Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #161   Report Post  
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 169
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

In alt.engineering.electrical Doug Miller wrote:
| In article , "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
|
|David Nebenzahl wrote:
|
| Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the
| NYT *is* a certified fool.
| Not really. You always know the National Enquirer is lying, but you
|aren't always sure with the NYT.
|
| More to the point: the lies in the NE are obvious, whereas those in the NYT
| are much more subtle.

The NE knows that everyone knows they are lying. They don't try to hide it.
The NYT tries to make sure people don't know they are lying.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
  #162   Report Post  
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

On 25 Jun 2008 15:08:35 GMT, wrote:

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:

| As with the halogens I identified above, incandescent lamp life is
| based on the same 50 per cent rule -- that is an industry-wide
| standard. For a graphical representation of this, see page 2 of:
|
|
http://www.sylvania.com/content/disp...x?id=003694068

Then something's out of whack somewhere. I see far more than 50% of bulbs
last beyond 750 hours of usage. That didn't catch my attention before as I
did not assume something like the 50% basis.



Hi Phil,

A couple possible explanations. One is that although a standard
100-watt incandescent has a nominal service life of 750 hours, the 25,
40 and 60-watt versions are typically rated at 1,000 hours. Secondly,
manufacturers have been introducing products that are shifting the
balance between higher lumen output and longer life further towards
the latter, so you may have noticed the elogic lamps in the above link
have a rated life of anywhere from 1,125 hours (95-watt) to 2,250 in
the case of the 40-watt equivalent. Line voltage and the use of
dimmers can also dramatically affect lamp life.


|| If long life is important, some of the new Philips T8s fluorescents
|| have a rated service life of up to 46,000 hours but, then, as you
|| indicated in another thread you refuse to use linear fluorescents in
|| your home due to potential concerns related to Hg. On that basis, I
|| presume we can rule out metal halide as well.
|
|That's not my primary concern. It is a concern, and one that _may_ limit
|my use of them. My primary concern is the poor spectrum (not the color) of
|every fluorescent light I have ever seen. What I am referring to is that
|the spectrum is not as uniformly continuous as incandescent. These are
|therefore ruled out for critical task lighting areas (especially kitchen
|and shop).
|
| Sorry for my confusion. When you said "What about long tube
| fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in my home for the same
| reason?" in relation to our other discussion pertaining to Hg, I
| understood the word "refuse" to be an absolute.

It might be absolute. I'm actually undecided at the moment. This applies
to the design of my new home, which I have not timeline, yet, for building.
I'm refusing to put fluorescent fixtures into that design unless and until
I see some solid proof I should not be concerned with it.



Fair enough.


| If your primary concern is good light quality, there are fluorescent
| lamps with a very high CRI such as the Philips TL930 (95 CRI) and
| TL950 (98 CRI), but if you require something better than that, it's
| probably best to stick with an incandescent or halogen source. And if
| you're concerned your access to these lamps may be restricted at some
| future date, you can always stock up on whatever you use now as a
| precaution.

My primary concern is an aspect of light quality that has nothing to do with
the CRI rating. As I understand it, CRI refers to the balancing of color in
the spectrum within the confines of how human eyes perceive it so the color
of illuminated objects looks correct or natural. My concern is more with the
way the spectrum affects contrast edges given that human eyes, and worse when
corrective or magnifying lenses are involved, do not focus the light spectrum
at a single point. Under a single visible wavelength, contrast edges always
look as sharp as the viewer can see them. Under a broad continuous spectrum
of white light, the edges will be slightly blurred, but will be uniform. But,
under a the harsh light of 3 distinct single wavelengths, that edge will look
like 3 distinct colored edges. That's the worse situation. Fluorescent light
corrects this poorly because its spectrum has "hills and valleys" despite the
color balance being a reasonable white. LED has the same issue but I think
there may be more hope to correct this for LED than for FL (since FL has been
around for so long and this hasn't been fixed). Some HID has less of an issue
with it. MV and MH are bad, but HPS seems to be OK (though it has very poor
color in the eye of many).



If you're extremely fussy about spectral distribution, I don't see any
clear winners. Philip's new MasterColour Elite ceramic metal halide
lamps are arguably the very best the industry has to offer; you can
see its distribution graph on page 2 of the following spec sheet and
draw your own conclusions.

See:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...pdf/p-5899.pdf

The spectral performance of their TL930 and TL950 lamps can be found
he

http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...f/P-5037-D.pdf


As for stocking up, I'm not worried. There will be a black market. There
always is. It's not like they are going to put that much effort into this.
It's not like pirating software/music/movies.


Sounds reasonable.

Cheers,
Paul
  #163   Report Post  
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,447
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - EnvironmentalProtection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

On Jun 21, 5:34*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

I do like the idea of taxing the incandescent bulbs. *But I also like
the idea of taxing cheap imports.


Then there are those who are opposed to using tax laws to promote public
policy. Taxes distort the marketplace.

As for taxing imports, this silliness was settled in the 18th Century in
Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Smith proved that everybody benefits
when nations do what they do best and freely trade with other nations who
also do what they do best.

Regrettably, not everybody keeps up with the latest economic theories.


Exactly; taxes and tariffs and import controls for no reason other
than to satisfy some lobbyist is why Canadian softwood lumber cost US
builders more in the US than it does in Canada; due to protectionist
tariffs and import restrictions! (About $2000 per house is one
estimate!)
Anyway; with the bottom dropping out of the US house market Canadian
lumber producers have been market diversifying.
Along with increasing demands from China and India but with increasing
fuel/energy costs for cutting, sawing and transporting etc. the cost
will no doubt be a lot higher if/when US demand returns!
Unfortunately the blame game continues; in this instance the US
government protecting the US lumber industry, (in the USA many
woodlots are privately owned) versus claim that Canadian companies are
also subsidized because they are paying too low stumpage fees for
cutting on publicly owned forest land.
China doesn't seem to care as long as it gets wood!
  #164   Report Post  
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,447
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - EnvironmentalProtection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

On Jun 21, 8:20*pm, wrote:

As long as all nations are on a level playing field, this would be so. *But
it is a fact that most nations outside the USA have governments playing a
hand in the economies.

This sounds really odd north of that 'longest undefended' border.
Where the USA, rightly or wrongly has a reputation of being one of the
most protectionist states in the Americas; whether it is cheaper
lettuce from say Chile or taxing imports from elsewhere to 'protect'
US industry/agriculture or lumber!
Maybe where defence is involved one can understand; the 'Eurofighter'
may be a better aircraft but it may be better to have Boeing or
Northrupp actually make them???
But the signs are there; other nations are going their own way and
depending less on imports/exports from/to the USA as they diversify
and rationalize their own industries and agriculture etc.
BTW we use cheap light bulbs; about one dollar per pack of four
(including our federal sales tax of about 13%) for 40, 60 or 100
watts, in part for heating. Our small bathroom heater rarely cuts in
when the six 40 watters (total $1.50) above the vanity are on. And the
el cheapo bulbs last for ages.
Works fine because we never need (or even own) Air Conditioning.
  #165   Report Post  
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 349
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

In article ,
says...

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 6/24/2008 4:49 PM krw spake thus:

In article ,
says...

I see you would rather make a fool of yourself than discuss the
issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/bu...ef=environment

Would rather read the National Enquirer.


Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the
NYT *is* a certified fool.



Not really. You always know the National Enquirer is lying, but you
aren't always sure with the NYT.


You're quite sure with the NYT too, but it's a lot less
entertaining.

--
Keith


  #166   Report Post  
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 349
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

In article ,
says...
In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote:

| There needs to be certain regulations on this. Where bad decisions can only
| affect ones own profits, the government really has no need to be involved.
| But where bad decisions can affect the whole economy, the government has a
| genuine interest to be involved.
|
| Where do you draw that line? ...other than the obvious fraud
| involved.

I draw the line where the decisions affect the public in general, the nation,
and the economy. For it to be a violation, there has to be regulations or
laws in place. There are lots of little lines to draw, and I don't have
all the answers. I just know that where thet are drawn now isn't good
enough.


The idea that nothing should be done that "affects the public in
general" scares the **** outta me! Such sentiments would make
Stalin grin.

It would be impossible to draw all this "little lines". There isn't
just one issue here; most of it hyped by the press out of all
recognition.

| Generally, bankruptcy proceedings can separate a loser from his losses.
| Those who own a losing business get to lose their business that way.
| That may well be an adequate remedy for situations like this. But if
| more is needed, maybe jail time for the bad actors?
|
| You can jail them for fraud. How do you jail them for bad financial
| decisions? Your answer is too simple to be of use.

See above. If the decision involves something that will have an impact
beyond just the deciders finances, or the finances of his company, then
it needs to be regulated/legislated. The specifics would depend on what
is involved. There are lots (thousands) of little areas that might be
subject to this.


You and I *certainly* disagree here. It is impossible to have an
open society and one where people can't have an affect outside their
little sphere, as well.

What I'm proposing is the general idea. Specifics still need to be worked
out.


The devil is always in the details. It's that devil I'm afraid of.

| I did suspect this housing mess needs to have some people put in jail. But
| the laws may not have made it sufficiently clear to do it this time around.
| To the extent that is so, the laws need to change.
|
| What do you propose to make illegal that isn't already?

I don't know, yet. If everything done by that executives that caused this
mess really is already illegal, then lets put the *******s in jail. If we
can't (now) then we need to explore why not and fix things so we can in
the future (and make sure they understand these changes).


Not everything bad that happens is illegal, nor can it be. Nor,
indeed, should it. Life is about risks, and should be. Making
everything that is bad "illegal" also eliminates the possibility of
"good". If you want to live as a drone, move to France. ;-)

| | | | As for taxing imports, this silliness was settled in the 18th Century in
| | | | Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Smith proved that everybody benefits
| | | | when nations do what they do best and freely trade with other nations who
| | | | also do what they do best.
| | |
| | | As long as all nations are on a level playing field, this would be so. But
| | | it is a fact that most nations outside the USA have governments playing a
| | | hand in the economies.
| | |
| | | It's impossible for a government to *not* have a hand in economics
| | | and silly to think they should (not).
| |
| | How the governments in places like China are managing their economy compared
| | to the USA is a big contrast. It puts the USA in a weak position.
| |
| | Also true, but irrelevant.
|
| You sure to consider a lot of things to be irrelevant.
|
| They may have merit but are irrelevant to the point being raised in
| this thread. IOW, a strawman (or red herring - take your pick).

Well, for the original thread topic, yeah, China is irrelevant.


As such they simply are tools to push emotional buttons thus aren't
useful, assuming your intent is to exchange information rather than
propaganda. The mainstream press is good at this.

--
Keith
  #167   Report Post  
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote:

There needs to be certain regulations on this. Where bad decisions
can only affect ones own profits, the government really has no need
to be involved. But where bad decisions can affect the whole
economy, the government has a genuine interest to be involved.


Where do you draw that line? ...other than the obvious fraud
involved.


I draw the line where the decisions affect the public in general, the
nation, and the economy. For it to be a violation, there has to be
regulations or laws in place. There are lots of little lines to
draw, and I don't have
all the answers. I just know that where thet are drawn now isn't good
enough.


Not to draw too close a parallel, it is worth looking at the stock market
crash of 1929. The laws of the time did not prevent ignorant investors from
getting into things way over their head. Certainly some brokers encouraged
this as a way for the average 'Joe' to make money. Brokers extended
lucrative credit to novice investors that bought stocks on margin because
'everyone' was doing it, and nobody defaults, they just flipped the stock
and turned it over to another stock. So brokers weren't losing out and
actually made money on the commissions. They didn't worry so much about
'bad risk' borrowers because boom times helped all. They 'got away with it'
for a few years because the borrower could always just 'flip' the stock for
a goodly profit and move on.

Then stock prices fell and borrowers couldn't pay back the margin-calls.
Lots of lenders lost money, lots of borrowers lost all their stocks. Money
supply dried up.

Any of this sound familiar? Just replace 'broker' with 'mortgage broker'
and 'stock' with 'real-estate'.

After the crash, stricter regulations were put in place about buying on
margin and most people got smarter about buying on margin. Probably a
similar thing will happen now with mortgages.

daestrom

  #168   Report Post  
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

VWWall wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

snip

Someone once said the reason God could create the universe in six days
was because it didn't have to be backward compatible! :-)


I like that! :-)

There is a lot of truth there too. The desire for backward compatibility
(or at least compatibility with the majority of commercial software already
out there) has *got* to be holding a lot of innovation back. Sure, some
high priced applications can be recompiled for a different architecture, but
at what cost?

daestrom

  #169   Report Post  
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:

For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing
mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving
lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants
instead:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/bu...ef=environment

What about long tube fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in
my home
for the same reason?

Will they come out and do a full EPA-grade cleanup if a CFL (or FL)
breaks?


I've found tubes that are especially low mercury. So low, they are approved
for common trash disposal.

daestrom

  #170   Report Post  
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:51:07 -0400, "daestrom"
wrote:

wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:

For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing
mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving
lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants
instead:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/bu...ef=environment


What about long tube fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in
my home
for the same reason?

Will they come out and do a full EPA-grade cleanup if a CFL (or FL)
breaks?


I've found tubes that are especially low mercury. So low, they are approved
for common trash disposal.

daestrom



Hi daestrom,

That's correct. In virtually all jurisdictions, lamps that pass
federal TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) regulations
can be disposed in the regular household trash just like any other
light bulb.

Cheers,
Paul


  #171   Report Post  
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

daestrom wrote:

Any of this sound familiar? Just replace 'broker' with 'mortgage
broker' and 'stock' with 'real-estate'.

After the crash, stricter regulations were put in place about buying
on margin and most people got smarter about buying on margin. Probably a
similar thing will happen now with mortgages.


Won't happen.

If stricter rules were employed in the mortgage market, those traditionally
deprived, downtrodden, and discriminated against couldn't afford a home
beyond their means. Further, segregated and gated communities would remain
off-limits to other classes of citizens.

The minions that determine the final regulations are committed to equality
of outcome.

Whatever laws the legislative branch writes or whatever rules are
implemented by political appointees, the silliness will prevail.


  #172   Report Post  
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 349
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

In article ,
says...
daestrom wrote:

Any of this sound familiar? Just replace 'broker' with 'mortgage
broker' and 'stock' with 'real-estate'.

After the crash, stricter regulations were put in place about buying
on margin and most people got smarter about buying on margin. Probably a
similar thing will happen now with mortgages.


Won't happen.

If stricter rules were employed in the mortgage market, those traditionally
deprived, downtrodden, and discriminated against couldn't afford a home
beyond their means. Further, segregated and gated communities would remain
off-limits to other classes of citizens.


That is not the problem at all. The real problem is "toxic CDOs"
and the margins the people who rolled these instruments used. Add
in any *slight* downturn and you have a instant busted bank. Like
the crash above, the margins on these real estate budles is quite
low (as low as 3%, AIUI). A *minute* downturn and it's in negative
territory. When you start getting defaults...

The minions that determine the final regulations are committed to equality
of outcome.


True, but not really this issue.

Whatever laws the legislative branch writes or whatever rules are
implemented by political appointees, the silliness will prevail.


That is definitely true. There is no end to silly season anymore.

--
Keith
  #173   Report Post  
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 169
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote:
| In article ,
| says...
| daestrom wrote:
|
| Any of this sound familiar? Just replace 'broker' with 'mortgage
| broker' and 'stock' with 'real-estate'.
|
| After the crash, stricter regulations were put in place about buying
| on margin and most people got smarter about buying on margin. Probably a
| similar thing will happen now with mortgages.
|
|
| Won't happen.
|
| If stricter rules were employed in the mortgage market, those traditionally
| deprived, downtrodden, and discriminated against couldn't afford a home
| beyond their means. Further, segregated and gated communities would remain
| off-limits to other classes of citizens.
|
| That is not the problem at all. The real problem is "toxic CDOs"
| and the margins the people who rolled these instruments used. Add
| in any *slight* downturn and you have a instant busted bank. Like
| the crash above, the margins on these real estate budles is quite
| low (as low as 3%, AIUI). A *minute* downturn and it's in negative
| territory. When you start getting defaults...

Then the banks start cutting back on loans and the demand side of the
supply/demand ratio drops, leading to even lower prices, more upside-
down mortgages, more defaults, etc.


| The minions that determine the final regulations are committed to equality
| of outcome.
|
| True, but not really this issue.

it will affect the direction of the solution. The solution used in the
stock market can't be the same as used in the housing market because of
this.


| Whatever laws the legislative branch writes or whatever rules are
| implemented by political appointees, the silliness will prevail.
|
| That is definitely true. There is no end to silly season anymore.

Unfortunately, this is true way too often.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
  #174   Report Post  
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 169
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
| On 25 Jun 2008 15:08:35 GMT, wrote:
|
|In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
|
|| As with the halogens I identified above, incandescent lamp life is
|| based on the same 50 per cent rule -- that is an industry-wide
|| standard. For a graphical representation of this, see page 2 of:
||
||
http://www.sylvania.com/content/disp...x?id=003694068
|
|Then something's out of whack somewhere. I see far more than 50% of bulbs
|last beyond 750 hours of usage. That didn't catch my attention before as I
|did not assume something like the 50% basis.
|
|
| Hi Phil,
|
| A couple possible explanations. One is that although a standard
| 100-watt incandescent has a nominal service life of 750 hours, the 25,
| 40 and 60-watt versions are typically rated at 1,000 hours. Secondly,
| manufacturers have been introducing products that are shifting the
| balance between higher lumen output and longer life further towards
| the latter, so you may have noticed the elogic lamps in the above link
| have a rated life of anywhere from 1,125 hours (95-watt) to 2,250 in
| the case of the 40-watt equivalent. Line voltage and the use of
| dimmers can also dramatically affect lamp life.

I looked at my spare lightbulb supply today. Most did not have boxes. But
one set still did. These are 25-watt and show 2500 hours.

http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/aee/2008-06-26/s6301196.jpg

So I guess I should raise the issue not specifically about 5000 hours, but
about the 50% basis.


| If you're extremely fussy about spectral distribution, I don't see any
| clear winners. Philip's new MasterColour Elite ceramic metal halide
| lamps are arguably the very best the industry has to offer; you can
| see its distribution graph on page 2 of the following spec sheet and
| draw your own conclusions.
|
| See:
| http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...pdf/p-5899.pdf
|
| The spectral performance of their TL930 and TL950 lamps can be found
| he
|
| http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...f/P-5037-D.pdf

I have not seen good light from MH lamps, either.

A better fluorescent formulation could fix FL lamps. But it would require so
many different compounds to make an even spectrum that it would most likely
be prohibitively expensive. I have found that LEDs come in enough discrete
wavelengths that this might work. But they degrade at different rates over
time, and keeping it in color balance would be hard.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
  #175   Report Post  
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 169
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote:
| In article ,
| says...
|
| David Nebenzahl wrote:
|
| On 6/24/2008 4:49 PM krw spake thus:
|
| In article ,
|
says...
|
| I see you would rather make a fool of yourself than discuss the
| issue.
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/bu...ef=environment
|
| Would rather read the National Enquirer.
|
| Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the
| NYT *is* a certified fool.
|
|
| Not really. You always know the National Enquirer is lying, but you
| aren't always sure with the NYT.
|
| You're quite sure with the NYT too, but it's a lot less
| entertaining.

Actually, the NYT has been known to "dilute" their publication with some
truthful articles from time to time.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |


  #176   Report Post  
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 349
Default Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

In article , phil-news-
says...
In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote:
| In article ,
|
says...
| daestrom wrote:
|
| Any of this sound familiar? Just replace 'broker' with 'mortgage
| broker' and 'stock' with 'real-estate'.
|
| After the crash, stricter regulations were put in place about buying
| on margin and most people got smarter about buying on margin. Probably a
| similar thing will happen now with mortgages.
|
|
| Won't happen.
|
| If stricter rules were employed in the mortgage market, those traditionally
| deprived, downtrodden, and discriminated against couldn't afford a home
| beyond their means. Further, segregated and gated communities would remain
| off-limits to other classes of citizens.
|
| That is not the problem at all. The real problem is "toxic CDOs"
| and the margins the people who rolled these instruments used. Add
| in any *slight* downturn and you have a instant busted bank. Like
| the crash above, the margins on these real estate budles is quite
| low (as low as 3%, AIUI). A *minute* downturn and it's in negative
| territory. When you start getting defaults...

Then the banks start cutting back on loans and the demand side of the
supply/demand ratio drops, leading to even lower prices, more upside-
down mortgages, more defaults, etc.


Exactly, but it needn't go that far to leave banks, and such,
bankrupt. All it takes is a 3% real estate decline and the value of
the instrument is negative. Real estate declining to 97% of its
value from the peak of a bubble isn't much of a "downturn".

| The minions that determine the final regulations are committed to equality
| of outcome.
|
| True, but not really this issue.

it will affect the direction of the solution. The solution used in the
stock market can't be the same as used in the housing market because of
this.


The real problem is that the toxic CDOs have invaded the stock
market, as well. Banks are required (after the '29 crash) to keep
much higher margins. The stock (bond) market isn't under such
restrictions with CDOs. That's why you have money that was borrowed
30 times. Banks can't do that.

| Whatever laws the legislative branch writes or whatever rules are
| implemented by political appointees, the silliness will prevail.
|
| That is definitely true. There is no end to silly season anymore.

Unfortunately, this is true way too often.



--
Keith
  #177   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

On 24 Jun 2008 15:31:09 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

:Paul M. Eldridge wrote in
:
:
: For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing
: mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving
: lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead:
:
:why not NUCLEAR power plants? They are clean,safe,and practical.
:We'll need them anyways for plug-in electric autos.
:Good high paying jobs,too. GOOD for the economy.

Nuclear? Clean safe and practical? Huh? Ask people in Eastern Europe
about Chernobyl.

Also, they haven't come up with a decent means of dealing with nuclear
waste. You cannot demonstrate that it's clean, safe or practical.

Dan
  #178   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,103
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

Dan Musicant ) wrote in
news
On 24 Jun 2008 15:31:09 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

:Paul M. Eldridge wrote in
m:
:
: For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing
: mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving
: lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead:
:
:why not NUCLEAR power plants? They are clean,safe,and practical.
:We'll need them anyways for plug-in electric autos.
:Good high paying jobs,too. GOOD for the economy.

Nuclear? Clean safe and practical? Huh? Ask people in Eastern Europe
about Chernobyl.


a RUSSIAN plant;they can't do anything proper except military weapon.
Then look at France and Japan...

Also, they haven't come up with a decent means of dealing with nuclear
waste. You cannot demonstrate that it's clean, safe or practical.

Dan

France and Japan have;cleanly and safely generating around 70% of their
electric power from nuclear power.

You're just trying to set Utopian,unpractical,goals to block nuclear power.

The ONLY reason the US hasn't got their waste problem settled is due to the
environuts.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #179   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,823
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme


"Dan Musicant" wrote in message

Nuclear? Clean safe and practical? Huh? Ask people in Eastern Europe
about Chernobyl.


If you knew the difference between that plant design and any US plant, you'd
not make such statements.


  #180   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,103
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Dan Musicant" wrote in message

Nuclear? Clean safe and practical? Huh? Ask people in Eastern Europe
about Chernobyl.


If you knew the difference between that plant design and any US plant,
you'd not make such statements.



well,that's the sum of environuts arguments concerning nuclear power;
create fear,misinformation,distrust,outright lie.....all based on FEELINGS
and not real information.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net


  #181   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

Dan Musicant wrote:

Nuclear? Clean safe and practical? Huh? Ask people in Eastern Europe
about Chernobyl.


Uh, nobody in Eastern Europe was harmed by Chernobyl - except perhaps to
their phobias.


Also, they haven't come up with a decent means of dealing with nuclear
waste. You cannot demonstrate that it's clean, safe or practical.


People concerned with that sort of thing have come up with MANY methods of
dealing with nuclear waste. These methods range from encasing the waste in
molten glass and dumping the ingots in the Pacific Ocean to shooting them
into the sun to storing them in salt domes.

None of the proposed solutions have been implemented because a solution is
not needed today. The longer we wait for a final decision, the better the
decision will be. In other words, we don't have to take steps until we have
to take steps.

By every objective standard, nuclear power is safer than almost any
alternative. Except to those who fear.


  #182   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,431
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

In article , HeyBub wrote:
Dan Musicant wrote:

Nuclear? Clean safe and practical? Huh? Ask people in Eastern Europe
about Chernobyl.


Uh, nobody in Eastern Europe was harmed by Chernobyl - except perhaps to
their phobias.

Also, they haven't come up with a decent means of dealing with nuclear
waste. You cannot demonstrate that it's clean, safe or practical.


People concerned with that sort of thing have come up with MANY methods of
dealing with nuclear waste. These methods range from encasing the waste in
molten glass and dumping the ingots in the Pacific Ocean to shooting them
into the sun to storing them in salt domes.

None of the proposed solutions have been implemented because a solution is
not needed today. The longer we wait for a final decision, the better the
decision will be. In other words, we don't have to take steps until we have
to take steps.


I also see that anti-nukers will block implementation of any solution to
long term waste storage. Anti-nukers want their problems with nuclear
energy to remain unsolved, so that they can oppose nuclear power.

As a result, the barriers are political more than technical.

- Don Klipstein )
  #183   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,469
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

On 6/29/2008 1:01 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

In article , HeyBub wrote:
Dan Musicant wrote:

Nuclear? Clean safe and practical? Huh? Ask people in Eastern Europe
about Chernobyl.


Uh, nobody in Eastern Europe was harmed by Chernobyl - except perhaps to
their phobias.

Also, they haven't come up with a decent means of dealing with nuclear
waste. You cannot demonstrate that it's clean, safe or practical.


People concerned with that sort of thing have come up with MANY methods of
dealing with nuclear waste. These methods range from encasing the waste in
molten glass and dumping the ingots in the Pacific Ocean to shooting them
into the sun to storing them in salt domes.

None of the proposed solutions have been implemented because a solution is
not needed today. The longer we wait for a final decision, the better the
decision will be. In other words, we don't have to take steps until we have
to take steps.


I also see that anti-nukers will block implementation of any solution to
long term waste storage. Anti-nukers want their problems with nuclear
energy to remain unsolved, so that they can oppose nuclear power.


I assume that by "anti-nukers" you also mean, um, er, the entire state
governments of both Utah and Nevada which have vigorously opposed nuke
dumps in those states since they were proposed decades ago, no?

Not exactly the usual lefty "environ-meddlers" (in Edward Abbey's
immortal phrase) ...

As a result, the barriers are political more than technical.


Both are barriers. There are good technical reasons we don't have a
long-range high-level radioactive waste repository, due to various
geological problems with *every* site that's been proposed, and
political bungling over the years by the likes of the DOE, NRC, and most
importantly the Feds vs. the states (the Feds wanting to ram through a
repository at any cost, backed up with shabby "science", and the states
fighting back with lawsuits, regulatory appeals, etc.

In fact, this is one of *the* classic states-rights issues.


--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."

- With apologies to H. L. Mencken
  #184   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,431
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

In , David Nebenzahl
wrote:
On 6/29/2008 1:01 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

In article , HeyBub wrote:
Dan Musicant wrote:

Nuclear? Clean safe and practical? Huh? Ask people in Eastern Europe
about Chernobyl.

Uh, nobody in Eastern Europe was harmed by Chernobyl - except perhaps to
their phobias.

Also, they haven't come up with a decent means of dealing with nuclear
waste. You cannot demonstrate that it's clean, safe or practical.

People concerned with that sort of thing have come up with MANY methods of
dealing with nuclear waste. These methods range from encasing the waste in
molten glass and dumping the ingots in the Pacific Ocean to shooting them
into the sun to storing them in salt domes.

None of the proposed solutions have been implemented because a solution is
not needed today. The longer we wait for a final decision, the better the
decision will be. In other words, we don't have to take steps until we have
to take steps.


I also see that anti-nukers will block implementation of any solution to
long term waste storage. Anti-nukers want their problems with nuclear
energy to remain unsolved, so that they can oppose nuclear power.


I assume that by "anti-nukers" you also mean, um, er, the entire state
governments of both Utah and Nevada which have vigorously opposed nuke
dumps in those states since they were proposed decades ago, no?

Not exactly the usual lefty "environ-meddlers" (in Edward Abbey's
immortal phrase) ...

As a result, the barriers are political more than technical.


Both are barriers. There are good technical reasons we don't have a
long-range high-level radioactive waste repository, due to various
geological problems with *every* site that's been proposed, and
political bungling over the years by the likes of the DOE, NRC, and most
importantly the Feds vs. the states (the Feds wanting to ram through a
repository at any cost, backed up with shabby "science", and the states
fighting back with lawsuits, regulatory appeals, etc.

In fact, this is one of *the* classic states-rights issues.


Besides the fulltime environmentalists many of whom are at best
luddites, we have a wider set of chemophobes and the like. More still,
we have NIMBY-ism playing very well in this country. Even people who say
we need such-and-such say we need it someplace other than here.

Politicians gain votes by saying how such-and-such proposed for "our
district" is a *bad thing*, dangerous, toxic, whatever even if they would
have supported it coming into existence somewhere else.

And I don't see any actual technical problems with dumping nuclear waste
into salt domes, or into uranium mines that held radioactive materials
just fine for many millions of years. Especially if the waste is
vitrified first.

- Don Klipstein )
  #185   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,469
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

On 6/29/2008 1:59 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

And I don't see any actual technical problems with dumping nuclear waste
into salt domes, or into uranium mines that held radioactive materials
just fine for many millions of years. Especially if the waste is
vitrified first.


Salt domes turn out to be one of the worst places to consider storing
radwaste, even though it was originally thought they'd be ideal. (I did
a lot of research on this very topic some years ago, so I do know
*something* about it.)

The thing that seemed attractive about salt domes for storing nuclear
waste was the property they had of "healing" cracks and voids in the
salt, so that if there was a potential leak, it would basically seal
itself over in a short time.

Turns out that the rate of "creep" in salt is far higher than the
geologists originally estimated. So high, in fact, that they determined
that if waste was stored there, it would soon be entombed by the
advancing salt. One of the requirements of any high-level radioactive
repository is that the waste containers must be accessible and
retrievable; salt makes this damn near impossible.

So any other bright ideas?


--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."

- With apologies to H. L. Mencken


  #186   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

On 29 Jun 2008 02:23:50 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Dan Musicant" wrote in message

Nuclear? Clean safe and practical? Huh? Ask people in Eastern Europe
about Chernobyl.


If you knew the difference between that plant design and any US plant,
you'd not make such statements.



well,that's the sum of environuts arguments concerning nuclear power;
create fear,misinformation,distrust,outright lie.....all based on FEELINGS
and not real information.


Hi Jim,

Perhaps if the nuclear industry paid more attention to winning over
the hearts and minds of the financial sector rather than pointing
fingers at so-called "environuts" they could move forward. Of course,
there's always the tax payer:

"....So risky and expensive, in fact, that building new ones won't
happen without hefty government support. NRG Energy (NRG), Dominion
(D), Duke Energy (DUK), and six other companies have already leaped to
file applications to construct and operate new plants largely because
of incentives Congress has put in place. The subsidies include a 1.8
cents tax credit for each kilowatt hour of electricity produced, which
could be worth more than $140 million per reactor per year; a $500
million payout for each of the first two plants built (and $250
million each for the next four) if there are delays for reasons
outside company control; and a total of $18.5 billion in loan
guarantees. The latter is crucial, since it shifts the risk onto the
federal government, making it possible to raise capital from skittish
banks. "Without the loan guarantees, I think it would be very
difficult for the first wave of plants to move forward," says David W.
Crane, CEO of NRG...."

See:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine... e_top+stories

Ever wonder if those pinko hair-shirt environuts are in bed with the
evil capitalist pigs? ;-)

Cheers,
Paul
  #187   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,469
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

On 6/29/2008 4:49 PM Paul M. Eldridge spake thus:

Perhaps if the nuclear industry paid more attention to winning over
the hearts and minds of the financial sector rather than pointing
fingers at so-called "environuts" they could move forward. Of course,
there's always the tax payer:

"....So risky and expensive, in fact, that building new ones won't
happen without hefty government support. NRG Energy (NRG), Dominion
(D), Duke Energy (DUK), and six other companies have already leaped to
file applications to construct and operate new plants largely because
of incentives Congress has put in place. The subsidies include a 1.8
cents tax credit for each kilowatt hour of electricity produced, which
could be worth more than $140 million per reactor per year; a $500
million payout for each of the first two plants built (and $250
million each for the next four) if there are delays for reasons
outside company control; and a total of $18.5 billion in loan
guarantees. The latter is crucial, since it shifts the risk onto the
federal government, making it possible to raise capital from skittish
banks. "Without the loan guarantees, I think it would be very
difficult for the first wave of plants to move forward," says David W.
Crane, CEO of NRG...."

See:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine... e_top+stories

Ever wonder if those pinko hair-shirt environuts are in bed with the
evil capitalist pigs? ;-)


Thank you for that.

The commonly-believed myth is that the forward march of nuclear power
generation was stopped dead in its tracks by those aforementioned
commie-pinko hair-shirt NIMBY environmeddlers back in the 1970s and 80s.
This is basically bull****: the industry collapsed for very easily
explained financial reasons, with just enough public distaste for nukes
on account of Three Mile Island and other disasters to put it under.

It would be instructive to go back and read the story of the Rancho Seco
plant near Sacramento, which was shut down not by environmeddlers, nor
by money managers, but by voters in the municipal utilities district
which operated the plant.

[sorry, couldn't find good links in a minute search; it's out there ...]


--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."

- With apologies to H. L. Mencken
  #188   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,431
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/29/2008 1:59 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

And I don't see any actual technical problems with dumping nuclear waste
into salt domes, or into uranium mines that held radioactive materials
just fine for many millions of years. Especially if the waste is
vitrified first.


Salt domes turn out to be one of the worst places to consider storing
radwaste, even though it was originally thought they'd be ideal. (I did
a lot of research on this very topic some years ago, so I do know
*something* about it.)

The thing that seemed attractive about salt domes for storing nuclear
waste was the property they had of "healing" cracks and voids in the
salt, so that if there was a potential leak, it would basically seal
itself over in a short time.

Turns out that the rate of "creep" in salt is far higher than the
geologists originally estimated. So high, in fact, that they determined
that if waste was stored there, it would soon be entombed by the
advancing salt. One of the requirements of any high-level radioactive
repository is that the waste containers must be accessible and
retrievable; salt makes this damn near impossible.

So any other bright ideas?


If the waste is a mile down in a salt dome, why is there need for it to
be retrievable?

And if it is vitrified, how would it leak into the surrounding salt?

- Don Klipstein )
  #189   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,469
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

On 6/29/2008 6:01 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote:

Turns out that the rate of "creep" in salt is far higher than the
geologists originally estimated. So high, in fact, that they determined
that if waste was stored there, it would soon be entombed by the
advancing salt. One of the requirements of any high-level radioactive
repository is that the waste containers must be accessible and
retrievable; salt makes this damn near impossible.

So any other bright ideas?


If the waste is a mile down in a salt dome, why is there need for it to
be retrievable?


I don't know if it's a DOE/NRC requirement, but it is definitely a
preference that any stored waste be retrievable, for several reasons:

o In order to be able to determine the state of the storage container,
to detect any leaks, and to monitor its temperature, any radiation
leaks, etc.

o Because future generations might conceivably be able to use this
buried waste with new technology.


--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."

- With apologies to H. L. Mencken
  #190   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/29/2008 6:01 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote:




Turns out that the rate of "creep" in salt is far higher than the
geologists originally estimated. So high, in fact, that they
determined that if waste was stored there, it would soon be entombed
by the advancing salt. One of the requirements of any high-level
radioactive repository is that the waste containers must be
accessible and retrievable; salt makes this damn near impossible.

So any other bright ideas?



If the waste is a mile down in a salt dome, why is there need for it
to be retrievable?



I don't know if it's a DOE/NRC requirement, but it is definitely a
preference that any stored waste be retrievable, for several reasons:

o In order to be able to determine the state of the storage container,
to detect any leaks, and to monitor its temperature, any radiation
leaks, etc.

o Because future generations might conceivably be able to use this
buried waste with new technology.



I believe that the second is already being thought about.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel


  #191   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,431
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/29/2008 6:01 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote:

Turns out that the rate of "creep" in salt is far higher than the
geologists originally estimated. So high, in fact, that they determined
that if waste was stored there, it would soon be entombed by the
advancing salt. One of the requirements of any high-level radioactive
repository is that the waste containers must be accessible and
retrievable; salt makes this damn near impossible.

So any other bright ideas?


If the waste is a mile down in a salt dome, why is there need for it to
be retrievable?


I don't know if it's a DOE/NRC requirement, but it is definitely a
preference that any stored waste be retrievable, for several reasons:

o In order to be able to determine the state of the storage container,
to detect any leaks, and to monitor its temperature, any radiation
leaks, etc.


o Because future generations might conceivably be able to use this
buried waste with new technology.


Your several reasons amount to 2.

The first one is unnecessary when the waste is a mile (or more) down in
a salt dome.

The second is an argument against "permanent" waste disposal, and *I
Wonder Why* a nuclear power opponent likes arguments against schemes for
the permanent waste disposal that nuclear power opponents claim is
necessary (and claim is unsolved) to make nuclear power safe?

- Don Klipstein )
  #192   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,469
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

On 6/29/2008 8:09 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote:

On 6/29/2008 6:01 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote:

Turns out that the rate of "creep" in salt is far higher than the
geologists originally estimated. So high, in fact, that they determined
that if waste was stored there, it would soon be entombed by the
advancing salt. One of the requirements of any high-level radioactive
repository is that the waste containers must be accessible and
retrievable; salt makes this damn near impossible.

So any other bright ideas?

If the waste is a mile down in a salt dome, why is there need for it to
be retrievable?


I don't know if it's a DOE/NRC requirement, but it is definitely a
preference that any stored waste be retrievable, for several reasons:

o In order to be able to determine the state of the storage container,
to detect any leaks, and to monitor its temperature, any radiation
leaks, etc.


o Because future generations might conceivably be able to use this
buried waste with new technology.


Your several reasons amount to 2.


Yes, I knew that: I gave you two out of several.

The second is an argument against "permanent" waste disposal, and *I
Wonder Why* a nuclear power opponent likes arguments against schemes for
the permanent waste disposal that nuclear power opponents claim is
necessary (and claim is unsolved) to make nuclear power safe?


I didn't say I liked, or even agreed with this argument: I'm telling you
the reasons the people who are pushing for *permanent* repositories want
the waste to be retrievable. I don't write the rules, just reporting them.


--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."

- With apologies to H. L. Mencken
  #193   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

In article , David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/29/2008 1:59 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

And I don't see any actual technical problems with dumping nuclear waste
into salt domes, or into uranium mines that held radioactive materials
just fine for many millions of years. Especially if the waste is
vitrified first.


Salt domes turn out to be one of the worst places to consider storing
radwaste, even though it was originally thought they'd be ideal. (I did
a lot of research on this very topic some years ago, so I do know
*something* about it.)

The thing that seemed attractive about salt domes for storing nuclear
waste was the property they had of "healing" cracks and voids in the
salt, so that if there was a potential leak, it would basically seal
itself over in a short time.


No, actually, the thing that really seemed attractive about salt domes is that
the *presence* of crystalline salt necessarily means the *absence* of water.

No water to corrode the containers. No water to be contaminated.
  #194   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 164
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:
advancing salt. One of the requirements of any high-level radioactive
repository is that the waste containers must be accessible and
retrievable; salt makes this damn near impossible.


Why must they be accessible and retrievable?




--
--Tim Smith
  #195   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,469
Default Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme

On 7/2/2008 1:18 AM Tim Smith spake thus:

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:
advancing salt. One of the requirements of any high-level radioactive
repository is that the waste containers must be accessible and
retrievable; salt makes this damn near impossible.


Why must they be accessible and retrievable?


Ask DOE; it's always been one of their requirements. I would guess
because they want to be able to monitor them and make sure they're not
getting too hot, leaking, etc.

Just bein' careful, dontcha know.


--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."

- With apologies to H. L. Mencken
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pool light bulb any different than regular light bulb? Pond Scum Home Repair 2 September 3rd 07 04:33 AM
Removing broken energy saver bulb robgraham UK diy 35 June 22nd 07 07:50 AM
PRIMER bulb Broken [email protected] Home Ownership 4 June 20th 06 10:12 PM
Broken bulb puzzled Home Repair 8 March 5th 05 03:45 AM
Bug Light Bulb---any bulb for outside use that are not yellow? Patty Amas Home Ownership 5 November 3rd 04 10:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"