|
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Killing the mopes is where it's at. It's in the Book. You should join...George in the White House. Really? That would probably disourage even MORE rogue states. We start bombing in five minutes. -- snotty grin JR |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article , "Pete C."
wrote: The whole attempt to link nuclear power and nuclear weapons is just a scam from the paranoid and ignorant anti nuke groups. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons have almost nothing to do with each other besides "nuclear" in the name. Nonsense kind of like trying to link Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (a.k.a. MRI) and nuclear weapons. Don't complicate the issue with FACTS, Pete. Sheesh! -- :) JR |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
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. I cheerfully forfeit that right - right now. However, I RETAIN the right to be extremely annoyed when myopic pacifists whine and cry when we forcibly SILENCE their sword rattling. -- :) JR |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article ,
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. 2-3 years? Heck, that would be barely enough time to litigate the environmentalists into submission. Try 10-15 years. Sad. -- :( JR |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article , HeyBub wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: OK. Now we're getting somewhere. What if a family of four can get a 35% improvement in gas mileage by owning a certain vehicle, without losing any of the REAL (as opposed to imaginary) advantages of an SUV? Is a 35% improvement not worth thinking about, especially if multiplied by the number of SUVs in this country? Of course not. Your "imaginary" advantages may be very "real" to the family. Status in the community or with peers is important, even crucial, to some. Maybe they can't get the 35% improved vehicle in their alma mater's colors, or the "better" vehicle doesn't have a cup holder. Whatever. But it works both ways. Somebody pointed out that there are two hybrids (Civic and Prius). One LOOKS like a hybrid, the other doesn't. Aside from looks, the two are equivalent in gas milage, price, and virtually all other characteristics. The one that LOOKS like a hybrid (Prius?) outsells the conventional-looking car by three-to-one! Why? Because the environmental types want others to know they are environmentalists! That they care, that they are doing something wonderful. Peer pressure. [Confession: I may have Civic confused with Prius or vice-versa - I don't know and I don't care.] It's their money. If a family is willing to put their earnings into a gas guzzler or a non-disguised hybrid, who has the gall to tell them otherwise? Those that can afford gas guzzlers are bidding up gas prices to levels that others have trouble affording. I also find it unconscionable people to consume more of a non-renewable resource than necessary just because they can afford to do so. - Don Klipstein ) |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article , "HeyBub"
wrote: Somebody pointed out that there are two hybrids (Civic and Prius). One LOOKS like a hybrid, the other doesn't. Aside from looks, the two are equivalent in gas milage, price, and virtually all other characteristics. The one that LOOKS like a hybrid (Prius?) outsells the conventional-looking car by three-to-one! Why? Because the environmental types want others to know they are environmentalists! That they care, that they are doing something wonderful. Peer pressure. [Confession: I may have Civic confused with Prius or vice-versa - I don't know and I don't care.] The Prius looks like no other car. You are right: Buyers gravitate to it because it LOOKS like a hybrid. It's their money. If a family is willing to put their earnings into a gas guzzler or a non-disguised hybrid, who has the gall to tell them otherwise? There are many, MANY folks that have such gall. More than a few have participated in this topic. The frightening aspect of this is that many with the gall to foist their view of The Common Goodtm on the rest of us are those in a position to do so. -- :) JR |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article , CJT wrote:
Pete C. wrote: HeyBub wrote: 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). A pox on both their houses, and two wrongs do not make a right! Find a way to punish those who damage our economy by knowingly making false statements as to the environment no matter what side they are on or think they may be helping! - Don Klipstein ) |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article , Tim
Smith wrote: In article , (Don Klipstein) wrote: LED's aren't at CFL prices, yet, unless you average in the 10-20 year life. White ones mostly have rated life of 50,000 hours. That's 5.7 years at 24/7, but aren't light bulb lifetimes rated assuming something like 4 or 6 hours a day or something like that, which would indeed by around 20 years. Although I see some compact fluorescents with limited warranties for a specific number of years of service life in home use, the life expectancy figures that engineers deal with and determine are usually operating hours. There are now LED fixtures on the market, with the "bulbs" not replaceable. Somehow, I think of light fixtures as architecture items and most would not want to replace them every 20 years. I can see it now: White LEDs at 50,000 hours (or less if they are operated aggressively to use fewer LEDs which are expensive, or if heatsinking is skimped on) normally don't die, but at that point have faded to 70% of their initial light output. They will usually still glow at 100,000 hours, though probably at about half their initial brightness. I suspect most will keep on ticking at 200,000 hours. So those with LED light fixtures will put off replacement of fading ones until they have light distribution pattern change by LEDs going completely dead, or until they fade to the point of being no more efficient than incandescent lamps. (By then, there should be plenty of economical and super good LED light fixtures, good and economical screw-in LED bulbs, whatever.) However, I see some of the current and near-future LED fixtures being the "new mercury vapor lamp", with reference to ones of "Big 3" brands made in Europe and North America. As long as they were started infrequently (at most once a day), they were very slow to die, and some lived 100,000 hours. I have heard laments from some seeing these and complaining that the companies that made them regret their long life. However, these did fade from arc tube inner surface darkening, and kept on ticking while producing a small fraction of their original light output. If they were usable at 1/4 or 1/5 of initial light output, then much lower wattage lamps should have been used with replacement after 24,000 or whatever hours! - Don Klipstein ) |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article , Jim Yanik wrote:
(Don Klipstein) wrote in : Plutonium comes from breeder reactors. Not all of it. Most nuclear power plants are not breeder reactors. No,but the spent fuel rods still contain usable amounts of PU. I do remember from back in the late 1970's and around 1980 that the anti-nukers complained even-more against breeder reactors on basis that those made plutonium useful for making bombs and non-breeder ones did not. Are non-breeders safe in this respect or is another old lie by 1970's anti-nukers being exposed now? - Don Klipstein ) |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In , Jim
Redelfs wrote: In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: based on the pristine condition of most of the SUVs I see, they're not being used off road anywhere. So what? What business is it of YOURS what someone else drives or WHERE they drive? What others drive does affect demand/supply ratios of petroleum and USA's refinery capacity. Others have ability to affect how much per gallon I have to pay at the pump when I have to use a personal vehicle other than a bicycle. If you want to drive a 35mpg econobox, go for it. I graduated from a 1,000cc, 3-cylinder Geo Metro to a 2500HD Silverado pickup with 8.1L (496cid) gas-guzzling V8. I'm paying DEARLY for my choice. But it was MY choice. Sadly, those who can afford to do this are free to bid up the price that others have to pay, and some who can afford to consume non-renewable resources at a faster rate than necessary do so. If you truly advocate having to apply to the Ministry of Transportation prior to purchasing your next motor vehicle, you can just forget it, comrade. Not while I have a vote in any case. - Don Klipstein ) |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In , Jim
Redelfs wrote: In article , Kurt Ullman wrote: Also, we need pull some of the "Highway taxes" away from highways and let it go to building other forms of transportation like light rail, etc. Why throw good money after bad? We built it - and they didn't come. With the exception of the high-density rust belt areas, mass transportation has been a losing proposition since the mid-to-late '60s. That, of course, didn't stop those in control of taxation from furthering their agenda of the Good Ideatm - and they're still at it (Ex: Your words.) I have long suggested that the Feds zero out their gas and highway-related taxes (along with the money) and let the individual states raise theirs to take up the slack and let them spend it as they see fit. I agree with that but it's a sure bet that the suits in D.C. will NEVER (ever) relinquish that control. Sorry. The voters are able to fire and replace them on such basis should they care enough to do so! - Don Klipstein ) |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In , Jim
Redelfs wrote: In article , 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. 2-3 years? Heck, that would be barely enough time to litigate the environmentalists into submission. Try 10-15 years. Sad. As slow as litigation goes when parties are motivated to keep up the fight, I would at least double that 2-3 years. I also see new litigation battles being sprung up by the luddites as things move along. At least those who do construction are better at pushing to stay on a schedule and getting actual work done than litigating luddites, so I think 15 years still sounds realistic. - Don Klipstein ) |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article
, Jim Redelfs wrote: In article , Kurt Ullman wrote: With the exception of the high-density rust belt areas, mass transportation has been a losing proposition since the mid-to-late '60s. Actually I was looking precisely that. Although I think it can be done in any urban area. I don't think it is likely anytime soon to replicate the interurbans of old connecting (say Indy to Ft. Wayne, etc) I think coherent transportation SYSTEMS (systems part being the key so you don't just dump a bunch of people downtown to let them fend for themselves) would be useful in most urban/suburban areas rust belt or not. I agree with that but it's a sure bet that the suits in D.C. will NEVER (ever) relinquish that control. Sorry. Yep. Heck we can't even wean them of earmarks which, by definition, are projects that weren't fundable using the usual criteria. But I can dream can't I? |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article
, Jim Redelfs wrote: In article , 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. 2-3 years? Heck, that would be barely enough time to litigate the environmentalists into submission. Try 10-15 years. Sad. Note the magically licensed part. (g) |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
|
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Killing the mopes is where it's at. It's in the Book. You should join...George in the White House. Really? That would probably disourage even MORE rogue states. We start bombing in five minutes. -- snotty grin JR That latest intelligence stinker about Iran seems to have stopped him from waving his dick around for the moment. Now, if only we could silence people like HeyBub. There's a large contingent like him, who, given a choice between going to a strip club and seeing a mushroom cloud over Tehran, would choose the bomb. It's one thing to know that war is sometimes unavoidable. It's another thing to fantasize about it in the shower. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
... In article , Jim Yanik wrote: (Don Klipstein) wrote in : Plutonium comes from breeder reactors. Not all of it. Most nuclear power plants are not breeder reactors. No,but the spent fuel rods still contain usable amounts of PU. I do remember from back in the late 1970's and around 1980 that the anti-nukers complained even-more against breeder reactors on basis that those made plutonium useful for making bombs and non-breeder ones did not. Are non-breeders safe in this respect or is another old lie by 1970's anti-nukers being exposed now? - Don Klipstein ) Perhaps it just takes longer to refine enough plutonium from the fuel used in certain types of reactors. Go do some research. www.fas.org might be a good starting point. You may have noticed that whenever our government yells about rogue states trying to build a bomb, the focus is on centrifuges and refining the fuel, and never on the mechanics of assembling the bomb, which isn't so difficult. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
... 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. People who know what they're talking about would disagree with your view on this issue. If I knew you were going to happen along, I would've jotted down the names of experts who were interviewed just after the latest intelligence stinker about Iran's nuclear capabilities. They all said that refining the fuel was a bitch, but bomb design was the easiest part. Remember, too, that A.Q. Khan got nothing more than a slap on the hand. Do you really think the technology is such a well guarded secret? 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. I cheerfully forfeit that right - right now. However, I RETAIN the right to be extremely annoyed when myopic pacifists whine and cry when we forcibly SILENCE their sword rattling. You never saw me say anything indicating that I'm a pacifist. If you disagree, please prove me wrong. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: a number of arms control experts have pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear power plants. Given that, I guess we'll just have to live, warm and illuminated, in a more dangerous world since we'll not be giving-up nuclear power plants. As TMI (a few cubic yards of irradiated steam do NOT a disaster make) and Chernobyl fade from memory, we will build more nukes. Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show. I disagree. Most benefits do NOT come with such dire consequences. However, it is indeed refreshing, and surprising, that you declare nuclear electric power a "benefit". It is, in many ways. Oh, it's definitely a benefit. My concerns about it stem from seeing so much homeland security cash spent for fire trucks and not enough for things like chemical plant security. If I recall, that industry purchased the right to take care of security without government intervention. I'm not encouraged by that, and I wonder about nuclear plant security as well. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
... In article , (Don Klipstein) wrote: I I wonder how much of that statement is based on the assumption that the CFLs are going to be gotten rid of the way they should be, which is not likely to be the way they are. I was talking about if all of the mercury in the CFLs got into the environment, as if the worn-out CFLs are all ground up and incinerated in bonfires. Interesting. Would you have a cite or two, I haven't seen anything like that and would like to read them. Thanks. If your county has a web site, you might find some links there. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Oh boy. Mass transportation turned into a racial issue. Only by you, my color-obsessed "friend". The "kind of people" referred to in a racial-neutral manner are those that talk aloud to themselves, have body odor that is offensive from many feet away, and are generally unpleasant to be around. This fact is NOT racially biased in any manner. Public transportation is loved most by those that don't use it but are determined to foist it on the rest of the gentry because they think it is a Good Ideatm. -- :) JR You had to know this particular guy in order to understand that it was, indeed, a racial remark. "I got no problem with black people, but I just don't think they belong on this street", spoken with a straight face. 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. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kurt Ullman" wrote in message ... In article , (Don Klipstein) wrote: I I wonder how much of that statement is based on the assumption that the CFLs are going to be gotten rid of the way they should be, which is not likely to be the way they are. I was talking about if all of the mercury in the CFLs got into the environment, as if the worn-out CFLs are all ground up and incinerated in bonfires. Interesting. Would you have a cite or two, I haven't seen anything like that and would like to read them. Thanks. If your county has a web site, you might find some links there. About all I can find on my county, the big city nearby and state websites (as well as the EPAs) is what the proper ways to dispose of the CFLs. Nothing on the local and nothing I can find right off on the EPA on the question of how they came to that conclusion. It may very well be correct, I'm just saying I can't find anything right off to back it up. Until then it is a rumor (g). |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: based on the pristine condition of most of the SUVs I see, they're not being used off road anywhere. So what? What business is it of YOURS what someone else drives or WHERE they drive? If you want to drive a 35mpg econobox, go for it. I graduated from a 1,000cc, 3-cylinder Geo Metro to a 2500HD Silverado pickup with 8.1L (496cid) gas-guzzling V8. I'm paying DEARLY for my choice. But it was MY choice. If you truly advocate having to apply to the Ministry of Transportation prior to purchasing your next motor vehicle, you can just forget it, comrade. Not while I have a vote in any case. -- JR By offering two extreme examples (tiny car vs. government control), you're acting like a clone. There are some in this newsgroup who actually ARE clones, but you're not one of them, so don't talk that way. Here's an idea: How about educating the buying public, so they understand what they're really getting? Give them the knowledge to take advertising with a grain of salt? For example, in snowy climates, all smart people (100%, in other words) know that assuming your car has enough ground clearance, the best thing in the world for snow-covered roads is front wheel drive and a good set of snow tires. 4WD is sorta OK, but when it's off, you're left with rear wheel drive. Bleh. Don't argue with this. My information is better than yours. But still, some people will buy a 4WD SUV because they saw dreamy ads showing a mommy tucking the kids into their car seats, with the announcer emphasizing security and safety. Ha ha funny. Give me a Taurus or a Camry with a set of Blizzak snow tires and I'll be cruising happily while SUVs are sliding through intersections. There is a world in between econo-box and your Silverado. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You're right, but prepare to be spanked by a few of the delusional here. No dilusions here. They wanted the SUV they bought. What more reason do they need? -- :) JR How do you know they wanted them? Remember something very important about sales and advertising: "Sell the sizzle, not the steak". Do you know what that means? Do you have any idea how well it works? |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
... In article , "Pete C." wrote: Twice a week, I pass by a park & ride lot. It's as empty as it's been for many years. An advertising campaign would help that. I doubt it. Such an advertising campaign would help only those entities promoting the campaign. In this specific example, which entity would be helped by an ad campaign encouraging carpooling? |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Getting a hard on" is just a fringe benefit. Killing the mopes is where it's at. It's in the Book. You should join your retarded cousin George in the White House. Nah, been there, done that. I was an administrative assistant to a U.S. Senator who was on the Armed Services Committee. Been to the White House more than once (three times, actually). Those people work too hard. Bush is hardly a retard - he has an MBA from Harvard. I'm talking about this Bush: "I don't particularly like it when people put words in my mouth, either, by the way, unless I say it."-Crawford, Texas, Nov. 10, 2007 You must be talking about a different person. "Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."-Austin, Texas, Dec. 20, 2000 "She's just trying to make sure Anthony gets a good meal-Antonio."-On Laura Bush inviting Justice Antonin Scalia to dinner at the White House. NBC Nightly News With Tom Brokaw, Jan. 14, 2001 "I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the legislative branch. I assured all four of these leaders that I know the difference, and that difference is they pass the laws and I execute them."-Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000 "For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times."-Tokyo, Japan, Feb. 18, 2002 You left out the quote that explains all of the above: "They misunderestimate me." A figure from an earlier time called it "Rope-A-Dope." |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"HeyBub" wrote in message
... Rick Brandt wrote: Here's part of the economics of the problem as I see it. Let's hypothetically assume that gas prices stabilize for the long term at 2.75/g which I think most people would agree is more than reasonable to live with (thinking long term now). Given this hypothetical we can reduce the issue of lowering our dependence on foreign oil to... a) choosing something greener b) not sending money to the middle east Now let's hypothetically assume an alternative is discovered that is perfect regarding points (a) and (b) but which costs 3.00/g. I think the vast majority of people would be delighted to pay that difference (roughly 8%) to accomplish the goals of (a) and (b). 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? |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? No. In fact, we should use up THEIR oil first. -- JR Let's see....11:55 PM....you were drunk. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kurt Ullman" wrote in message ... In article , (Don Klipstein) wrote: I I wonder how much of that statement is based on the assumption that the CFLs are going to be gotten rid of the way they should be, which is not likely to be the way they are. I was talking about if all of the mercury in the CFLs got into the environment, as if the worn-out CFLs are all ground up and incinerated in bonfires. Interesting. Would you have a cite or two, I haven't seen anything like that and would like to read them. Thanks. If your county has a web site, you might find some links there. About all I can find on my county, the big city nearby and state websites (as well as the EPAs) is what the proper ways to dispose of the CFLs. Nothing on the local and nothing I can find right off on the EPA on the question of how they came to that conclusion. It may very well be correct, I'm just saying I can't find anything right off to back it up. Until then it is a rumor (g). Currently, and into the foreseeable future, the EPA is not a reliable source for environmental information. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
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. The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. *Our true address is of the form .- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
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. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
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. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
That latest intelligence stinker about Iran seems to have stopped him from waving his dick around for the moment. Now, if only we could silence people like HeyBub. There's a large contingent like him, who, given a choice between going to a strip club and seeing a mushroom cloud over Tehran, would choose the bomb. It's one thing to know that war is sometimes unavoidable. It's another thing to fantasize about it in the shower. Heh! I'm in Texas which just implemented a "Pole Tax." Patrons at strip clubs now have to pay a $5.00 state tax just to get in. Fortunately, that doesn't affect me or my buddies because we're more into devising schemes to kill Iranians, relatives of Iranians, or anybody who ever knew an Iranian. War is, as you said, often unavoidable. Sometimes it comes like a thief in the night, by surprise. Sometimes we plan it in advance. Either way, we need a war every 15-20 years to keep our skills sharp, to train the next generation of warriors, and to serve notice on those who would do us harm. And it's fullfilling. Look at the current conflict. 85% of those who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan have re-upped at every opportunity. The 15% who declined to continue serving include, mostly, those invalided out and those who retired. Face it, there are those we call "warriors," who run to the sound of the guns, who get their primary satisfaction in life out of killing people and blowing things up. It has always been thus. We march. For our lands. For our families. For our freedoms. We march... Into the Hot Gates we march. Into that narrow corridor we march, where Xerxes numbers count for nothing. Spartans. Citizen soldiers. Freed slaves. Brave Greeks all. Brothers. Fathers. Sons. We march. For honor's sake, for duty's sake, for glory's sake, we march. Into Hell's mouth we march. .... From free Greek to free Greek the word was spread - that bold Leonidas and his 300, so far from home, lay down their lives, not just for Sparta, but for all Greece and the promise this country holds. Now, here on this rugged patch of earth, Xerxes hordes face obliteration! Just there the barbarians huddle, sheer terror gripping tight... knowing full well what merciless horrors they endured at the swords and spears of 300. They sit there now, across the plain, looking at TEN THOUSAND Spartans, commanding thirty thousand free Greeks! The enemy outnumber us a paltry three to one, good odds for any Greek! This day we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny and usher in a future brighter than anything we can imagine. For brave Leonidas and the 300, to victory! |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Why do people recycle containers & paper when it would be so much easier to just throw the stuff into the regular trash? Because it is free where it is successful? |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Why do people recycle containers & paper when it would be so much easier to just throw the stuff into the regular trash? Because it is free where it is successful? What about the fact that it's right thing to do? It didn't happen overnight, either. There was advertising involved. By the way, it is NOT free. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
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? |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
|
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
Don Klipstein wrote:
Those that can afford gas guzzlers are bidding up gas prices to levels that others have trouble affording. I also find it unconscionable people to consume more of a non-renewable resource than necessary just because they can afford to do so. Exactly. Even during the "Oil Crisis," there was never a shortage of oil! There was a shortage of CHEAP oil! But people adjusted. Mainly by voting Carter out of office. And by the way, does your disdain for consumption of non-renewable resources apply to, oh, let's say, diamonds? Maybe not. A diamond is forever. Like Herpes. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"HeyBub" wrote in message
... 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? zzzzzzz........... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter