dpb wrote:


That there should be efforts to mitigate former sites is good, but to
caste current individuals as scapegoats for stuff done before they
were even born is not productive.

That said, yes, there are some who aren't doing all they might, but
that too is a fairly widespread trait in human history. Overall, if
one compares progress in the US to the developing nations and places
such as E Europe or the former Soviet Union, we look pretty darn good.

I was once offered an investment opportunity: a sand pit.

Forget about selling the sand, the deal was a tax dodge.

As the sand was removed, you were depleting an asset and got to take a
deduction. At some point, the sand pit would be empty. You're left with a
honkin' big hole in the ground.

Now you charge people to dump stuff (trees, concrete, etc.). The hole now is
your asset, and as it fills, you get another asset-reduction write-off.

When the hole gets full, you cover the mess with topsoil and build low-cost
housing.

Anyway, with regard to SuperFund sites, why couldn't they just cover 'em up
and build housing for the poor? Lest you think that's weird, Italy covers
contaminated sites with rubber sheeting, then soil, and turns the results
into parks.

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Do you actually know *anything* about ANWR?
Seems more than you do.

Oh, when is that going to be demonstrated?

Errr, Kurt... we're still waiting for a demonstration
that you know anything at all about this.

Or did you just notice you'd been discussing the back
of my hand with me?


Err. I sent stuff with the original posting about various
things. Might want to go back and look for the post.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

The point is that in some cities, mass transportation isn't foisted on
people. They choose to use it because the physical realities of
trying to drive into those cities make it insane to consider using a
car on a daily basis. People who use the word "foisted" must be
possessed by some sort of childish cowboy independence mentality. If
the light rail idea had become a reality here in my county, nobody
would've been forced to use it.

Yeah, but you (and millions of others) are forced to PAY for it.

Fares never come close to the operating budget.

Jim Redelfs wrote:
You'll recall my diatribe excepted those living in the relative high
density areas I called "the rust belt". Given the age of such
cities, there is no other, viable transportation than so-called
"mass" transit. Just look at the hoards and throngs of people
walking back to New Jersey from New York after the twin towers fell.

I'm referring mostly to urban areas like Minneapolis, for example.
The design of the bridge to replace the one that fell (apparently)
includes accommodation for light rail. It sounds good but too few
will use it. Those areas WEST of the Mississippi river that have
built light rail (for example) have discovered that the system is
woefully underused. But that doesn't shut 'em down: Those that
don't and/or never will use the system pay for it because light rail
is A Good Ideatm. This is as unfair to ME as is the gas
consumption of my Silverado to "them". Touché.

I did see a light rail system that worked.

A department store in Ft Worth built a monsterous parking lot, a couple of
miles from downtown, then built a trolley from the lot, along the banks of
the river, through an abandoned storm sewer, right to the bargain basement
of the store. You could park for free and ride the trolley for free. You
just had to pass all the sale items to get to Main Street.

Thousands and thousands every day. No cost to the city, no cost to the
taxpayers, no cost to the riders.

Worked swell.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

On the contrary. I think about eight people on the planet would go
for an 8% increase in price to achieve these goals. But carry on.


Why do people recycle containers & paper when it would be so much
easier to just throw the stuff into the regular trash?

Because they are easily fooled into joining a mass-movement; doing so gives
meaning and purpose to their dismal lives.

By any objective standard, individual recycling is an energy and resource
waster. The piddly amount of recyclable materials collected in community
projects never comes close to the cost of running the program.

But recycling makes a lot of people feel good. I suspect those who drive ten
miles to "properly" dispose of three glass jars experience something akin to
an orgasm.

HeyBub wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


It's too late. The 54% spoke twice, and put one of their own in the
White House.


In spite of an occassional setback, we will prevail. It's the "Roe Effect."

For those that don't know, the "Roe Effect" is the result of legalizing
abortion.

It is estimated that, in 1982, there were 50,000 abortions in Florida. Those
that were not born in 1982 would have been eligible to vote in 2000. Bush
won Florida, and with it the presidency, by 500-odd votes.

A more detailed explanation he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_effect

The liberals are destroying their seed corn.

Regretable, but we conservatives always try to look on the bright side.


That sounds bogus to me. I doubt legalizing abortion increased the
number of abortions by much; it probably had a greater effect by
saving the lives of girls who otherwise would have died during illegal
abortions. Thus, the numbers of those favoring the policy would
INCREASE over time.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

wrote:

On Dec 25, 8:22 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Dec 24, 10:08 pm, CJT wrote:






Pete C. wrote:

HeyBub wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

I think now is not likely. Even if we magically licensed a nuke
plant tomorrow, it would still take 2-3 years to build it and bring it
online. We would probably be hard pressed to take a current plant off
line because of growth in demand in the interim. And that 2-3 year
thing ain't gonna happen since we aren't going to magically license
nuke plants any time soon. Heck just the enviornmental impact
statement can take a year or so to put together, let alone argue.

A YEAR? Think FIVE YEARS and ten years to build it.

A few years ago a gas-fired plant was proposed in my area. It would have
a
3/4 mile long discharge canal connecting the cooling basin to the bay.

The environmentalists went nuts. "THERMAL POLLUTION" they cried. It
would
kill all the marine life from Houston south to Mexico and 100 miles into
the
Gulf! Four years of to-ing and fro-ing before construction began.

Plant eventually got built. Now the discharge canal is lined shoulder to
shoulder with fishermen. Seems as if the marine critters that like
warmer
water (mostly shrimp) head for the canal. The fish who like to eat
shrimp
follow. Creatures who don't like warm water move away - to Canada, I
guess.

That points out one of the major issues with our broken legal system -
the fact that the eco-loons making the false claims and filing the
frivolous lawsuits are never held liable for the harm they cause. If
they were held liable for their proven false claims their plague would
soon end and the true sane environmentalists would regain some
credibility.

In case you didn't notice, the corporate loons are never held
accountable for damage THEY do based on falsehoods about all
the good and minimal harm their pet projects will do. Just look
at how many SuperFund sites there are. Some of the companies
manage to just walk away. Others go bankrupt (even as the people
in charge start another company to repeat the cycle).

--

Never being held accountable and sometimes manage to just walk away
are two very different things. In superfund cases, the EPA in most
cases has extracted money from the companies responsible. They do it
when it's clear who is responsible, they are in business and have
assets. The problem is with many of these superfund sites, eg dump
sites, the dumping had been going on for decades and many of the
companies involved no longer exist. In other cases, the legal system
has extracted huge amounts from corporations for the mistakes they
made. John Mansville wound up bankrupt after paying out claims for
asbestos. The tobacco companies paid billions to settle their
claims. The point Pete C made about environmental groups generally
being able to make false claims, use the legal system to block
projects and then walking away with no consequences is a valid one.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

GE has never fulfilled its agreement to clean up the mess it made of the
Hudson, and Jack Welch is not in prison. I will give you no further
information about the issue. You know how to research it. Good luck.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



You have an amazing nack for skipping the entire point of a discussion
thread and coming up with a reply that adds nothing. We all know a
lot of companies have been held responsible for their actions and have
paid out huge sums for cleanup, damages, etc. And we know some, in
one way or another, have not.

Now, if you want to refute the thread, then address Pete C's comments
and provide us with all the examples where environmental groups that
level false allegations, block projects, cause companies and society
costs through delays or projects never get built at all are ever held
responsible and made to pay damages.

I suggest that the two are similar in magnitude. After all, there
haven't been all that many projects blocked -- just delayed. But the
corporate follies will be with us for decades in many cases.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Pete C. wrote:

CJT wrote:

Pete C. wrote:

HeyBub wrote:


Kurt Ullman wrote:


I think now is not likely. Even if we magically licensed a nuke
plant tomorrow, it would still take 2-3 years to build it and bring it
online. We would probably be hard pressed to take a current plant off
line because of growth in demand in the interim. And that 2-3 year
thing ain't gonna happen since we aren't going to magically license
nuke plants any time soon. Heck just the enviornmental impact
statement can take a year or so to put together, let alone argue.

A YEAR? Think FIVE YEARS and ten years to build it.

A few years ago a gas-fired plant was proposed in my area. It would have a
3/4 mile long discharge canal connecting the cooling basin to the bay.

The environmentalists went nuts. "THERMAL POLLUTION" they cried. It would
kill all the marine life from Houston south to Mexico and 100 miles into the
Gulf! Four years of to-ing and fro-ing before construction began.

Plant eventually got built. Now the discharge canal is lined shoulder to
shoulder with fishermen. Seems as if the marine critters that like warmer
water (mostly shrimp) head for the canal. The fish who like to eat shrimp
follow. Creatures who don't like warm water move away - to Canada, I guess.


That points out one of the major issues with our broken legal system -
the fact that the eco-loons making the false claims and filing the
frivolous lawsuits are never held liable for the harm they cause. If
they were held liable for their proven false claims their plague would
soon end and the true sane environmentalists would regain some
credibility.

In case you didn't notice, the corporate loons are never held
accountable for damage THEY do based on falsehoods about all
the good and minimal harm their pet projects will do. Just look
at how many SuperFund sites there are. Some of the companies
manage to just walk away. Others go bankrupt (even as the people
in charge start another company to repeat the cycle).


When was the last super fund site created (not designated)? That is old
news and has little to do with current practices. Rather like the anti
ANWR drilling loon insist drilling would destroy ANWR while the reality
is that a few small sites along the perimeter using current directional
drilling technology could tap ANWR with essentially no impact. Same with
the anti logging loons where the old clear cut mess went away long ago
and we now have selective helicopter logging with no logging roads at
all.

In other words, what you call "the loons" have had a worthwhile effect.

Do you suppose directional drilling would be chosen ABSENT opposition?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

HeyBub wrote:

Anyway, with regard to SuperFund sites, why couldn't they just cover 'em up
and build housing for the poor? Lest you think that's weird, Italy covers
contaminated sites with rubber sheeting, then soil, and turns the results
into parks.

Converting superfund sites into low income housing would be
discriminatory. You have to convert them into gated golf communities for
the rich instead so as not to discriminate...

dpb wrote:

CJT wrote:
...

In case you didn't notice, the corporate loons are never held
accountable for damage THEY do based on falsehoods about all
the good and minimal harm their pet projects will do. Just look
at how many SuperFund sites there are. Some of the companies
manage to just walk away. Others go bankrupt (even as the people
in charge start another company to repeat the cycle).


The first statement is certainly patently false as a blanket generality,
others note many that have paid large damages, even to the point of
driving them into bankruptcy.

I'll only add that many (and I'd venture "most" but it would take too
much time to confirm the statistics) of the Superfund sites are from
locations that go back in some cases as much as 100 years earlier to
initial site usage for industrial use when both attitudes and knowledge
were grossly different than today. At the time, those were standard and
common practices and virtually all were within compliance of applicable
law and regulations _OF_THE_TIME. That is significant.

That there should be efforts to mitigate former sites is good, but to
caste current individuals as scapegoats for stuff done before they were
even born is not productive.

That said, yes, there are some who aren't doing all they might, but that
too is a fairly widespread trait in human history. Overall, if one
compares progress in the US to the developing nations and places such as
E Europe or the former Soviet Union, we look pretty darn good.

--


.... at least in part because of the efforts of those labeled "loons"
earlier in this thread.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


It's too late. The 54% spoke twice, and put one of their own in the
White House.

In spite of an occassional setback, we will prevail. It's the "Roe
Effect."

For those that don't know, the "Roe Effect" is the result of legalizing
abortion.

It is estimated that, in 1982, there were 50,000 abortions in Florida.
Those that were not born in 1982 would have been eligible to vote in 2000.
Bush won Florida, and with it the presidency, by 500-odd votes.

A more detailed explanation he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_effect

The liberals are destroying their seed corn.

Regretable, but we conservatives always try to look on the bright side.



It all balances out. The members of the 54% kill themselves off through
stupidity.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Jim Redelfs wrote in
:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Physically building the bomb itself isn't very complicated.

Please issue a "spew warning" before posting such humor.

If not the most ignorant statement I've read in a *LONG* time, it is
certainly among the funniest.

I'm not saying we should eliminate nuclear power generation, but if
you believe it's a good idea

It is. You said so yourself.

then logically, you forfeit the right to act surprised or annoyed
when countries like Iran start rattling their swords.

That's a lot of NONSENSE,as Iran signed the NPT,agreeing to monitoring of
their entire nuclear program,not just the visible civilian power part of
it.
Once they violated their agreement.....off come the gloves.


Did you say "off come the gloves" ?

What do you mean by that?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Never being held accountable and sometimes manage to just walk away
are two very different things. In superfund cases, the EPA in most
cases has extracted money from the companies responsible. They do it
when it's clear who is responsible, they are in business and have
assets. The problem is with many of these superfund sites, eg dump
sites, the dumping had been going on for decades and many of the
companies involved no longer exist. In other cases, the legal system
has extracted huge amounts from corporations for the mistakes they
made. John Mansville wound up bankrupt after paying out claims for
asbestos. The tobacco companies paid billions to settle their
claims. The point Pete C made about environmental groups generally
being able to make false claims, use the legal system to block
projects and then walking away with no consequences is a valid one.

But often the "mess" has bankrupted companies who were completely
blameless.

I refer, of course, to the tragedy over silicone breast implants. Not only
was DowCorning significantly harmed, but millions and millions of (real)
men were deprived of a signal joy in life.


Only infantile men, actually. And, members of the 54% who can't rite reel
gud. You, for instance.

In article , CJT wrote in part:

I suggest that the two are similar in magnitude. After all, there
haven't been all that many projects blocked -- just delayed. But the
corporate follies will be with us for decades in many cases.

Delays of projects are expensive. One big example: A lot of nuclear
plants had construction drawn out by delays in the 1970's when interest
rates were at high levels, and after that the antinukers blamed the nukes
for their electricity being expensive.

- Don Klipstein )

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Jim Yanik wrote:
Jim Redelfs wrote in
:
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

I wonder about nuclear plant security as well.
You can stop wondering. You can probably even relax a bit.

There is a nuke operating perhaps 25 miles from where I am typing. It's
along the Missouri river. Security there is ridiculously tight. Also,
my son-in-law is an engineer at a nuke perhaps 40 miles east of
his home. The (generic) stories he tells about security are
impressive.
Besides, any terrorist strike on a U.S. nuclear-powered, electricity
generating station will not be a ground-based assault. It will come
from the air - and will be a dismal failure as core containment here
is extremely OVER built. FWIW: There was NO containment structure at
Chernobyl.

except the many spent rod holding pools have no containment.

So what? They can't physically make a nuclear explosive in any
configuration as they are insufficiently enriched even before being
"burned" in the reactor which only further reduces the enrichment (and
adds fission product "poisons").


If, hypothetically, those rods could be ground into the finest powder
possible and dumped into a lake that serves as the water supply for 3
million people, what do you suppose would be the results, and I mean PLURAL
results? The next day, the next week, the next year. Tell me about the
results.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
...and I wonder about nuclear plant security as well.
Ever been to visit a US commercial nuclear site?

No. But, my trust level these days is virtually zero.

Well, maybe some education on issues you're ranting against would be a
worthy objective as a New Year's resolution.


Education is always a good thing. I read constantly. But, no matter how much
I learn, I can't keep your washing machine from breaking down or keep you
from setting your hair on fire by getting too close to your BBQ. Know what I
mean?

"Phisherman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 10:17:20 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

If any are disposed of through lamp recycling outfits, then
reduction of mercury pollution would be even greater.

"They" removed the mercury from dry cells (batteries). Now it's CFLs
(compact
fluorescent lamps) turn to be the poster child of a Good Ideatm with a
BAAAAD environmental impact.

How much mercury is in the average CFL? How much REAL damage can they do
if
introduced into the general waste stream and deposited in a MODERN
landfill?

If they are ahem PROPERLY recycled, what happens to the mercury?

If the D.C.Droids can legislate 35mpg and ban the 100w and 75w
incandescent
light bulb, why do they not address the building "threat" of discarded
CFLs?


There's a good article in "Scientific American" about the impact of
mercury contained in disposed CFL. If you are at all concerned about
the environment, it's scary.


Which issue?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

The point is that in some cities, mass transportation isn't foisted on
people. They choose to use it because the physical realities of
trying to drive into those cities make it insane to consider using a
car on a daily basis. People who use the word "foisted" must be
possessed by some sort of childish cowboy independence mentality. If
the light rail idea had become a reality here in my county, nobody
would've been forced to use it.

Yeah, but you (and millions of others) are forced to PAY for it.

Fares never come close to the operating budget.



We're forced to pay for all sorts of crap. I wouldn't mind paying for a
light rail system. You don't mind paying for the invasion of the wrong
country in the Middle East.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

They wanted the SUV they bought. What more reason do they need?
How do you know they wanted them?
Uh, because they BOUGHT them?

Then again, perhaps many were coerced into the purchase by operatives of
the
Detroit underworld. Scary. :\

Remember something very important about sales and advertising:
"Sell the sizzle, not the steak". Do you know what that means?
Yes.

Do you have any idea how well it works?
Yes.

However, if SUV popularity were based solely - or even mostly - on hype
and
advertising, the REPEAT BUYER would be a minority. S/he isn't.
--

JR


What percentage of first time SUV owners bought another SIMILAR one? Not
from a Cherokee to a RAV4, but from a Cherokee to a vehicle with similar
gas mileage specs?

At the same gas price point, undoubtedly quite a large number.


I need statistics from state agencies that register the vehicles. Until
then, nothing we say in this branch of the conversation is worthwhile.

No data, no further talk. "Undoubtedly" is meaningless. 100% meaningless.

Now, go get me the data I want.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

In this specific example, which entity would be helped by an
ad campaign encouraging carpooling?
The advertising agency that creates the campaign and the media entities
that
disseminate it. It's pretty simple, really.
--

JR


That's silly. I'm talking about the "annuity" effect, like that received
by construction companies which magically get contracts to repair a
county's highways forever.

So you're going to have us magically be "beamed aboard, Scotty" instead?
Whatever system it is, there is maintenance in perpetuity unless you
simply stand in one spot forever.

--


The public service commercials I see regularly haven't changed in years.
Does that answer your question? Ad agencies typically don't get ongoing
royalties for that sort of thing, no matter how often they're shown.

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , CJT wrote in part:

I suggest that the two are similar in magnitude. After all, there
haven't been all that many projects blocked -- just delayed. But the
corporate follies will be with us for decades in many cases.

Delays of projects are expensive. One big example: A lot of nuclear
plants had construction drawn out by delays in the 1970's when interest
rates were at high levels, and after that the antinukers blamed the nukes
for their electricity being expensive.

- Don Klipstein )


Ya know, sometimes the antinukers have a point that they don't mention
explicitly because they shouldn't have to if the audience is intelligent
enough. This is the point: Politicians will approve just about ANYTHING if
someone lines their pockets sufficiently. For all we know, Yucca Mountain
could be sitting on top of an enormous aquifer that nobody's tapped yet.
We'd never know it until Western states decided to tap into it and found it
was contaminated.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


Ya know, sometimes the antinukers have a point that they don't mention
explicitly because they shouldn't have to if the audience is intelligent
enough. This is the point: Politicians will approve just about ANYTHING if
someone lines their pockets sufficiently. For all we know, Yucca Mountain
could be sitting on top of an enormous aquifer that nobody's tapped yet.
We'd never know it until Western states decided to tap into it and found it
was contaminated.

I went to Google just to be a smart ass and say they don't know.
Turns out they do know.
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca/about.html
Highlights, the radiation storage is better than 1000 feet above the
aquifer. Googling "Yucca Mountain" and aquifer yields all sorts of neat
stuff.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


Ya know, sometimes the antinukers have a point that they don't mention
explicitly because they shouldn't have to if the audience is intelligent
enough. This is the point: Politicians will approve just about ANYTHING
if
someone lines their pockets sufficiently. For all we know, Yucca Mountain
could be sitting on top of an enormous aquifer that nobody's tapped yet.
We'd never know it until Western states decided to tap into it and found
it
was contaminated.

I went to Google just to be a smart ass and say they don't know.
Turns out they do know.
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca/about.html
Highlights, the radiation storage is better than 1000 feet above the
aquifer. Googling "Yucca Mountain" and aquifer yields all sorts of neat
stuff.


Like I said....enough money.....


Local town & city councils are the training grounds for bribery. This is
where they learn to approve little things like shopping plazas that nobody
wants or needs, or more famous disasters like Rochester's fast ferry
debacle, which was to transport "all those tourists" back & forth to
Toronto. Problem: No business plan, no surveys to find out if there were
customers who'd use the service. Result: Went belly up in less than two
years. Both customers rode the ferry a few times, and the thrill was gone.
But, it was approved because politicians were paid to approve it. No venture
capitalist would work this way, but they're smarter, and their own money is
involved.

If you think the same types of politicians don't get involved with projects
that could kill people, you are high.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

in some cities, mass transportation isn't foisted on people. They choose
to use it because the physical realities of trying to drive into those
cities make it insane to consider using a car on a daily basis.

Agreed.

People who use the word "foisted" must be possessed by some sort of
childish cowboy independence mentality.

I know, I know... Independent thought is NOT a good thing to those that would
control others.

(I am so VERY pleased that leftists regularly espouse their socialist beliefs.
It's important that they continue to do so. Carry on.)

If the light rail idea had become a reality here in my county,

Where is that?

nobody would've been forced to use it.

Do you believe it would have been used, voluntarily, at 50% capacity?
--

JR

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

If these features are present everywhere, I'll be happy.

Although I don't know for sure, I suspect they are. Obviously, I hope they
are.

The containment structure is another issue - I have no
idea what it's like.

The typical core containment makes, by comparison, the Pentagon appear to have
been built of straw.

Especially after 9/11, if a flight strays too close to a nuke, all hell breaks
loose. If the flight doesn't deviate from its apparent collision path, the
nuke operator can do an emergency shutdown, ramming the control rods back into
the core pretty quickly. Even if the containment were seriously breached by a
direct hit, the reactor vessel would probably survive intact.

My other concern is whether it would be possible for a bunch of idiots to
plan another joke like the Shoreham plant (Long Island).

What was THAT all about?
--

JR

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

except the many spent rod holding pools have no containment.

A good point. I guess one would wish to avoid getting within a few, hundred
yards of the pool without a zoomie suit. Further away if they are exposed.

This is another good reason to get Yucca Mountain on-line and start the
shipments. Of course, the ponytail and necktie crowd are poised and waiting
to file their suits. Lawyers in love.
--
sigh
JR

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:45:15 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

As far as mass transport being foisted on people, do you know anyone
who takes the train into Manhattan to get to work?

I didn't think so.

Do you know anybody that takes the train into Los Angeles or Omaha or Denver
or St Louis or Tupelo, Mississippi?

Or has ever had to have a car repaired.

Or in my case, I don't want to be a fat **** like 90% of america who never
walk further than the distance to their car in the driveway and have the car
motor their fat ass all over town. I take the bus to work and bike 12 miles
home. My wife and I are a one car household and I don't miss having two
car payments and all the other expenses.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

my trust level these days is virtually zero.

For god's sake, why? Because "we" elected, twice, a President not of your
choosing? We were attacked on 9/11? We've begun two wars? What else could
it be?

I am as optimistic and happy, overall, as I have ever been. I was even this
way when Clinton frittered away 8 years in the oval orifice.

However, if Hillary is elected, it's a fair bet that my positive outlook on
life will be somewhat mitigated.

Vote early. Vote often.
--

JR

In article , dpb wrote:

As I see it, what will happen w/ CFL's is the same thing that currently
happens w/ incandescents -- when they burn out, folks will toss them in
the trash and that's it, no matter what the rules are.

Agreed.

There will be a small number of folks who will go to some extra trouble,
but it will be a minute fraction of the population.

If someone can convince me that disposing of spent CFLs in the general waste
stream is significantly environmentally detrimental, I'll collect mine (what
few I use) and take them to a collection site.

That is, of course, unless I am charged more than a dollar or two to leave
them. In such a case, I will return home with my bucket of dead CFLs and dole
them into the household trash, one or two a week, until they are gone.
--

JR

"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

If these features are present everywhere, I'll be happy.

Although I don't know for sure, I suspect they are. Obviously, I hope
they
are.

The containment structure is another issue - I have no
idea what it's like.

The typical core containment makes, by comparison, the Pentagon appear to
have
been built of straw.

Especially after 9/11, if a flight strays too close to a nuke, all hell
breaks
loose. If the flight doesn't deviate from its apparent collision path,
the
nuke operator can do an emergency shutdown, ramming the control rods back
into
the core pretty quickly. Even if the containment were seriously breached
by a
direct hit, the reactor vessel would probably survive intact.

My other concern is whether it would be possible for a bunch of idiots to
plan another joke like the Shoreham plant (Long Island).

What was THAT all about?
--

JR


In the 1970s, a nuclear plant was built in Shoreham, Long Island. On this
map, that's right about where Wading River is, on the North Sho
http://www.millhouseinn.com/main_pag...image_map1.gif

Smart people have a distinct preference for an evacuation plan in case
something funny happens with a nuke plant. Local politicians were paid to
believe that such an evacuation plan was possible on Long Island, even
though that is impossible now, just as it was 30 years ago. They approved
the construction of the plant. The plant never operated to full capacity and
was eventually shut down.

"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

my trust level these days is virtually zero.

For god's sake, why? Because "we" elected, twice, a President not of your
choosing? We were attacked on 9/11? We've begun two wars? What else
could
it be?

I am as optimistic and happy, overall, as I have ever been. I was even
this
way when Clinton frittered away 8 years in the oval orifice.

However, if Hillary is elected, it's a fair bet that my positive outlook
on
life will be somewhat mitigated.

Vote early. Vote often.



Happiness and trust are two separate issues. For me, at least. I'm very much
at peace with knowing that all politicians were created for me to **** on.

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:45:15 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

As far as mass transport being foisted on people, do you know anyone
who takes the train into Manhattan to get to work?

I didn't think so.

Do you know anybody that takes the train into Los Angeles or Omaha or
Denver
or St Louis or Tupelo, Mississippi?

Or has ever had to have a car repaired.

Or in my case, I don't want to be a fat **** like 90% of america who never
walk further than the distance to their car in the driveway and have the
car
motor their fat ass all over town. I take the bus to work and bike 12
miles
home. My wife and I are a one car household and I don't miss having two
car payments and all the other expenses.


Walk? Like....with your feet? What happens if there's a mild breeze and the
temperature drops to 58 degrees? My god, man. You could die.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Most people don't even know how to open the yellow pages and find a hardware
store. If they figured out where to take hazardous waste, it would be the
result of the wind randomly blowing the phone book open to the correct page
that showed local government offices.

Hey, don't blame the gentry too much until our vaunted officials get THEIR
sh*t together.

Our community had a (rare) full-spectrum "clean-up" a few years ago. They
took lead acid batteries, paint, solvents and other mean, evil chemicals.

I took in some gallon cans of old latex paint and some unused (left over)
oil-based deck stain. I also took in about a half gallon of concentrated
Chlordane. Now THAT is some "good" (bad) stuff. I understand that Bambi
STILL doesn't live anywhere near its Florida test site.

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

I also took in my old 15-inch computer CRT display.

Much to my surprise, there was no special handling of it: Place it over there
in the 40-cu-yard, roll-off dumpster. The thing went to the landfill.

I have since introduced into the general waste stream a couple, more CRTs.

If I can LEGALLY and "properly" dispose of them in that manner, I am unlikely
to PAY additionally for another party to take them off my hands. Heck, it
would probably get dumped on some third world country anyway.
--

JR

"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

in some cities, mass transportation isn't foisted on people. They choose
to use it because the physical realities of trying to drive into those
cities make it insane to consider using a car on a daily basis.

Agreed.

People who use the word "foisted" must be possessed by some sort of
childish cowboy independence mentality.

I know, I know... Independent thought is NOT a good thing to those that
would
control others.

(I am so VERY pleased that leftists regularly espouse their socialist
beliefs.
It's important that they continue to do so. Carry on.)

What does socialism have to do with mass transportation? You wouldn't be
misusing the word "socialist" because someone told you to, would you? As far
as "leftist", you never saw me type anything which indicated I was
left-leaning. If you disagree, please quote that text in your next message.



If the light rail idea had become a reality here in my county,

Where is that?

Monroe County, Rochester NY


nobody would've been forced to use it.

Do you believe it would have been used, voluntarily, at 50% capacity?


That's not relevant to the question about whether anyone would've been
forced to use it.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

A couple I know had an Escalade...The wife later got a job that involved
a 40 minute commute. She was surprised to find that she was getting about
12 mpg doing 55 on a flat highway. They sold the tank

Surprised? Did she expect the tank to get significantly better mileage than
the numbers on the window sticker? What an idiot.

Agreed.

In my case, I was well aware of the gas-guzzling reputation of the big block
V8 I bought. I'm not complaining. Of course, if the pickup had to do more
than 3.6 miles, one way, to-and-from work, I'm sure it would go away in favor
of a less expensive vehicle.

Then I'd have to sell the travel trailer. Oh, the horror... the horror!
--

JR

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

In this specific example, which entity would be helped by an
ad campaign encouraging carpooling?

Mostly the ad agencies and media outlets paid for the development and air
time (of course, they both get "public service" credits from the FCC for
pro bono ad campaigns in lieu of some of the actual dollars.

zzzzzzz...........

Geez, Joe. That's the SECOND time you've fallen asleep when confronted with
logic and fact. How sophomoric.
--
sigh
JR

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:45:15 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

As far as mass transport being foisted on people, do you know anyone
who takes the train into Manhattan to get to work?

I didn't think so.

Do you know anybody that takes the train into Los Angeles or Omaha or
Denver
or St Louis or Tupelo, Mississippi?

Or has ever had to have a car repaired.

Or in my case, I don't want to be a fat **** like 90% of america who never
walk further than the distance to their car in the driveway and have the
car
motor their fat ass all over town. I take the bus to work and bike 12
miles
home. My wife and I are a one car household and I don't miss having two
car payments and all the other expenses.



Walk? Like....with your feet? What happens if there's a mild breeze and the
temperature drops to 58 degrees? My god, man. You could die.


Joke if you will, but it's amazing what bad shape many Americans are in.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Jim Redelfs wrote:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


A couple I know had an Escalade...The wife later got a job that involved
a 40 minute commute. She was surprised to find that she was getting about
12 mpg doing 55 on a flat highway. They sold the tank

Surprised? Did she expect the tank to get significantly better mileage than
the numbers on the window sticker? What an idiot.


Agreed.

In my case, I was well aware of the gas-guzzling reputation of the big block
V8 I bought. I'm not complaining. Of course, if the pickup had to do more
than 3.6 miles, one way, to-and-from work, I'm sure it would go away in favor
of a less expensive vehicle.

Then I'd have to sell the travel trailer. Oh, the horror... the horror!

I have NEVER understood travel trailers. For less than the money people
sink into them, they could probably stay at the Four Seasons.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Have you ever owned (not just driven) a 4WD vehicle?

I own one now. A Tacoma 4WD, with Blizzaks on it, and I am the best on
earth. Therefore, my conclusion is so perfect and flawless, it aches to
think about its flawless perfection.

ARGH!! [ROFL] grin

Your "humility" is astounding. Talent on loan from God! Hehehehehe!
--

JR

In article , dpb wrote:

Them is market forces.

Aw, you're just a mean, evil Capitalist. How DARE you play the market like
that to your advantage? There should be a law...
--

JR