"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Jim Yanik wrote:
Jim Redelfs wrote in
:

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.

The same goes for Obama.

I know someone from Chicago, and therefore has a bit of expertise on
Illinois politics. She says they make Pennsylvania look not too bad as
far as corruption goes!

She says that Obama rose fast and bigtime and mysteriously, and is
suspicious as to who he will owe favors to and how much so! (My words as
a translation of the best that I can remember of hers)


I wonder if he's indebted to the Saudi royal family yet, like the last 5
presidents.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Pete C. wrote:
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.

"Cans?"


Yes. Cans. The metal things that you and your suspected family flatten with
your heads and glue to the walls of your double-wide because you think it
looks festive that way.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Wayne Boatwright wrote in
.184:

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.

What happens when a LOT of bus riders have bikes to bring along?
There's a limited number of bikes a bus can carry,a lot fewer than bus
riders.
How many bikes does the usual bus bike rack carry?
How many bus passengers,35 or more?
Jim Yanik


Then, there's real trouble. A person may have to wait for the next bus.
Usually, the TV stations show up to interview the bike owner and it's all
over the news later that day.

"Pete C." wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

"Pete C." wrote:

Directional drilling technology is where it is now because it meets the
current need.

"a few small sites along the perimeter using current
directional drilling technology could tap ANWR with
essentially no impact."

That is what you said to start with. It is purely a
fabrication from your imagination. Now you are changing
what you say, admitting that this statement was false.

But what you are saying *now* is false too.

Same basic technology just needs to be scaled / adapted to the task.

Wrong. If that were true, as pointed out they would
*currently* be drilling horizontally into ANWR. They
aren't. The reason is because what you are suggesting
is simply ridiculous blather from your over active
imagination.

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?

Nobody in their right mind thinks that is technically
feasible. There are *no* wells being drilled those
kinds of distances, nor anywhere even close, using *any*
kind of technology, much less being drilled
horizontally!

They can most certainly manage the ANWR drilling given the goal and the
funding. The underlying technology certainly exists. There have already
been non oil well scientific drilling projects reaching the depths
necessary.

If that were true, they'd be doing it. Nobody is!
Basic fact: it ain't true.

1) The "underlying technology" does not exist.

2) There are hundreds of wells on the North Slope
"reaching the depths necessary", which has no
significance at all.

3) There are no wells *anywhere* that reach the
necessary *length* (7 to 25 miles).

Lots of things weren't possible
until there was motivation and funding to actually get them done.

If what you say were true... There would currently be
oil production from ANWR. The entire eastern edge has
been offered for lease, and in fact there are many dry
holes within 5 miles of ANWR.

It certainly is true. The investment necessary to to do it just hasn't
been made yet.

Oh, now you just say all it needs is the money...

Given that some people have been going bonkers about
drilling in ANWR for over 25 years, if it was true...
why isn't the money available?

There is only one reason: what you say is false.

And recently the State of Alaska offered 26 offshore
tracts along the northern shore of ANWR for lease. Even
though that particular lease sale resulted in the
largest sale ever in the Beaufort Sea east of Prudhoe
Bay, not one single bid was even placed for any of the
tracts on the edge of ANWR.

Everyone is holding off, expecting to either eventually be allowed to
drill in ANWR using cheaper conventional methods, or for oil prices to
get high enough to justify the investment necessary to drill from the
perimeter.

Ha ha. Now you're getting silly. They were supposedly
chomping at the bit to get at it when oil was selling
for less that $15 a barrel, and now with peaks hitting 6
times higher, and every oil company has had record
profits for months, and you claim somebody is waiting
for favorable financial conditions???

You are a joke.

Please cease posting fabricated facts that you imagine
would support your cause. Nobody needs to hear it...

Nothing fabricated about it,

You can't support a word of it with references or cites
to credible sources. Logically what you have said is
simply silly.

it most certainly is possible. No new
technology needs to be developed,

The technology is not there. It isn't even close, and
nobody is headed in that direction.

it's just a matter of the cost to put
together the existing technologies necessary for the job.

If that were true, those lease sales just offshore of ANWR
would have gone for big dollars. Nobody even bid on one of
them.

If that were true, the leases on the eastern side of ANWR
would be merrily drilling away as we speak. They aren't.

The effort and
expense expended to reach the oil is directly tied to the market value
of the oil, and that value will only increase.

Right now the cost for production of a barrel of oil on
the North Slope is less that 20% of the market value for
that barrel of oil. If what you are saying were true,
every producer on the Slope would be trying to extract
oil from ANWR *now*.

In fact, no oil company has shown any interest at all in
ANWR for years. Nothing close to ANWR has attracted any
attention either. Moreover the State of Alaska is
actually taking back some leases close to ANWR because
of no activity!

Pete, you just simply need to stop making up what you'd
like things to be, do a little research or don't post at
all.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Jim Yanik wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in :

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

"Pete C." wrote:

Directional drilling technology is where it is now because it meets the
current need.

"a few small sites along the perimeter using current
directional drilling technology could tap ANWR with
essentially no impact."

That is what you said to start with. It is purely a
fabrication from your imagination. Now you are changing
what you say, admitting that this statement was false.

But what you are saying *now* is false too.

Same basic technology just needs to be scaled / adapted to the task.


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?

Nobody in their right mind thinks that is technically
feasible. There are *no* wells being drilled those
kinds of distances, nor anywhere even close, using *any*
kind of technology, much less being drilled
horizontally!

They can most certainly manage the ANWR drilling given the goal and the
funding. The underlying technology certainly exists. There have already
been non oil well scientific drilling projects reaching the depths
necessary.

Saddam Hussein accused Kuwait of horizontal drilling into Iraqi oil
deposits before the 1991 Gulf War.
That was part of his justification for the invasion of Kuwait.

But it wasn't anything like the distances which ANWR
would require.

The thing with large reservoirs like those in
Kuwait/Iraq is that from a location right on the border,
a well that angles a mile or so horizontally could then
drain an area several square miles in size.

The geology in ANWR is distinctly different, with oil
caught in many very small pockets even within a given
reservoir. Directional drilling allows a well to break
into those pockets and extract oil that would not
otherwise drain into any central point being pumped by a
vertical well.

Basically Pete hasn't go a clue what the technology
does, and is making up a fantasy to suit his needs.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....

OK. You're right. Nothing weighing 1500 lbs or more has ever been stolen.
Have a nice day.

Look into the security around a nuclear facility and decide how you're
going to move that 1500 lb in an 13-14' long
fragile-horizontally-oriented, radioactive piece of material in the
presence of all sorts of radiation alarms, etc., w/o _somebody_ in the
know knowing....that's all.

You're proposing the totally ludicrous hypothetical w/o a shred of
plausibility of how it could be accomplished. Useful as scare tactics
for the uniformed or apparently to feed your neuroses, but beyond that
of little interest to anyone w/ any information at all.

--

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
....

And yet, the state of NY rejected the evac plan for the Shoreham plant,
resulting in its eventual closing.

Yes, on, in my judgment, ill-informed decision-making to satisfy the
"anti's", not on a realistic assessment of risks of the plant itself in
comparison w/ other risks of far higher likelihood and consequences.

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...

OK. You're right. Nothing weighing 1500 lbs or more has ever been stolen.
Have a nice day.

Look into the security around a nuclear facility and decide how you're
going to move that 1500 lb in an 13-14' long
fragile-horizontally-oriented, radioactive piece of material in the
presence of all sorts of radiation alarms, etc., w/o _somebody_ in the
know knowing....that's all.

You're proposing the totally ludicrous hypothetical w/o a shred of
plausibility of how it could be accomplished. Useful as scare tactics for
the uniformed or apparently to feed your neuroses, but beyond that of
little interest to anyone w/ any information at all.

--


Our own military is paying people to dream up scenarios they (and you)
haven't thought of yet.

Box cutters. Who'd a thought, ya know?

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
...

And yet, the state of NY rejected the evac plan for the Shoreham plant,
resulting in its eventual closing.

Yes, on, in my judgment, ill-informed decision-making to satisfy the
"anti's", not on a realistic assessment of risks of the plant itself in
comparison w/ other risks of far higher likelihood and consequences.


You've never driven in Long Island. Now, hush, until you have.

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...

In fact, no oil company has shown any interest at all in
ANWR for years. Nothing close to ANWR has attracted any
attention either.

When ANWR was big in the news a few years ago, various experts were
interviewed for their projections as to what percentage of our oil could be
provided by wildly successful drilling in the region. If I recall, even the
oil companies were tossing around numbers like 4%. Maybe this is why there's
not much interest in the region.

I'm a big proponent of adding together small advantages to get a bigger one,
but at some point, one must say "Get serious, or fuhgettaboutit".

In article ,
"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.

Very young children and the oldest adults would be hardest hit. (Women and
minorities, too, of course.) They would, however, have to consume large
quantities of seriously contaminated water.

For the bulk of the rest of the consumers, they would probably ingest
(probably) about the equivalent of a couple or three chest x-rays. Given that
the average adult is traditionally UNDER-hydrated, the effect would probably
be less.

It would take a *LOT* of ground-up, spent fuel rods to successfully (fatally)
contaminate an open reservoir serving 3-million consumers.

Such hypotheticals are wonderful entertainment for those that preoccupy
themselves with dead-end scenarios but of little concern to those with an
otherwise "normal" life.
--

JR

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

Very young children and the oldest adults would be hardest hit. (Women
and
minorities, too, of course.) They would, however, have to consume large
quantities of seriously contaminated water.

For the bulk of the rest of the consumers, they would probably ingest
(probably) about the equivalent of a couple or three chest x-rays. Given
that
the average adult is traditionally UNDER-hydrated, the effect would
probably
be less.

It would take a *LOT* of ground-up, spent fuel rods to successfully
(fatally)
contaminate an open reservoir serving 3-million consumers.

Such hypotheticals are wonderful entertainment for those that preoccupy
themselves with dead-end scenarios but of little concern to those with an
otherwise "normal" life.
--

JR


As far as you know.....

In article , "HeyBub"
wrote:

The containment vessels used to move spent rods around weigh, oh, 30 tons
and massive equipment is required to mess with this stuff.

It's true. I've seen footage of the containers being dropped from the 10th
floor onto a vertical pike, rammed broadside by a speeding locomotive, driven
at 65 mph on the trailer of a semi into a barrier of solid concrete.

Zippo. No breech of containment. The semi was "vaporized" and the massive
concrete barrier was pretty scarred, but the nuke container survived virtually
unscathed.

But it's not good enough... sigh

Did you happen to see the cry-baby, ponytail guy on the History Channel the
other night that maintained that such containers are NOT sufficient. An
accident could STILL release radiation.

Translation: No matter how well spent nuke fuel is contained, it should not
be transported. For that matter, such fuel shouldn't be used in the first
place. These are the REAL "flat earth" people. Amazing.
--

JR

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

OK. You're right. Nothing weighing 1500 lbs or more has ever been stolen.
Have a nice day.

Look into the security around a nuclear facility and decide how you're
going to move that 1500 lb in an 13-14' long
fragile-horizontally-oriented, radioactive piece of material in the
presence of all sorts of radiation alarms, etc., w/o _somebody_ in the
know knowing....that's all.

You're proposing the totally ludicrous hypothetical w/o a shred of
plausibility of how it could be accomplished. Useful as scare tactics for
the uniformed or apparently to feed your neuroses, but beyond that of
little interest to anyone w/ any information at all.

--


Our own military is paying people to dream up scenarios they (and you)
haven't thought of yet.

Box cutters. Who'd a thought, ya know?


So pick up your box cutters and go try to steal some spent fuel rods. Let us
know how you get on.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

The question was not directed at you. It was directed at dpb

It's public forum, NetNanny. Get over it.
--
:\
JR

In article , dpb wrote:

Why not?

Propose a _reasonable_ scenario by which it could.

Wait, WAIT!! I know!! [Furiously waving hand over head]

It involves a UFO, shape-shifting and time travel.

(What do you MEAN that's not reasonable?)
--

JR

Jim Yanik wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote in
:


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.


The same goes for Obama.

Either one would be better than what we've been living with for the
past seven years.

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

Don Klipstein wrote:

In article , Jim Yanik wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote in
:


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.

The same goes for Obama.


I know someone from Chicago, and therefore has a bit of expertise on
Illinois politics. She says they make Pennsylvania look not too bad as
far as corruption goes!

She says that Obama rose fast and bigtime and mysteriously, and is
suspicious as to who he will owe favors to and how much so! (My words as
a translation of the best that I can remember of hers)

- Don Klipstein )

Ah, the ever popular innuendo.

--
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:

You must have a rather menial job if you think you've already imagined
everything that's possible.

I take it back: When I said you were "sophomoric" I was obviously too
complimentary.
--
JR

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
wrote:

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!

The figures I cited were from the Centers for Disease Control.

While not precise (for the implied reasons you mentioned), they are
probably pretty accurate. The number of deaths attributed to botched
abortions are not only accurate but also precise.



It doesn't matter where the numbers came from, you twit. The procedure was
illegal at one time. So, the reported numbers are almost guaranteed to be
inaccurate and cannot be used to compare against the numbers after the
procedure became legal.

Birth rate is a pretty good proxy, though -- and the U.S. birth rate was
*much* lower after the Roe vs. Wade decision than before it.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , dpb wrote:

You're proposing the totally ludicrous hypothetical w/o a shred of
plausibility of how it could be accomplished. Useful as scare tactics
for the uniformed or apparently to feed your neuroses, but beyond that
of little interest to anyone w/ any information at all.

Hells, bells. A modicum of life experience and a LITTLE technical reading
disallows such ridiculous speculation. Thanks for taking the time to bury him
with (apparent) facts. I learned something, too. Good show.
--

JR

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

wrote:

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!

The figures I cited were from the Centers for Disease Control.

While not precise (for the implied reasons you mentioned), they are
probably pretty accurate. The number of deaths attributed to botched
abortions are not only accurate but also precise.



It doesn't matter where the numbers came from, you twit. The procedure was
illegal at one time. So, the reported numbers are almost guaranteed to be
inaccurate and cannot be used to compare against the numbers after the
procedure became legal.


Birth rate is a pretty good proxy, though -- and the U.S. birth rate was
*much* lower after the Roe vs. Wade decision than before it.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html

I think the causality link implied by this analysis needs scrutiny.

--
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 , dpb wrote:

For nukes they have -- and much else, most of which is restricted data
simply to add security to the security plans themselves (iow, if I told
you everything I knew, I'd have to shoot you ).

For god's sake, man! Do us all a favor and TELL HIM!!
--

JR

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

I feel much better.

The meds must be kicking-in.
--
JR

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:11:35 +0000 (UTC), Don Klipstein wrote:
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?
It gets worse, the neighbors have started to complain about the 7500 bikes
locked up all around the house.

The busses have bike racks. It's only a problem when they're full -- they
only hold two or three bikes. The trick is to avoid when high schoolers
are riding the bus. It's never a problem when I ride before 7am.


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 )

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

I guess we should never use such commercials because the
people creating them didn't work for free.

Nah. That's bogus.

We should never use such commercials because they are annoying, wasteful and
don't work.

Sheesh....

You said it!
--

JR

(Don Klipstein) wrote in
:

In article , Jim Yanik
wrote:
Jim Redelfs wrote in
:

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.

The same goes for Obama.

I know someone from Chicago, and therefore has a bit of expertise on
Illinois politics. She says they make Pennsylvania look not too bad
as far as corruption goes!

She says that Obama rose fast and bigtime and mysteriously, and is
suspicious as to who he will owe favors to and how much so! (My words
as a translation of the best that I can remember of hers)

- Don Klipstein )


there was an interesting opinion piece today
(http://media.nationalreview.com/ )about Obama being a Muslim.
It seems that if born a Muslim,one is always a Muslim,or becomes an
apostate,and OK to be killed by any Faithful. Koran does not permit
conversion to other religions from Islam.

Aside from all that,I do not understand why anyone would vote for such an
inexperienced person like Obama OR Hillary for a critically important
position as POTUS.(Besides,Hillary being a big crook.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

CJT wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote in
:


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.


The same goes for Obama.

Either one would be better than what we've been living with for the
past seven years.

Different certainly, but I'm not convinced of better by any means.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

The plant never operated to full capacity and was eventually shut down.

That's too bad. I'll bet you pay dearly for electric service.
--

JR

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

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!

The figures I cited were from the Centers for Disease Control.

While not precise (for the implied reasons you mentioned), they are
probably pretty accurate. The number of deaths attributed to botched
abortions are not only accurate but also precise.



It doesn't matter where the numbers came from, you twit. The
procedure was illegal at one time. So, the reported numbers are
almost guaranteed to be inaccurate and cannot be used to compare
against the numbers after the procedure became legal.

You might want to remain silent on subjects like this until you've
obtained your G.E.D.

Evidently, you do not know the difference between "accuracy" and
"precision." But that's okay. I don't think the distinction was emphasized
through the GED level.

In not every state was abortion illegal in 1973.

From the above referenced report:
"For each year since 1969, CDC has compiled abortion data by state or area
of occurrence. During 1973--1997, data were received from or estimated for
52 reporting areas in the United States: 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and New York City. In 1998 and 1999, CDC compiled abortion data
from 48 reporting areas. Alaska, California, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma did
not report, and data for these states were not estimated. For 2000--2002,
Oklahoma again reported these data, increasing the number of reporting areas
to 49.

"A total of 854,122 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2002
from 49 reporting areas, representing a 0.1% increase from the 853,485 legal
induced abortions reported by the same 49 reporting areas for 2001. The
abortion ratio, defined as the number of abortions per 1,000 live births,
was 246 in 2002, the same as reported for 2001. The abortion rate was 16 per
1,000 women aged 15--44 years for 2002, the same as for 2001. For the same
48 reporting areas, the abortion rate remained relatively constant during
1997--2002."


These data are not from the "Right to Life" bunch nor from the pro-abortion
people. These data are from the CDC, an organization which is chock-a-block
full of epidemiologists and biological statisticians. They've been cranking
numbers for over sixty years and have a pretty good track record for
reliability.

My formal education is a tad beyond the GED level. In addition to a masters
in math and attending law school, I graduated from the State Department's
Foreign Service Academy and spent 9 months in Viet Nam (bummer). I also
served (for a short time) as an AA to a United States Senator (double
bummer). I've got a diploma from the DEA's Advanced Narcotics school, the
FBI's Into to Bombs and Explosives, and spent 8 years as a deputy sheriff.
I've translated the Bible into Morse Code and written the book "Toilet
Tissue Origami - The Ultimate Book for the John."

If you want to match bits of paper - which really signify zilch - I'd be
glad to give it a go.

On the other hand, if you just want to sling insults, I'm vulnerable on my
affection for well-developed breasts.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

I wonder why those politicians were so gung-ho about it.

They desired affordable, clean electric power.

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.

Life must surely be depressing in "the glass is half EMPTY" world.
--
sigh
JR

Jim Redelfs wrote in
:

In article ,
"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.

Very young children and the oldest adults would be hardest hit.
(Women and minorities, too, of course.) They would, however, have to
consume large quantities of seriously contaminated water.

For the bulk of the rest of the consumers, they would probably ingest
(probably) about the equivalent of a couple or three chest x-rays.
Given that the average adult is traditionally UNDER-hydrated, the
effect would probably be less.

It would take a *LOT* of ground-up, spent fuel rods to successfully
(fatally) contaminate an open reservoir serving 3-million consumers.

Such hypotheticals are wonderful entertainment for those that
preoccupy themselves with dead-end scenarios but of little concern to
those with an otherwise "normal" life.

trying to handle radioactively HOT spent fuel rods is a *quick* suicide.

Wikipedia has a nice piece on pebble-bad reactors and the fuel
"pebbles",fully describing the outer shell each pebble gets,and discusses
security.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Redelfs wrote:

In article , "HeyBub"
wrote:

The containment vessels used to move spent rods around weigh, oh, 30 tons
and massive equipment is required to mess with this stuff.

It's true. I've seen footage of the containers being dropped from the 10th
floor onto a vertical pike, rammed broadside by a speeding locomotive, driven
at 65 mph on the trailer of a semi into a barrier of solid concrete.

Zippo. No breech of containment. The semi was "vaporized" and the massive
concrete barrier was pretty scarred, but the nuke container survived virtually
unscathed.

But it's not good enough... sigh

Did you happen to see the cry-baby, ponytail guy on the History Channel the
other night that maintained that such containers are NOT sufficient. An
accident could STILL release radiation.

Translation: No matter how well spent nuke fuel is contained, it should not
be transported. For that matter, such fuel shouldn't be used in the first
place. These are the REAL "flat earth" people. Amazing.
--

JR

I know I would be more than comfortable personally driving the semi with
those casks to Yucca, especially if I have clearance to drive over any
protesters who get in the way.

In article , dpb wrote:

Not according to the citizens who paid the salaries of those politicians.

I suspect that wasn't universal, either. I'm quite sure there were a
number of taxpayers who either didn't care or were supportive as well as
those against. In fact, I would suspect in reality that the "didn't
cares" far outnumbered either of the other two factions and that
inaction of that large group allowed the agitation of the anti-s to be
far more influential than their numbers would otherwise be. That's the
typical scenario in almost all of these types of battles.

Nixon's "Silent Majority" strikes again.
--

JR

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in :

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

"Pete C." wrote:

Directional drilling technology is where it is now because it meets the
current need.

"a few small sites along the perimeter using current
directional drilling technology could tap ANWR with
essentially no impact."

That is what you said to start with. It is purely a
fabrication from your imagination. Now you are changing
what you say, admitting that this statement was false.

But what you are saying *now* is false too.

Same basic technology just needs to be scaled / adapted to the task.


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?

Nobody in their right mind thinks that is technically
feasible. There are *no* wells being drilled those
kinds of distances, nor anywhere even close, using *any*
kind of technology, much less being drilled
horizontally!

They can most certainly manage the ANWR drilling given the goal and the
funding. The underlying technology certainly exists. There have already
been non oil well scientific drilling projects reaching the depths
necessary.

Saddam Hussein accused Kuwait of horizontal drilling into Iraqi oil
deposits before the 1991 Gulf War.
That was part of his justification for the invasion of Kuwait.

But it wasn't anything like the distances which ANWR
would require.

The thing with large reservoirs like those in
Kuwait/Iraq is that from a location right on the border,
a well that angles a mile or so horizontally could then
drain an area several square miles in size.

The geology in ANWR is distinctly different, with oil
caught in many very small pockets even within a given
reservoir. Directional drilling allows a well to break
into those pockets and extract oil that would not
otherwise drain into any central point being pumped by a
vertical well.

Basically Pete hasn't go a clue what the technology
does, and is making up a fantasy to suit his needs.

No, you have your head stuck on the limits of how the technology is
currently used. Take off the blinders and look at how it could be used
with a little modification.

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:

I take the bus to work and bike 12 miles home.

Hey, endorphin addict: How does the bike get to work?

My wife and I are a one car household and I don't miss
having two car payments and all the other expenses.

....and you're saving the planet, too. Wotta guy.
--

JR

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
wrote:

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!

The figures I cited were from the Centers for Disease Control.

While not precise (for the implied reasons you mentioned), they are
probably pretty accurate. The number of deaths attributed to botched
abortions are not only accurate but also precise.



It doesn't matter where the numbers came from, you twit. The procedure was
illegal at one time. So, the reported numbers are almost guaranteed to be
inaccurate and cannot be used to compare against the numbers after the
procedure became legal.

Birth rate is a pretty good proxy, though


Only if you're an idiot.

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

I wonder why those politicians were so gung-ho about it.

They desired affordable, clean electric power.

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.

Life must surely be depressing in "the glass is half EMPTY" world.
--
sigh
JR


Are you living in a fantasy world? Pay attention to your local politics,
especially when stupid projects are at stake. Someone ALWAYS gets paid to
love stupid projects. ALWAYS. No politician does anything out of the
goodness of their heart.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

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.

You condescending, arrogant liberals are beneath contempt.

"Give us the poor, minority, uneducated, unequally-treated, hungry, poorly
clothed, homeless unfortunates of our mean, evil society - and we'll keep 'em
down for ya."

Instead of "thank you", they got "You boys need to do a
little more weight training".

Really? Now THAT was bad. I would've tossed her back into the pool.
--

JR

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

The plant never operated to full capacity and was eventually shut down.

That's too bad. I'll bet you pay dearly for electric service.
--

JR


I no longer live there. I have no idea what they pay for service. However, I
know that a significant number of citizens were more comfortable without a
nuclear power plant located in a place that could never be evacuated.