!
>
> NO, I am not kidding.

Fans of Blackadder will tell you it's supposed to be a *cunning* plan.

Oh, and it's supposed to be cunning, or even clever.
--
John Hatpin

Greg Goss

unread,
Mar 17, 2011, 3:04:24 AM3/17/11
to
"Private Party" <usenetcontac...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>
>Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
>nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
>and provided the wind is blowing the right way
>the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
>having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
>People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
>They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
>area in under a year rather than have this drag on
>for years!

I think that H had about a ton of uranium and that N had somewhat less
than that of more-poisonous plutonium. Power plants have hundreds of
tons of either Uranium or mixed Uranium / Plutonium.

Scale would be vastly different.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

Private Party

unread,
Mar 17, 2011, 3:27:36 AM3/17/11
to

Little Boy had about 64 kilograms of U-235 The rest was explosive
and tamper used for inertial containment. Fat Man had about 13.6
pounds of P-239 with the great majority of the weight being the
explosive lenses used to compress the physics package. I think
your estimate of power plant uranium/plutonium fuel is also
way off. The "Demon Core" was not much bigger than a softball.
If you want to read about a nasty accident, Google that. Two men
were killed by momentary criticality incidents of the same
physics package.

In any event, when you consider what is going to be involved
if they fail to calm this situation down, a NUDET would be
far easier to manage in the long run. If they keep up the way
they are going it might not be resolved in our lifetimes.

dilbert firestorm

unread,
Mar 17, 2011, 10:36:22 PM3/17/11
to
On 3/17/2011 12:18 AM, Private Party wrote:
> I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>
> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
> and provided the wind is blowing the right way
> the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
> having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
> People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
> They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
> area in under a year rather than have this drag on
> for years!
>
> NO, I am not kidding.
>
not kidding,huh?

I think you're a very good candidate to get fragged.

--
<---=««-Dilbert Firestorm-»»=--->
Zizzle that Fire - it's Zizzle Time !!!!!!!

Shawn Wilson

unread,
Mar 17, 2011, 10:49:38 PM3/17/11
to
On Mar 16, 10:18 pm, "Private Party" <usenetcontact2011-

priv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>
> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
> and provided the wind is blowing the right way
> the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
> having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
> People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
> They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
> area in under a year rather than have this drag on
> for years!
>
> NO, I am not kidding.


But you don't know about nuclear power. No, detonating a nuclear
weapon will not cause radioactive materials in the vicinity to go
critical.

danny burstein

unread,
Mar 17, 2011, 10:57:46 PM3/17/11
to

>But you don't know about nuclear power. No, detonating a nuclear
>weapon will not cause radioactive materials in the vicinity to go
>critical.

I wouldn't be quite so certain. If you irradiate
the uranium isotopes sufficiently to get lots
of plutonium...

I'd have to pull out some envelopes and scribble
enough figures to get some eyebrows raised
in my direction.

(I doubt it would be an issue, but I'm not quite
so quick to say it can't possibly be).

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

Zbicyclist

unread,
Mar 17, 2011, 11:37:11 PM3/17/11
to
On Mar 17, 12:18 am, "Private Party" <usenetcontact2011-

Heck, why don't we just send the nuclear plant an eviction notice? Or
a cease-and-desist order?

Shawn Wilson

unread,
Mar 17, 2011, 11:41:27 PM3/17/11
to
On Mar 17, 7:57 pm, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:

> >But you don't know about nuclear power.  No, detonating a nuclear
> >weapon will not cause radioactive materials in the vicinity to go
> >critical.
>
> I wouldn't be quite so certain. If you irradiate
> the uranium isotopes sufficiently to get lots
> of plutonium...


Detonate a nuke on it and what you get is uranium gas (well, plasma).
Intentionally designed nukes sometimes fail to go off properly, you
can't get one to go BANG! casually. Uranuium is not gunpowder. It
will not detonate be mere 'example'.

danny burstein

unread,
Mar 17, 2011, 11:44:54 PM3/17/11
to
In <c9bc72f5-6f10-4461...@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> writes:
[snippeth]

>> I wouldn't be quite so certain. If you irradiate
>> the uranium isotopes sufficiently to get lots
>> of plutonium...

>Detonate a nuke on it and what you get is uranium gas (well, plasma).

Neutrons travel much faster than the shock wave...

>Intentionally designed nukes sometimes fail to go off properly, you
>can't get one to go BANG! casually. Uranuium is not gunpowder. It
>will not detonate be mere 'example'.

Uranium + neutrons => plutonium. (I'll leave the isotopes
for the student). A lump of plutonium can undergo criticiality.

I doubt it's a real possibility, but as I said before I'd
have to sketch out some calculations that would get people
very interested in me...

>>
>> I'd have to pull out some envelopes and scribble
>> enough figures to get some eyebrows raised
>> in my direction.
>>
>> (I doubt it would be an issue, but I'm not quite
>> so quick to say it can't possibly be).
>>
>> --
>> _____________________________________________________
>> Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key

>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0dan...@panix.com

Private Party

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 12:48:32 AM3/18/11
to

I never said it would make them go critical. It would vaporize the
whole mess and disperse the problem into the upper atmosphere.
But I guess it is a bad idea. We can see how the forthright and
competant Japanese are quickly and efficiently dealing with the
situation.

Private Party

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 12:50:41 AM3/18/11
to
Zbicyclist wrote:
> On Mar 17, 12:18 am, "Private Party" <usenetcontact2011-
> priv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>>
>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
>> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
>> and provided the wind is blowing the right way
>> the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
>> having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
>> People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
>> They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
>> area in under a year rather than have this drag on
>> for years!
>>
>> NO, I am not kidding.
>
> Heck, why don't we just send the nuclear plant an eviction notice? Or
> a cease-and-desist order?

Well yeah! Our stern admonitions have stopped Gaddafi!

Bob

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 1:05:49 AM3/18/11
to
On Mar 17, 1:18 am, "Private Party" <usenetcontact2011-
priv...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once

You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.

Private Party

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 1:25:06 AM3/18/11
to

You know, I bet you might be right.

Greg Goss

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 2:48:57 AM3/18/11
to
danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:

>Neutrons travel much faster than the shock wave...

... and ...

>Uranium + neutrons => plutonium. (I'll leave the isotopes
>for the student). A lump of plutonium can undergo criticiality.

Doesn't it turn into something else that takes several days to turn
into plutonium? So the conversion doesn't "help" the blast being
examined.

Greg Goss

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 2:50:05 AM3/18/11
to
Bob <rob...@bestweb.net> wrote:

I think that this argument would have been helpved if PP had actually
provided a verb in that sentence. Different people are inserting
different implied verbs, with differing resulting arguments.

Snidely

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 2:54:41 AM3/18/11
to
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> scribbled something like ...

Which sentence? "Take out" is a verb, as is "fission". And that's 2
sentences.

/dps

Greg Goss

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 3:22:22 AM3/18/11
to
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

Withdrawn. I was reading it wrong. The verb is present, but the
statement is now wrong.

Rick B.

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 8:01:30 AM3/18/11
to
Bob <rob...@bestweb.net> wrote in news:f050f775-ae13-4091-8edf-b36516dac356
@f2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:

I think I'll change my name to Max Neutron.

art...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 8:55:36 AM3/18/11
to

Back when I was in college, there was an earthquake awareness day.
Some people were passing around a petition to ban earthquakes.
Tragically, nobody took them seriously.

Lee Ayrton

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 10:29:40 AM3/18/11
to

What will your superpower be?

Lee Ayrton

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 10:31:37 AM3/18/11
to

No, it is a bad idea in the same way that dispersing a pot of flaming fry
oil evenly over the kitchen floor is a bad idea.

Peter Boulding

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 10:43:57 AM3/18/11
to
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:29:40 +0000 (UTC), Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.nul>
wrote in <ilvq8k$ac5$4...@reader1.panix.com>:

>>>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical nuclear strike.
>>>> All the fissionables fission at once
>>>
>>> You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
>>> Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.
>>
>> I think I'll change my name to Max Neutron.
>
>What will your superpower be?

The ability to produce jerky freeze-frame wit when viewed through an
electron microscope.

--
Regards, Peter Boulding
pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal Music and Images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/ and
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240&content=music

Rick B.

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 11:08:22 AM3/18/11
to
Peter Boulding <pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote in
news:4pr6o6tu8p5g7gkgk...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:29:40 +0000 (UTC), Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.nul>
> wrote in <ilvq8k$ac5$4...@reader1.panix.com>:
>
>>>>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical nuclear strike.
>>>>> All the fissionables fission at once
>>>>
>>>> You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
>>>> Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.
>>>
>>> I think I'll change my name to Max Neutron.
>>
>>What will your superpower be?
>
> The ability to produce jerky freeze-frame wit when viewed through an
> electron microscope.

As opposed to my current ability to produce jerky wit on Usenet.

Peter Boulding

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 11:23:42 AM3/18/11
to
On 18 Mar 2011 15:08:22 GMT, "Rick B." <deep...@sprynet.com.aq> wrote in
<Xns9EAC7145F...@130.133.4.11>:

>>>>>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical nuclear strike.
>>>>>> All the fissionables fission at once
>>>>>
>>>>> You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
>>>>> Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.
>>>>
>>>> I think I'll change my name to Max Neutron.
>>>
>>>What will your superpower be?
>>
>> The ability to produce jerky freeze-frame wit when viewed through an
>> electron microscope.
>
>As opposed to my current ability to produce jerky wit on Usenet.

Jerk.

art...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 11:26:39 AM3/18/11
to
On Mar 18, 10:43 am, Peter Boulding <pjbne...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:29:40 +0000 (UTC), Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.nul>
> wrote in <ilvq8k$ac...@reader1.panix.com>:

>
> >>>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical nuclear strike.
> >>>> All the fissionables fission at once
>
> >>> You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
> >>> Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.
>
> >> I think I'll change my name to Max Neutron.
>
> >What will your superpower be?
>
> The ability to produce jerky freeze-frame wit when viewed through an
> electron microscope.

That's quite SEM superpower you got there.

Peter Ward

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 1:55:46 PM3/18/11
to
Peter Boulding says...

>
> On 18 Mar 2011 15:08:22 GMT, "Rick B." <deep...@sprynet.com.aq> wrote in
> <Xns9EAC7145F...@130.133.4.11>:
>
> >>>>>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical nuclear strike.
> >>>>>> All the fissionables fission at once
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
> >>>>> Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think I'll change my name to Max Neutron.
> >>>
> >>>What will your superpower be?
> >>
> >> The ability to produce jerky freeze-frame wit when viewed through an
> >> electron microscope.
> >
> >As opposed to my current ability to produce jerky wit on Usenet.
>
> Jerk.

Mmmmm, chicken!

--

Peter, from outside the asylum

I'm an alien
email: usenet at peterward dot adsl24 dot co dot uk
http://blowinsmoke.wordpress.com/
Home is where the cat is.
- Greg Goss

John Hatpin

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 5:16:14 PM3/18/11
to
Rick B. wrote:

The Most Dangerous Man in the Universe?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n3TsWRpLrk
--
John Hatpin

Charles Wm. Dimmick

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 6:40:30 PM3/18/11
to
Well, since neutrons have mass but no charge, his superpower is likely
to be inertia.

Charles

Bill Turlock

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 8:00:51 PM3/18/11
to


> as is "fission".

not in my dic. I'd use "fiss".

Peter Boulding

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 7:16:43 PM3/18/11
to
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:40:30 -0400, "Charles Wm. Dimmick"
<cdim...@snet.net> wrote in <im0n0u$vi1$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:

>Well, since neutrons have mass but no charge, his superpower is likely
>to be inertia.

For the Tammy Wynette earworm, no charge.

Boron Elgar

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 7:39:52 PM3/18/11
to
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:16:43 +0000, Peter Boulding
<pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:40:30 -0400, "Charles Wm. Dimmick"
><cdim...@snet.net> wrote in <im0n0u$vi1$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>>Well, since neutrons have mass but no charge, his superpower is likely
>>to be inertia.
>
>For the Tammy Wynette earworm, no charge.


Why did I read that as Tranny Wynette?

Boron

Paul Madarasz

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 8:43:38 PM3/18/11
to
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:00:51 -0800, Bill Turlock <"Bill Turlock
"@sonnnic.invalid> wrote, perhaps among other things:

Hence, "little fission" = "fizzle"

Paul Madarasz

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 8:44:24 PM3/18/11
to
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:29:40 +0000 (UTC), Lee Ayrton
<lay...@panix.nul> wrote, perhaps among other things:

I was thinking about buying his first album.

Paul Madarasz

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 8:46:22 PM3/18/11
to
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:39:52 -0400, Boron Elgar
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote, perhaps among other things:

Pre-op country singers aren't exactly a dime a dozen.

D.F. Manno

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 11:15:13 PM3/18/11
to
In article <ils5jn$7oj$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
"Private Party" <usenetcontac...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>

> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once

> and provided the wind is blowing the right way
> the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
> having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
> People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
> They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
> area in under a year rather than have this drag on
> for years!
>
> NO, I am not kidding.

"There is always an easy solution to every human problem - neat,
plausible, and wrong."

--
D.F. Manno
dfm...@mail.com

D.F. Manno

unread,
Mar 18, 2011, 11:17:24 PM3/18/11
to
In article
<7456a81a-a0fb-44f4...@s18g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But you don't know about nuclear power.

And you're some kind of nuclear physicist?

--
D.F. Manno
dfm...@mail.com

Mac

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 2:14:38 AM3/19/11
to
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:17:24 -0400, "D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com>
wrote:

>In article
><7456a81a-a0fb-44f4...@s18g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But you don't know about nuclear power.
>
>And you're some kind of nuclear physicist?

There's no end of subjects you can gain mastery of by not having a
degree in them.

Bill Turlock

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 3:41:58 AM3/19/11
to

essen/fessen

art...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 8:25:45 AM3/19/11
to
On Mar 18, 7:39 pm, Boron Elgar <boron_el...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:16:43 +0000, Peter Boulding
>
> <pjbne...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:40:30 -0400, "Charles Wm. Dimmick"
> ><cdimm...@snet.net> wrote in <im0n0u$vi...@news.eternal-september.org>:

>
> >>Well, since neutrons have mass but no charge, his superpower is likely
> >>to be inertia.
>
> >For the Tammy Wynette earworm, no charge.
>
> Why did I read that as Tranny Wynette?
>
> Boron

Does she (he?) cover "A Boy Named Sue"?

Paul Madarasz

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 12:25:47 PM3/19/11
to
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:41:58 -0800, Bill Turlock <"Bill Turlock

fressen, no?

Shawn Wilson

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 2:38:12 PM3/19/11
to
On Mar 17, 8:44 pm, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:

> >> I wouldn't be quite so certain. If you irradiate
> >> the uranium isotopes sufficiently to get lots
> >> of plutonium...
> >Detonate a nuke on it and what you get is uranium gas (well, plasma).
>
> Neutrons travel much faster than the shock wave...

At yet slower than gamma rays. Uranium plasma.


> >Intentionally designed nukes sometimes fail to go off properly, you
> >can't get one to go BANG! casually.  Uranuium is not gunpowder.  It
> >will not detonate be mere 'example'.
>
> Uranium + neutrons => plutonium. (I'll leave the isotopes
> for the student). A lump of plutonium can undergo criticiality.


What we are dealing with HERE is a lump of URANIUM.


> I doubt it's a real possibility, but as I said before I'd
> have to sketch out some calculations that would get people
> very interested in me...

No one would care. it's a homework problem in physics.

Shawn Wilson

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 2:39:31 PM3/19/11
to
On Mar 18, 5:55 am, "art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Back when I was in college, there was an earthquake awareness day.
> Some people were passing around a petition to ban earthquakes.
> Tragically,  nobody took them seriously.


People STILL sign petitions to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide though...

Shawn Wilson

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 2:40:26 PM3/19/11
to
On Mar 18, 8:17 pm, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:

> > But you don't know about nuclear power.
>
> And you're some kind of nuclear physicist?


Compared to YOU I am the god of all knowledge...

Boron Elgar

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 3:05:52 PM3/19/11
to
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:17:24 -0400, "D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com>
wrote:

>In article

><7456a81a-a0fb-44f4...@s18g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But you don't know about nuclear power.
>
>And you're some kind of nuclear physicist?

I bet he knows as much about nuclear physics as he does about econ.

art...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 3:53:01 PM3/19/11
to

Water you talking about?

Charles Bishop

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 4:58:05 PM3/19/11
to
In article <im0n0u$vi1$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, "Charles Wm.
Dimmick" <cdim...@snet.net> wrote:

Or fishin'

Charles

Tim Wright

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 3:59:11 PM3/19/11
to

That's just damp foolish.

--

Tim W

art...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 4:02:01 PM3/19/11
to

Yeah, but I am the God of Hellfire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOErZuzZpS8

Much cooler
And his name is Arthur

Mac

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 4:20:57 PM3/19/11
to

The sad thing is that you think that would be an insult.

Nick Spalding

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 5:15:40 PM3/19/11
to
Charles Bishop wrote, in
<ctbishop-190...@global-66-81-246-18.dialup.o1.com>
on Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:58:05 -0800:

Welcome back!
--
Nick Spalding

Greg Goss

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 7:40:14 PM3/19/11
to
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Uranium + neutrons => plutonium. (I'll leave the isotopes
>> for the student). A lump of plutonium can undergo criticiality.
>
>
>What we are dealing with HERE is a lump of URANIUM.

Reactors #3 and #4 use MOX (Mixed Oxide) fuel. The reprocessing
spikes the "spent" Uranium with Plutonium, so it acts like the fresh
fuel once acted. I have no idea what the proportions are here. The
example in wikipedia is 7% Pu / 93% U.

The Pu is far more poisonous if it's scattered.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

Greg Goss

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 7:42:45 PM3/19/11
to
"art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:

A lamp I had as a kid (from a "junk box" from an auction) was
inscribed (through the reflector's paint with nail or something) "I am
the god of hellfire and I bring you popcorn."

I always wondered if it was a quote from somewhere. Perhaps only 95%
of it was.

groo

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 7:43:17 PM3/19/11
to
ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:

Cahlres? Where you been, boy?

--
"Pudding can't fill the emptiness inside me... but it'll help!" - Captain
Hank Murphy, Sealab 2021

Lee Ayrton

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 9:13:46 PM3/19/11
to

That would be my guess as well, but S is well off on a toot right now.

Speaking of econ, the other day in the stock market panic(s) there was
some TeeVee commentary about market indices falling through "support"
prices. It was apparent to me that they were talking about certain
patterns in the tea leaves and coloring of the chicken's entrails and a
sheep at the back of the herd that might have muttered "wolf".



Boron Elgar

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 9:19:19 PM3/19/11
to

I like to play a bit with the stock market. I also like to play slots
in Vegas.

Boron

art...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 9:31:53 PM3/19/11
to
On Mar 19, 7:40 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> The Pu is far more poisonous if it's scattered.

And so is the poo.

Greg Goss

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 10:13:34 PM3/19/11
to
Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.nul> wrote:

>Speaking of econ, the other day in the stock market panic(s) there was
>some TeeVee commentary about market indices falling through "support"
>prices. It was apparent to me that they were talking about certain
>patterns in the tea leaves and coloring of the chicken's entrails and a
>sheep at the back of the herd that might have muttered "wolf".

There are three kinds of investors. "Market breadth investors" invest
in the broadest possible index -- Shawn supports this philosophy.
"Modern Portfolio Theory" is a variant of this that Shawn attacked,
but I'm not into holding that argument at this time.

The other two kinds of investors are the "fundies" and the
"technicians". Fundamental investors look at the company in depth to
decide whether or not it's worth more to them than the general market,
considering that stock's perceived riskiness.

And "technical analysis" fans believe that any actual information
relevant to companies is absorbed by the market faster than you can
react, so the only thing available to you is planning based on the
overall mood of the market towards a particular stock. This mood is
driven by a balancing of the fear/greed gradient and OTHER people
watching the same entrails you're watching. If everyone thinks a
stock will go up, everyone buys it and it DOES go up. If everyone
thinks a stock is going to crash, everyone gets out and it DOES crash.

"Support" is a line, either horizontal, or angled (depending on which
theory of entrails you're subscribing to) that the stock price
repeatedly "bounces" off. If everyone thinks that $45 is a good price
for a stock, then they all jump in as it approaches $45.10, driving
the price back up again. If they all think that $52 is pretty
expensive for the same stock, they all bail out as it rises through
$51.80. The line along the "getting pretty expensive" boundary is
called "resistance", and the line along "getting pretty cheap" is
called support.

If your stock price line "breaks [through] support", then "pretty
cheap" isn't cheap enough. It's now out-of-pattern and unpredictable,
and people want it to be quite a bit cheaper before they'll buy back
in, to reward them for what they percieve as the greater risk. The
old support line now becomes the new resistance line. Instead of
buying as the price approaches this line from above, they now sell as
it approaches this line from below.

I use fundamentals to decide what stock I want to buy, but often play
with the simpler technical chicken guts to decide WHEN to buy or sell
within a couple-of-week margin.

There are wheels within wheels in the Technical analysis crowd. New
support and resistance ranges are related to previous ranges by the
golden mean ("Fibonacci") ratio in ways I've never internalized.
Descending, ascending and neutral wedges have particular meanings.
The "neckline" of a particular shape of triple peak "head and
shoulders" shape is a particularly disastrous support line to break
through. Unless it's upside down -- Then it's a sign of runaway
money.

Then there are the oriental technicals "Candlestick analysis". I've
never really looked at those patterns. I suspect that they're the
same thing. If everyone thinks a stock is about to go up, they
reinforce the belief.

I suspect that Shawn will tell you to translate this entire oversized
post as "Ooga-booga". I'm going to smile sweetly and refuse to argue
with him. grin.

Bill Turlock

unread,
Mar 20, 2011, 12:33:10 AM3/20/11
to
Greg Goss wrote:
>
> Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.nul> wrote:
>
> >Speaking of econ, the other day in the stock market panic(s) there was
> >some TeeVee commentary about market indices falling through "support"
> >prices. It was apparent to me that they were talking about certain
> >patterns in the tea leaves and coloring of the chicken's entrails and a
> >sheep at the back of the herd that might have muttered "wolf".

..............


> I suspect that Shawn will tell you to translate this entire oversized
> post as "Ooga-booga". I'm going to smile sweetly and refuse to argue
> with him. grin.


There's the mark of a wise man!

Jared

unread,
Mar 19, 2011, 11:53:37 PM3/19/11
to
On Mar 19, 10:13 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
[...]

> I suspect that Shawn will tell you to translate this entire oversized
> post as "Ooga-booga".  I'm going to smile sweetly and refuse to argue
> with him.  grin.

One may ask, who is the "Warren Buffett" of technical analysis?

Greg Goss

unread,
Mar 20, 2011, 12:19:24 AM3/20/11
to
Jared <jare...@gmail.com> wrote:

The founder of technical analysis was Charles Dow, the founder of the
Wall St. Journal. He invented the idea of stock indexes so as to have
numbers to plug into his formulas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Theory

Ralph Elliott was the founder of Elliott Wave Theory. If Dow theory
is goat entrails, then Elliott Wave is sheep entrails. The two
theories don't intersect much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_wave_principle

I'm not sure who the top guy for the chicken entrails version that I
(occasionally) use would be. One of the louder self-proud guys is Jim
Sinclair, a gold mine owner currently living in Tanzania. He doesn't
seem to have a wikipedia page. I thought everyone but me had one.
http://jsmineset.com/ is his website / blog. He doesn't seem to have
anything particularly "technical" up there at the moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_analysis

Lee Ayrton

unread,
Mar 20, 2011, 12:19:44 AM3/20/11
to

Don't you just love it when people who know fuck-all offer an absolute
opinion? It always reminds me of those who insist that had they'd been
there they would have dispatched that shooter, what hey.

Lee Ayrton

unread,
Mar 20, 2011, 12:20:06 AM3/20/11
to

I stepped in some. Yesterday.