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

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

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

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

In , Kurt
Ullman wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

In article , Phisherman wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:28:42 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:


Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb.
(Thomas Alva Edison will surely turn over in his grave).

And say "Hello" to additional mercury compounds (from fluorescent
tubes) seeping into our soils.

About half the USA's electricity comes from coal-fired power plants.
CFLs actually reduce the amount of mercury going into the environment.

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.

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

- Don Klipstein )

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 )

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

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 )

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 )

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 )

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 )

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 )

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 )

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?

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)

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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).

"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.

"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?

"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?

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."

"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?

"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.

"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.

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 -

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.

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.

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!

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?

"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.

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?

In article
,
wrote:


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.


Also many of the Superfund sites are related to dumping that was
perfectly legal at the time. The legal system also got a fair amount of
money from them.
In fact, this litigation before the SF money is used is one of the
main reasons it takes so long to start clean-up. The feds have to try
and find the responsible parties and have to try and get their money
from the RPs before they can spend SF money.

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.

"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...........