|
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"CJT" wrote in message
... 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. I know. My son works part time as a lifeguard. He had to haul a 300 lb pig out of the pool a couple of days ago. Actually, not out of the pool. She got halfway up the ladder, and absent the bouyancy of water, she fell flat on her face on the cement. Two lifeguards helped the pig to her feet. Instead of "thank you", they got "You boys need to do a little more weight training". |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
... 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 Why be humble when I'm the best driver on earth? I've been conquering upstate NY winters since 1970. I know what all other drivers are thinking before they know what they're thinking (if you can call reactive responses "thinking"). I am aware of everything around me. I control the space around me with an iron fist. I am as a god. For $800 an hour, I can teach you. That's what the aggravation is worth. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"CJT" wrote in message
... 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. Trailers are for people who think Fingerhut is an upscale shopping experience. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article , JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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. You think a high mountain area is going to provide polluted spring water or polluted snowmelt runoff? And if that ends up being the case, what is the blame? Nuke power plants don't get built on high mountaintops. If water coming from a notable mountain is going to be polluted by industrial activity, it will probably be mainly from fossil fuels! - Don Klipstein ) |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In , AZ Nomad
wrote: 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. You sound pretty good, except for taking a bus to work and riding a bike home. Is your employer buying a bike every workday for you to commute homeward on? If that is not the case and you use the bus to take both yourself and your bike to work, please say so! Also say where you do this - not everywhere do "the buses" take bikes as well as people! - Don Klipstein ) |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article , 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. Only a few hours ago I took a delivery of a mass amount of food from a restaurant that I work for to a nearby hospital. Although I am known and make myself known as a cyclist for commuting and delivering sandwiches etc. from this restaurant, in recent years I have done the Christmas dinnwer delivery to that hospital by car, since I manage to afford to acquire one and to pay for insurance for a non-commuting vehicle and to buy gas for it for the roughly 4,000 miles per year that I usually drive it! (Note to my insurance company - I use it for only 6 deliveries per year! At non-holioday times parking is usually so bad in my big-city semi-downtown delivery area for me to use a bicycle even if to deliver 10 cases of soda, and I occaisionally do resort to walking with a handtruck on one hand and a bicycle with big well-supported baskets on both ends being towed by the other hand! If I get run into a delivery better done by car other than the few above, my dayjob boss lets me use her car since I normally don't drive my car to my day job!) So for the Christmas dinner delivery of 2007 to that hospital where I in unusual fashion drove a car rather than a bike to the supplying restaurant in order to use it as a delivery vehicle as I now do only 6 times per year, I did that delivery run as I now like to do it: Climate control in the car was OFF! Check out Philadelphia PA USA weather conditions for 9 PM 12/9/2007 - good for refrigerating food! If I gave more thought then, I would have opened the windows! I was wearing a long sleeve shirt with nothing under and nothing over, due to having a bicycle messenger metabolism that allows me to work just fine when the temperature in degrees Celsius and rounded to whole numbers can be counted on one hand! The only thing I wore for that run above the beltline other than a shirt was a cute Santa Claus soft doll of a size good to put into a shirt pocket with head, beard and arms exposed! And from the beltline on down, I only wore underwear, slacks, socks and shoes and only of lighter grade weights on the light side since I have to sometimes wear the same in August or July in Philadelphia PA (at great consternation when trying to not get OUTRIGHT ROASTED!) - Don Klipstein ) |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote: 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 Where do you get the bikes to ride home, and what do you do with the bikes once you get home? :-) -- --Tim Smith |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
Oh pshaw, on Wed 26 Dec 2007 12:08:16a, Tim Smith meant to say...
In article , AZ Nomad wrote: 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 Where do you get the bikes to ride home, and what do you do with the bikes once you get home? :-) At least in the greater Phoenix area, most public buses have bike racks mounted on the front. It's a common practice for bus riders to bike part of their way to and from work. There are all sorts of ways to store bikes, in garages, in apartments and condos, etc. When I lived in Chicago, it was common practice to keep one's bike in their apartment. -- Wayne Boatwright ******************************************* I made it foolproof. They are making better fools! |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Pete C." wrote:
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. You are *grossly* misinformed about what "directional drilling technology" is and what it can do. The coastal plain of ANWR is 15 to 45 miles deep, and extends east/west for approximately 100 miles. Directional drilling could not even begin to cover even the narrowest part (where at least 7.5 miles would be required), never mind the widest areas. The Alpine field, near the village of Nuiqsut and the western most producing field in the Prudhoe Bay complex today, was discovered in 1996 and uses directional drilling exclusively. It came on line in 2000. ConocoPhillips, the operator, then constructed a satellite well site, Fiord, five miles north of the Alpine pad. Later a second satellite field, Nanuq, was constructed 4 miles south of the Alpine field. Rather clearly the maximum reach for horizontal drilling does not exceed 2 miles. Note that even if there was directional drilling capable of doing what you claim, it would *still* have a dramatic and negative impact on the Porcupine Caribou herd. That is because the topology required for your suggested method would necessarily circle the 1002 area with roads and pipelines. Which of course is not significantly different than building a lattice of roads and pipelines as is actually necessary for production. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
CJT wrote:
Do you suppose directional drilling would be chosen ABSENT opposition? Actually, yes it would! But that is because it does not do what he thinks it does. Probably most new production wells on the North Slope today (if not all), use directional drilling. The method is to drill a vertical hole from immediately above a reservoir straight down into the center of the reservoir. Typically multiple wells heads can be spaced at 10 feet apart on the surface. Each well might typically be a 7000 foot deep hole on the North Slope. From that depth drilling goes at an angle, from 70 to 110 degrees to the vertical hole, off to the side. Current technology allows literally steering the drill, and it can go up, down, or in a cork screw! What it can do of significance is find and tap relatively small pockets of oil that would never drain into a single centrally located well hole. It greatly increases production from most reservoirs and from individual wells. I'm not sure what the actual distance that can be covered horizontally, but the last time I looked it up was a couple years ago and it was less than 2 miles. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
... In article , JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "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. You think a high mountain area is going to provide polluted spring water or polluted snowmelt runoff? And if that ends up being the case, what is the blame? Nuke power plants don't get built on high mountaintops. If water coming from a notable mountain is going to be polluted by industrial activity, it will probably be mainly from fossil fuels! - Don Klipstein ) Hush, Don. You're late to class, and you're wrong. Read Kurt's response, which came before yours. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
CJT wrote:
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. Oh, but the number of abortions DID increase. At least double. The first numbers I can find showed about 600,000 in 1973 which went up to 1.2 million in 1982 (the year of interest). How many in Florida? I can't find that. But dividing 1.2 million by 50 states yields 24,000 per state. Florida, however, is the 4th largest state in population, so 50,000 abortions in Florida in 1982 sounds reasonable. http://iier.isciii.es/mmwr/preview/m...407a1.htm#fig1 As for deaths during abortion, NARAL estimates about 1,000 per year prior to Roe in 1973. 1,000 out of 600,000 isn't a significant amount. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Once they violated their agreement.....off come the gloves. Did you say "off come the gloves" ? What do you mean by that? We dust off the War Prayer: O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle - be Thou near them! With them - in spirit - we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with hurricanes of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it - for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
Pete C. wrote:
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... It's not illegal to discriminate based on income - unless you're a politician and are talking about taxes. And a golf course would be a good use for a superfund site. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"HeyBub" wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: Once they violated their agreement.....off come the gloves. Did you say "off come the gloves" ? What do you mean by that? We dust off the War Prayer: Nobody here is interested in your sexual fantasies. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"HeyBub" wrote in message
... Pete C. wrote: 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... It's not illegal to discriminate based on income - unless you're a politician and are talking about taxes. And a golf course would be a good use for a superfund site. Golf courses ARE superfund sites by design. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
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. The people who did the grinding would begin to glow in the dark long before they finished the first rod. The containment vessels used to move spent rods around weigh, oh, 30 tons and massive equipment is required to mess with this stuff. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"HeyBub" wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: 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. The people who did the grinding would begin to glow in the dark long before they finished the first rod. The containment vessels used to move spent rods around weigh, oh, 30 tons and massive equipment is required to mess with this stuff. The question was not directed at you. It was directed at dpb, who knows what he's talking about. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
Jim Redelfs wrote:
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. Don't be surprised to see a mandated "deposit" on CFLs. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
wrote in message
... On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:41:45 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote: CJT wrote: 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. Oh, but the number of abortions DID increase. At least double. I wonder if there was anything preventing abortions from being accurately reported and counted when it was illegal? LOL! Take it easy on the idiot. You might cause him to have a seizure. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote: It's not illegal to discriminate based on income - unless you're a politician and are talking about taxes. And a golf course would be a good use for a superfund site. Of course then everyone would be all ****ed about using tax funds for the rich golfers. Generally politicians can't win (g). |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
.... ...Yucca Mountain could be sitting on top of an enormous aquifer that nobody's tapped yet. We'd never know ... was contaminated. You _DO_ know that Yucca Mountain is a "monitored, retrievable storage facility" don't you? The spent fuel will be incased and in the storage tunnels in such a fashion it can be continually observed and even retrieved for recycling. Which, of course, if it weren't for the extremist greens, is what would have been done for the last 40 years and the whole exercise would have been avoided as well as the reduction in C emissions by the replacement of most of the older, less-efficient coal-fired units having been retired in favor of nuclear and the massive buildup of natural gas-fired generation facilities would not have happened or at least been constrained to required rapid-response peak generation cycling units rather than baseload generation capacity. All in all, a _very_ expensive and ill-considered result for environmental advancement. -- |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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. Local politicians don't have approval for NRC requirements first of all. Second, see previous response to this nonsense. -- |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
HeyBub wrote:
Jim Redelfs wrote: 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. Don't be surprised to see a mandated "deposit" on CFLs. Deposits worked reasonably well on soda cans where they were implemented. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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. Can't happen, therefore not a concern. -- |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Pete C." wrote in message
... HeyBub wrote: Jim Redelfs wrote: 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. Don't be surprised to see a mandated "deposit" on CFLs. Deposits worked reasonably well on soda cans where they were implemented. True, but HeyBub has been told to see that as an example of guvmint control. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "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. Local politicians don't have approval for NRC requirements first of all. Second, see previous response to this nonsense. Where did you live during the time Shoreham was being proposed and then built? |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
Jim Redelfs wrote:
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. A spent fuel pool is for "exposed" fuel--that's what "spent" means by definition. The pools are "pools" because they're full of water for cooling which also supplies some shielding. The assemblies are not handled manually but by remote handling equipment through fuel transfer canals which are also called "canals" because they're full of water for shielding as well. When leaving the spent fuel storage, they go into large, shielded, spent-fuel shipping casks which are designed to withstand any conceivable accident including fire and direct impact at a hypothetical railroad grade crossing. They've even done qualification tests on these casks which include both of the above scenarios before they get NRC licenses to be deployed. 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. The reason to get Yucca Mountain operational is that the spent fuel pools at the reactor sites are getting full-up. In reality, what we should have been doing since the 70s is recycling the spent fuel and reducing the actual waste into much smaller volumes and disposing of it as well as using much of it as subsidiary radiation sources for all kinds of uses from medical to heat generation. -- |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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? Not with respect to nuclear facility safety, no. -- |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "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. Can't happen, therefore not a concern. Why not? |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
"Pete C." wrote: 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. You are *grossly* misinformed about what "directional drilling technology" is and what it can do. The coastal plain of ANWR is 15 to 45 miles deep, and extends east/west for approximately 100 miles. Directional drilling could not even begin to cover even the narrowest part (where at least 7.5 miles would be required), never mind the widest areas. The Alpine field, near the village of Nuiqsut and the western most producing field in the Prudhoe Bay complex today, was discovered in 1996 and uses directional drilling exclusively. It came on line in 2000. ConocoPhillips, the operator, then constructed a satellite well site, Fiord, five miles north of the Alpine pad. Later a second satellite field, Nanuq, was constructed 4 miles south of the Alpine field. Rather clearly the maximum reach for horizontal drilling does not exceed 2 miles. Note that even if there was directional drilling capable of doing what you claim, it would *still* have a dramatic and negative impact on the Porcupine Caribou herd. That is because the topology required for your suggested method would necessarily circle the 1002 area with roads and pipelines. Which of course is not significantly different than building a lattice of roads and pipelines as is actually necessary for production. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) Directional drilling technology is where it is now because it meets the current need. Do you honestly think that the necessary upgrades to the technology would not be made in short order if clearance to drill from selected sites around ANWR were given? Lots of things weren't possible until there was motivation and funding to actually get them done. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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. No, it doesn't answer the question (although it wasn't a question). They (PSA's) change regularly here and there's still the pro bono contribution they receive for airing and producing them that is significant in the evaluation of their license reapplication process. -- |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "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? Not with respect to nuclear facility safety, no. -- In other words, my knowledge is not likely to change physical occurrences elsewhere. I deal in absolutes. If I can't see and touch something, I don't trust it. You can talk all day long about nuke plant security, but as long as there are human beings involved, I will always have doubts. Here's a lesser example of something that was supposed to be trusted - a zoo cage. Tiger kills one, injures two: "The zoo's director of animal care and conservation, Robert Jenkins, could not explain how Tatiana escaped. The tiger's enclosure is surrounded by a 15-foot-wide moat and 20-foot-high walls, and the approximately 300-pound female did not leave through an open door, he said. "There was no way out through the door," Jenkins said. "The animal appears to have climbed or otherwise leaped out of the enclosure."" |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "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. No, it doesn't answer the question (although it wasn't a question). They (PSA's) change regularly here and there's still the pro bono contribution they receive for airing and producing them that is significant in the evaluation of their license reapplication process. -- OK. You're right. I guess we should never use such commercials because the people creating them didn't work for free. Sheesh.... |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "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. Local politicians don't have approval for NRC requirements first of all. Second, see previous response to this nonsense. Where did you live during the time Shoreham was being proposed and then built? Lynchburg, VA. Working NE at NPGD, B&W. -- |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "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. Can't happen, therefore not a concern. Why not? Propose a _reasonable_ scenario by which it could. -- |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "dpb" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "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. Local politicians don't have approval for NRC requirements first of all. Second, see previous response to this nonsense. Where did you live during the time Shoreham was being proposed and then built? Lynchburg, VA. Working NE at NPGD, B&W. -- Hmm...then I suppose you didn't see much coverage of local officials doing everything in their power to pave the way for the Shoreham plant. Their devotion to the thing bordered on religious fanaticism, even though, as I mentioned earlier, the evacuation plan was pure fantasy. I wonder why those politicians were so gung-ho about it. Actually, no. I don't wonder at all. I've been involved with local politics here for the past 15 years. I know exactly how things work. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "dpb" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "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. Can't happen, therefore not a concern. Why not? Propose a _reasonable_ scenario by which it could. Reasonable in terms of what? Bad people gaining access to the rods? That would be step #1, right? Is that the step you'd like to discuss first? |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "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? Not with respect to nuclear facility safety, no. -- In other words, my knowledge is not likely to change physical occurrences elsewhere. I deal in absolutes. If I can't see and touch something, I don't trust it. You can talk all day long about nuke plant security, but as long as there are human beings involved, I will always have doubts. So, how do you manage to live from day to day? Every action you take is also dependent upon someone else whether it's getting on the train you're so fond of or an airplane or just crossing the street or even in opening a carton of milk. Consider this -- there have been _ZERO_ (that's none, nada, not a one, nil, ...) deaths caused from a nuclear accident in a commercial nuclear facility in the US in the existence of the industry. That constitutes something on the order of 40 years times roughly 60 operating units or 2400 reactor-years of operation and not a single fatality(*). That's a good demonstration that taking care and fail-safe design techniques work. There are folks (I happened to have an adjacent office to one for about 15 years) who continually take every incident at every operating facility and analyze it for root cause(s) and evaluate what, if anything, went wrong and how to modify or upgrade procedures and/or equipment or training to ensure it doesn't occur elsewhere and that other utility operators of similar facilities are made aware of how to deal with it were it to occur at one of their facilities as well. The difference in the nuclear utility operations as opposed to the kind of daily "run of the mill" accidents you're aware of is that the level of design of the facilities for safety and the backup systems and training in place in the event of operational failures are at a far higher level of redundancy and contingent planning than virtually any other industry. While the level of QA and QC and inspection, etc., in the civilian aviation business is of similar level, there isn't a backup parachute for everybody to bail. So, while remarkably safe overall, airplanes do crash on occasion at a level of risk society in general considers acceptable although regrettable when it does. (*) There have been, of course, some industrial accidents where there have been serious injuries and fatalities from falls or other industrial causes, but none in which the nuclear characteristic of the facility had anything to do with the accident. The nuclear safety itself that folks are so inherently afraid of owing to the initial exposure by way of WWII and the incessant drumming of the anti-nukes' propaganda continuing to tie commercial power to weapons is simply not justified by the facts. -- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter