California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

Radiation exposure from the nuclear fuel cycle is 0.0005 mSv per year
(source: Bodansky, Springer) while naturally ocurring radon exposes people
to 2.0 mSv per year. And one CT scan exposes one up to 20 mSv in just one
session (not just the whole year).

Erma1ina I guess when you have no scientific basis for your argument, you
resort to name-calling. You want to keep it scary sounding. Then back up
the scare tactics with some kind of scientific facts.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

This facility was less than 50 miles East of San Francisco.

It is not surprising, given the proximity to San Francisco, politics would
be intense.

The article says more about politics of the Bay Area than anything else.
Nothing new.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

"Pete C." wrote:

h wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Norminn wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Subsidized: Where the government takes money, by force, from the
citizens.
To pay for something that the citizens don't want to think they are
really
actually paying for.

I'm sure California could have lower energy prices, if they raised taxes
to
pay the difference. Then, they could be just as socialist as Albeeta.



How is giving my money to big banks NOT Socialist? And why do Socialist
countries have a much
higher standard of living than we do?

Care to give an example of such a socialist country with a higher
standard of living than that in the US?

Sweden. And just a point, the US doesn't even make the top ten list of
countries with the highest standard of living, although Canada, Finland,
Norway, and Sweden all do.

Care to provide cites to that ranking and to the criteria used to
determine it? I expect an objective eye will find significant bias in
the criteria, intentional or unintentional.

It could well be unintentional as I've found in much dealings with
Europeans that they have great difficulty grasping just how large and
diverse the US is (The entire UK would fit into Texas something like
3.5X) and that one seemingly bad statistic in one city in no way applies
to the entire US.

I can't say I've been to Sweden, Norway or Finland, however I have been
to Canada numerous times and from everything I've seen, the standard of
living there is not any better than that in the US.

Check this out:

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/UN:H...ment:Index.htm

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

scorpster wrote:

This facility was less than 50 miles East of San Francisco.

It is not surprising, given the proximity to San Francisco, politics would
be intense.

The article says more about politics of the Bay Area than anything else.
Nothing new.

Try THINKING! LOL

Rancho Seco was a PUBLIC UTILITY in the SACRAMENTO Municipal Utility
District, not in San Francisco.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

scorpster wrote:

Radiation exposure from the nuclear fuel cycle is 0.0005 mSv per year
(source: Bodansky, Springer) while naturally ocurring radon exposes people
to 2.0 mSv per year. And one CT scan exposes one up to 20 mSv in just one
session (not just the whole year).

Erma1ina I guess when you have no scientific basis for your argument, you
resort to name-calling. You want to keep it scary sounding. Then back up
the scare tactics with some kind of scientific facts.

That from someone ("scorpster") who talked about the radiation from an
MRI. LOL

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

I typed MRI but I was -thinking- about CT, and then corrected it. It was a
typo, nothing more exciting or revealing than that.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

Erma1ina wrote:

scorpster wrote:

This facility was less than 50 miles East of San Francisco.

It is not surprising, given the proximity to San Francisco, politics would
be intense.

The article says more about politics of the Bay Area than anything else.
Nothing new.

Try THINKING! LOL

Rancho Seco was a PUBLIC UTILITY in the SACRAMENTO Municipal Utility
District, not in San Francisco.


And, BTW, as you SHOULD have read in the article in Time Magazine,
Rancho Seco was 25 mi. SE of Sacramento in Herald, CA. So, it was more
than 100 miles (not "less than 50 miles") east of San Francisco.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

scorpster wrote:

I typed MRI but I was -thinking- about CT, and then corrected it. It was a
typo, nothing more exciting or revealing than that.

That error regarding the nature of an MRI reflected your overall lack of
familiarity with the subject on which you were commenting.

Your subsequent attempts to "recover" from that error, reinforced the
conclusion that you were pulling your assertions from somewhere other
than a well-functioning and informed brain. I leave you to deduce the
exact anatomical location to which I am referring. LOL

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

Erma1ina focus your energy on scientific content instead of more childish
comments, it would be more productive.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

On Dec 3, 11:25*pm, "scorpster" wrote:
I just received a notice from California Edison that Tier 3, 4 and 5 rates
are increasing AGAIN in the first quarter of 2009. *My electric bill is
typically $400 a month. *I don't think very many people fall into Tier 1 or
2. *Here's what really ****es me off: the electric utilities fail to take
advantage of clean nuclear power. *They keep wasting our money on natural
gas, wind power, and all kinds of inefficient "green" ideas but they are
blind to nuclear power. *If we had nuclear power we'd only be paying a
fraction of the price and it would be good for the environment!!


Move.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

Good idea Ron. The cost of living in California is very high and the
infrastructure in this state is crumbling. However I like to think of
solutions rather than just escaping. With nuclear energy, we can reduce the
emissions contributing to global warming, improve air quality, and slash
electric bills. It's win/win for everyone, except for the vocal few
ignorant of the science, who try to use scare tactics. I hope other
Californians are as outraged as I am so we can have a little influence, at
least to invest in the future.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

dpb wrote:
Chris wrote:
Pete C. wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...
BFD, that is meaningless to all of us outside of CA. What is the
rate per kW hour? I'm paying 18¢.

I'm paying about 13¢ here in TX.

Here in S. Texas is 10.7¢. I am not complaining but having such a
diversity doesn't make much sense to me...

Look to your rate commission and be glad it isn't even worse.

Here E KS is as much as 60% lower than W owing to bias in the makeup of
the rate commission in the populated areas vis a vis the
agricultural/less populated.

--
Not sure if rate commission ? has anything to do with this. My supplier
is a non-profit membership based coop and I try to keep consumption low.
It gets obviously more expensive if I use more...

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

Pete C. wrote:
Norminn wrote:
Someone said we should just keep the nuclear waste until we develop
technology to make it safe..........nukes take fuel, too.

We have the technology to make it safe - reprocess it and reuse it in
the plants. That cycle can continue so long as to make nuclear energy
effectively renewable.

As for the greenie who babbled about the sun and it being inexhaustible
- wrong, it will run out of energy one day too.
Good point, we better prepare a backup plan...

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

Pete C. wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/4/2008 3:13 PM Pete C. spake thus:

As for the greenie who babbled about the sun and it being inexhaustible
- wrong, it will run out of energy one day too.
Since that was me, let me say how idiotic that objection is. It (the
sun) *is* inexhaustable for all intents and purposes, since when the sun
finally does go out, the game's over for all of us.

The reprocessing of our nuclear fuel sources is equally inexhaustible in
that context as well.

As for the game being over when the sun runs out of juice, that is very
much dependent on how far we progress in space travel and colonization
in the millenias until the sun does go kaput.

Space travel to go where?

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:17:04 -0600, dpb wrote:

wrote:
...
one has ever decommissioned a atomic plant. They have shut them down
and keep the maintenance up because:

A: No one wants the wase in their back yard
B: No one knows how to do it.
...

That's also simply flat-out wrong. In the US alone for only commercial
(non-defense facilities) the following sites have had equipment,
structures, and portions of the facility containing radioactive
contaiminants removed or been decontaminated to a level low enough that
the property can be released and the NRC license terminated:


At best it means that specific site has been partly decontaminated.
It means that they have moved, not eliminated, the biggest part of
the problem.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

scorpster wrote:
The nuclear waste being stored long term, in many cases has a lower mSv
than a dose from the medical CT scanner.

It's a shame it's lower than a dose from a CT. We could have free or low
cost CT scans otherwise ... Nuclear plant could help reducing the high
cost of health care!

(I am obviously mocking, but isn't this how these morons' minds work?)

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

scorpster wrote:
Good idea Ron. The cost of living in California is very high and the
infrastructure in this state is crumbling. However I like to think of
solutions rather than just escaping. With nuclear energy, we can reduce
the emissions contributing to global warming, improve air quality, and
slash electric bills.

You forgot to mention defeating terrorism, solving the high health care
costs problem and laying out the foundations for a backup strategy for
when the Sun will cease to produce energy.

You should run, my friend. Start now and don't stop.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

In article ,
Erma1ina wrote:

scorpster wrote:

Your doctor's MRI scanning machine is also stored ON-SITE but I don't think
any protesters are threatning to rip those out of the hospitals or yank
people out from underneath their radiation.

Hmmm.

Another "genius". LOL

MRI (MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING) does NOT involve radioactive materials.

Technically some of the contrast media are radioactive.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

In article ,
Erma1ina wrote:


So what?

As I explained (and you conveniently omitted quoting), radioactive
medical waste is REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW TO BE DISPOSED OF IN SPECIFIC
DESIGNATED FACITIES, NOT ON SITE of the medical facility.

So what? The on-site disposal of nuclear generation waste is the
specific designated site with much stricter controls than over medical
waste. Don't see a real difference here.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

Norminn wrote:
clipped


I reiterate that there are far more serious boogey men to worry over
than some theorized disaster at Yucca Mtn is my point. Sure, a large
enough 'quake could make a mess of the facility, but it would not be
any nuclear disaster.

Which bogeyman is "far more serious" than release of radioactivity
into air or water?

There are three, and only three, deleterious health effects of
radioactivity:

1. Genetic mutation
2. Radiation sickness
3. Cancer

There has never been a case of a live birth with radiation-induced genetic
mutations. With radiation sickness, you either get over it or you die.
Cancer is probably the most-studied disease on the planet.

On the other hand, we don't even know the NAMES of all the stuff from a
coal-fired power plant's chimney.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

dpb wrote:
...

And, of course, to be fair, compare them to any alternative mechanism
of generating equivalent power to the grid at equivalent or lower
cost and reliability. (HINT: these life cycle studies were done
exhaustively years ago. While absolute numbers on the $$ values will
change w/ inflation, the relative rankings won't. Nuclear wins
overall owing to the much smaller volume of material handled as
compared to coal, on other materials costs owing to the low density
output of the alternative sources.)

Right. Ten years of fuel for a nuclear reactor can be transported in one
truck.

The coal required for one power station involves uncountably many railroad
cars, trudging for a thousand miles (e.g., Montana to Chicago), with the
attendant mishaps expected in mining and transporting such a huge amount of
stuff.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

Chris wrote:
dpb wrote:
Chris wrote:
Pete C. wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...
BFD, that is meaningless to all of us outside of CA. What is the
rate per kW hour? I'm paying 18¢.

I'm paying about 13¢ here in TX.

Here in S. Texas is 10.7¢. I am not complaining but having such a
diversity doesn't make much sense to me...

Look to your rate commission and be glad it isn't even worse.

Here E KS is as much as 60% lower than W owing to bias in the makeup
of the rate commission in the populated areas vis a vis the
agricultural/less populated.

--
Not sure if rate commission ? has anything to do with this. My supplier
is a non-profit membership based coop and I try to keep consumption low.
It gets obviously more expensive if I use more...

It still may (and probably does at least indirectly).

We're on REC as well and the KS commission knuckled under a number of
years ago and allowed the investor utilities to "cherry pick" individual
loads from co-op territories w/ no compensation but didn't return the
favor of allowing the co-ops to retain service to expanding residential
areas they had historically served when they were too diffuse for the
utilities to serve until they did grow.

Since co-ops typically have far fewer customer loads/mile and less
concentrated industrial loads that would make more a higher revenue
stream per mile than the investor utilities, the distribution costs for
the co-ops is higher. Consequently their rates are generally forced to
be higher to cover those costs.

The KS commission exacerbated the problem by allowing the taking of what
few more concentrated loads away with the added insult of it being our
lines still serving the loads.

--

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Evidence?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"h" wrote in message
...


Care to give an example of such a socialist country with a higher
standard of living than that in the US?

Sweden. And just a point, the US doesn't even make the top ten list of
countries with the highest standard of living, although Canada, Finland,
Norway, and Sweden all do.



For the top posting moron, try just****inggooleingit. but since you're
obviously incapable, see he
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top...-life-map.html

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

Chris wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/4/2008 3:13 PM Pete C. spake thus:

As for the greenie who babbled about the sun and it being inexhaustible
- wrong, it will run out of energy one day too.
Since that was me, let me say how idiotic that objection is. It (the
sun) *is* inexhaustable for all intents and purposes, since when the sun
finally does go out, the game's over for all of us.

The reprocessing of our nuclear fuel sources is equally inexhaustible in
that context as well.

As for the game being over when the sun runs out of juice, that is very
much dependent on how far we progress in space travel and colonization
in the millenias until the sun does go kaput.

Space travel to go where?

Who knows? There is more than one "sun" in the universe and who the heck
knows what progress humans will make in getting out there in all the
time before this "sun" kicks the bucket.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

On Dec 4, 8:27*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
We must immediately halt all production of electric cars, until the
pollution and waste problem is solved. What to do with all the huge
batteries, after two or three years. Car batteries at present are 4 to 5
years, and they are shallow discharge. Deep cycle trolling batteries (or
some new technology) will need to be replaced every few years. Think of the
children!

In my own unscientific texts, ethanol is *a major loser. My van gets 18 MPG
on gasoline, and 15.5 MPG on ethanol. What that means, is that I burn MORE
petroleum with gasohol than I do by burning pure gasoline. I lose more than
10% mileage, on the 10% ethanol.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"RickH" wrote in message

...

You think they are high now, just wait till every hippie in CA is
driving a Chevy Volt. *The problem with most environmentalists is that
they will protest for electric cars or ethanol, etc. then realize
later that the laws of thermodynamics are still in effect. *The
gasoline-burned energy that pushes your car 60 miles, is the same
amount of electric energy needed to push your car 60 miles on a
charge.

Yes if electric cars become the norm, then nuclear will have to be
increased. *I live around Chicago where we have the highest
concentration of nuclear plants anywhere in the US, they are perfectly
safe, and the newer plants are even safer.

Pure plug in cars are a bit of a joke too, what do you do if you
become discharged in traffic, its not like you can walk to the gas
station with a can? Unless battery packs are made modular and gas
stations maintain a supply of pre-charged modules changeable in a
minute, then plug in cars are dead before they even started. If the
plug-ins are hybrids then they would be sellable, but nothing new is
being developed here as we already have hybrids, these plug ins would
just be hybrids with on-board AC chargers. For the vast majority of
folks, a car with limited range and a refill-time of hours wont sell,
period.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:05:28 -0600, dpb wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:17:04 -0600, dpb wrote:

wrote:
...
one has ever decommissioned a atomic plant. They have shut them down
and keep the maintenance up because:

A: No one wants the wase in their back yard
B: No one knows how to do it.
...

That's also simply flat-out wrong. In the US alone for only commercial
(non-defense facilities) the following sites have had equipment,
structures, and portions of the facility containing radioactive
contaiminants removed or been decontaminated to a level low enough that
the property can be released and the NRC license terminated:


At best it means that specific site has been partly decontaminated.
It means that they have moved, not eliminated, the biggest part of
the problem.

It means _the site_ has been decontaminated sufficiently to be released
which disproves the prior claims.

That there is long term storage and disposal at some location is a
"doh!". There are waste disposal problems associated with virtually all
activities of one kind or another.
How about building a dozen or so reactors at the nevada test site?
Then all the waste could be stored right there.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

On Dec 5, 7:39*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
dpb wrote:
...

And, of course, to be fair, compare them to any alternative mechanism
of generating equivalent power to the grid at equivalent or lower
cost and reliability. *(HINT: *these life cycle studies were done
exhaustively years ago. *While absolute numbers on the $$ values will
change w/ inflation, the relative rankings won't. *Nuclear wins
overall owing to the much smaller volume of material handled as
compared to coal, on other materials costs owing to the low density
output of the alternative sources.)

Right. Ten years of fuel for a nuclear reactor can be transported in one
truck.

The coal required for one power station involves uncountably many railroad
cars, trudging for a thousand miles (e.g., Montana to Chicago), with the
attendant mishaps expected in mining and transporting such a huge amount of
stuff.

Your arguments are starting to sound like the age old question of
rather you perfer to be killed with a rifle shot or a cannon shot. It
really doesn't make a damn bit of difference if the end result is "you
are dead".

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

Erma1ina wrote:

"Pete C." wrote:

h wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Norminn wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Subsidized: Where the government takes money, by force, from the
citizens.
To pay for something that the citizens don't want to think they are
really
actually paying for.

I'm sure California could have lower energy prices, if they raised taxes
to
pay the difference. Then, they could be just as socialist as Albeeta.



How is giving my money to big banks NOT Socialist? And why do Socialist
countries have a much
higher standard of living than we do?

Care to give an example of such a socialist country with a higher
standard of living than that in the US?

Sweden. And just a point, the US doesn't even make the top ten list of
countries with the highest standard of living, although Canada, Finland,
Norway, and Sweden all do.

Care to provide cites to that ranking and to the criteria used to
determine it? I expect an objective eye will find significant bias in
the criteria, intentional or unintentional.

It could well be unintentional as I've found in much dealings with
Europeans that they have great difficulty grasping just how large and
diverse the US is (The entire UK would fit into Texas something like
3.5X) and that one seemingly bad statistic in one city in no way applies
to the entire US.

I can't say I've been to Sweden, Norway or Finland, however I have been
to Canada numerous times and from everything I've seen, the standard of
living there is not any better than that in the US.

Check this out:

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/UN:H...ment:Index.htm

As I expected, very superficial and producing a biased result. Note how
the results are biased towards countries with relatively small and
homogenous populations? That is due to the superficial nature of the
criteria and the simple averaging used which produces very misleading
results for large and diverse countries.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

h wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Evidence?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"h" wrote in message
...


Care to give an example of such a socialist country with a higher
standard of living than that in the US?

Sweden. And just a point, the US doesn't even make the top ten list of
countries with the highest standard of living, although Canada, Finland,
Norway, and Sweden all do.



For the top posting moron, try just****inggooleingit. but since you're
obviously incapable, see he
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top...-life-map.html

Meaningless, I see no indication of the criteria used. I expect much
like the other link posted, that it is very superficial and produces
significant bias towards countries with small homogeneous populations
and bias against countries with large diverse populations.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

Pete C. wrote:

h wrote:


"Pete C." wrote in message
onster.com...


Norminn wrote:


Stormin Mormon wrote:



Subsidized: Where the government takes money, by force, from the
citizens.
To pay for something that the citizens don't want to think they are
really
actually paying for.

I'm sure California could have lower energy prices, if they raised taxes
to
pay the difference. Then, they could be just as socialist as Albeeta.





How is giving my money to big banks NOT Socialist? And why do Socialist
countries have a much
higher standard of living than we do?


Care to give an example of such a socialist country with a higher
standard of living than that in the US?


Sweden. And just a point, the US doesn't even make the top ten list of
countries with the highest standard of living, although Canada, Finland,
Norway, and Sweden all do.



Care to provide cites to that ranking and to the criteria used to
determine it? I expect an objective eye will find significant bias in
the criteria, intentional or unintentional.


Norway: " It also enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the
world, ..........."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/co...3276.stm#facts

Pick another country he
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/country_profiles/default.stm

USA:
About 10% live below the poverty level.

It could well be unintentional as I've found in much dealings with
Europeans that they have great difficulty grasping just how large and
diverse the US is (The entire UK would fit into Texas something like
3.5X) and that one seemingly bad statistic in one city in no way applies
to the entire US.

I can't say I've been to Sweden, Norway or Finland, however I have been
to Canada numerous times and from everything I've seen, the standard of
living there is not any better than that in the US.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

Norminn wrote:

Pete C. wrote:

h wrote:


"Pete C." wrote in message
onster.com...


Norminn wrote:


Stormin Mormon wrote:



Subsidized: Where the government takes money, by force, from the
citizens.
To pay for something that the citizens don't want to think they are
really
actually paying for.

I'm sure California could have lower energy prices, if they raised taxes
to
pay the difference. Then, they could be just as socialist as Albeeta.





How is giving my money to big banks NOT Socialist? And why do Socialist
countries have a much
higher standard of living than we do?


Care to give an example of such a socialist country with a higher
standard of living than that in the US?


Sweden. And just a point, the US doesn't even make the top ten list of
countries with the highest standard of living, although Canada, Finland,
Norway, and Sweden all do.



Care to provide cites to that ranking and to the criteria used to
determine it? I expect an objective eye will find significant bias in
the criteria, intentional or unintentional.


Norway: " It also enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the
world, ..........."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/co...3276.stm#facts

Pick another country he
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/country_profiles/default.stm

USA:
About 10% live below the poverty level.

Once again, links that show a bias towards countries with a smaller
homogeneous population. If you were to run the same comparison, only
using individual US states vs. one very distorted average of all the US
states you would see how significant the error is.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

clipped


Once again, links that show a bias towards countries with a smaller
homogeneous population. If you were to run the same comparison, only
using individual US states vs. one very distorted average of all the US
states you would see how significant the error is.


What bias? The one that doesn't fit your prejudice? The BBC is, IMO,
relatively reliable and
would be very odd to show a bias for Scandinavian countries but against
the US. I'm not going
for a PhD, so if you want more authorities that YOU consider unbiased,
go for it. As for
homogeniety or lack thereof, another significant factor in regard to
quality of life. Life is good,
but not as good for blacks and hispanics.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

Norminn wrote:

clipped


Once again, links that show a bias towards countries with a smaller
homogeneous population. If you were to run the same comparison, only
using individual US states vs. one very distorted average of all the US
states you would see how significant the error is.


What bias? The one that doesn't fit your prejudice? The BBC is, IMO,
relatively reliable and
would be very odd to show a bias for Scandinavian countries but against
the US. I'm not going
for a PhD, so if you want more authorities that YOU consider unbiased,
go for it. As for
homogeniety or lack thereof, another significant factor in regard to
quality of life. Life is good,
but not as good for blacks and hispanics.

There is plenty of bias built in to those rankings, because they do not
account for the very large diversity in the US.

Most folks in Europe think the US is some kind of shooting gallery, and
if all you watch is the sensationalizing media you might get that
impression. When you actually look at the underlying statistics you find
that a handful of cities that represent a quite small percentage of the
US have big gang problems. Outside those cities you find a very
different picture.

If you try to average the crime statistics per capita you get a very
distorted result. The same applies to most all measures of standards of
living, and looking at a simplistic figure like per capita income you
get similarly distorted results as maintaining a certain standard of
living has very different costs in different parts of the US.

Comparing two different US states you might find that what a $50,000
gross job will buy you for housing and standard of living in Texas will
require a $90,000 gross job to match in Connecticut. (no those aren't
exact numbers, but having lived in both states I have some perspective
on this).

As I said, if you run that comparison, using each US state
independently, the picture is very different and you can see that the
vast majority of the US has a very high standard of living and that
there are a handful of problem areas that represent a very small portion
of the US.

In the US our health care is largely provided by employers and most of
that cost does not show in our gross incomes, while in many of those
other countries the health care comes from the government and from the
high taxes that come out of the citizens gross incomes. They say that
typically the cost of an employee to a larger company is roughly double
their gross salary, so if you double the US per capita figures in those
comparisons you'll get closer to the truth.

On the health care front, there is the perception promoted by those who
want to socialize health care that few in the US have health insurance
and access to health care. The truth is that something like 86% of the
US population does have health insurance, and the remainder do still
have access to health care, though access to preventive health care for
that 14% could be improved.

The poverty and homelessness figures in the US are a bit distorted due
to the deinstitutionalizing of the mentally ill. While there are
programs that offer services and help to these unfortunate folks, being
voluntary, the most ill and most in need won't take advantage of the
help. There is no easy solution to this problem, but again it has the
effect of distorting statistics when the same mentally ill folks are
institutionalized in the countries you try to compare with.

The underlying problem with all the rankings presented so far is that
they all attempt to reduce a complex country like the US to a lowest
common denominator which simply corrupts the data.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Erma1ina wrote:

scorpster wrote:

Your doctor's MRI scanning machine is also stored ON-SITE but I don't think
any protesters are threatning to rip those out of the hospitals or yank
people out from underneath their radiation.

Hmmm.

Another "genius". LOL

MRI (MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING) does NOT involve radioactive materials.

Technically some of the contrast media are radioactive.

Not the contrast medium (Gadolinium) used for MRIs.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

Pete C. wrote:

Norminn wrote:


clipped



Once again, links that show a bias towards countries with a smaller
homogeneous population. If you were to run the same comparison, only
using individual US states vs. one very distorted average of all the US
states you would see how significant the error is.




What bias? The one that doesn't fit your prejudice? The BBC is, IMO,
relatively reliable and
would be very odd to show a bias for Scandinavian countries but against
the US. I'm not going
for a PhD, so if you want more authorities that YOU consider unbiased,
go for it. As for
homogeniety or lack thereof, another significant factor in regard to
quality of life. Life is good,
but not as good for blacks and hispanics.



There is plenty of bias built in to those rankings, because they do not
account for the very large diversity in the US.

Most folks in Europe think the US is some kind of shooting gallery, and


It is. What's the murder rate in Chicago vs. Tokyo?

if all you watch is the sensationalizing media you might get that
impression. When you actually look at the underlying statistics you find
that a handful of cities that represent a quite small percentage of the
US have big gang problems. Outside those cities you find a very
different picture.


I've lived in small towns, mid- and large-size cities. Small towns and
rural areas have huge
problems with drugs and drug-related crime. There is a convenience
store or pharmacy
held up just about every day where I live (not immediate neighborhood).

If you try to average the crime statistics per capita you get a very
distorted result. The same applies to most all measures of standards of
living, and looking at a simplistic figure like per capita income you


Income is one measure, not an absolute, of how a society is able to provide.

get similarly distorted results as maintaining a certain standard of
living has very different costs in different parts of the US.

Comparing two different US states you might find that what a $50,000
gross job will buy you for housing and standard of living in Texas will
require a $90,000 gross job to match in Connecticut. (no those aren't
exact numbers, but having lived in both states I have some perspective
on this).


So what?

As I said, if you run that comparison, using each US state
independently, the picture is very different and you can see that the
vast majority of the US has a very high standard of living and that
there are a handful of problem areas that represent a very small portion
of the US.

In the US our health care is largely provided by employers and most of
that cost does not show in our gross incomes, while in many of those
other countries the health care comes from the government and from the
high taxes that come out of the citizens gross incomes. They say that
typically the cost of an employee to a larger company is roughly double
their gross salary, so if you double the US per capita figures in those
comparisons you'll get closer to the truth.

On the health care front, there is the perception promoted by those who
want to socialize health care that few in the US have health insurance
and access to health care. The truth is that something like 86% of the


43% do not have health insurance. Where ya' been?

US population does have health insurance, and the remainder do still
have access to health care, though access to preventive health care for
that 14% could be improved.


As long as one has health insurance, they are healthy? The US pays far
more of it's GNP than
other developed countries, for very poor quality in many, many places.
Medicaid is horribly
wasteful, and doesn't even cover physicians' costs. 100,000 deaths per
year from hospital errors.
I worked in healthcare, in a variety of settings, for over 30 years.
Visited anyone in a nursing
home recently? How did it smell?

A good deal of the problem with healthcare, esp. for inner cities, has
everything to do with
guns and gun crimes. No clinics, so sick folks have to go to ER's.
Hospitals go broke due
to non-payment. There was a time, before Medicare, that hospitals
charged in one area
to make up for losses in others. They had to split out all of the
specialty services, like
lab and xray,

The poverty and homelessness figures in the US are a bit distorted due
to the deinstitutionalizing of the mentally ill. While there are


That would be a CHANGE, not a distortion. Mentally ill are not cared
for, and usually when
they are, it is in a jail. All kinds of horrible events because of that
- one I recall is a mentally
ill inmate gouging out his own eye. Folks go off meds, act out, get
tossed in jail, and end up
costing a whole lot more than if treatment was fashioned to their
needs. If they get too wild,
they sometimes are killed with Tazers. We treat dogs better.

programs that offer services and help to these unfortunate folks, being
voluntary, the most ill and most in need won't take advantage of the
help. There is no easy solution to this problem, but again it has the
effect of distorting statistics when the same mentally ill folks are
institutionalized in the countries you try to compare with.

The underlying problem with all the rankings presented so far is that
they all attempt to reduce a complex country like the US to a lowest
common denominator which simply corrupts the data.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Erma1ina wrote:


So what?

As I explained (and you conveniently omitted quoting), radioactive
medical waste is REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW TO BE DISPOSED OF IN SPECIFIC
DESIGNATED FACITIES, NOT ON SITE of the medical facility.

So what? The on-site disposal of nuclear generation waste is the
specific designated site with much stricter controls than over medical
waste. Don't see a real difference here.

That was the point, pinhead. There IS a long-term waste disposal system
for LOW-level radioactive medical waste so that the risk-benefit ratio
for that waste is acceptably low.

That is in dramatic CONTRAST with NO ACCEPTED LONG-TERM SYSTEM for the
disposal of the HIGH-level radioactive waste from "decommissioned"
nuclear power plants. That HIGH-level waste remains, in the majority of
cases, STILL STORED "temporarily"(in some cases for 30+ years) ON THOSE
SITES which are scattered around the US with no existing LONG-TERM plan
for storage of that waste.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

Erma1ina wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Erma1ina wrote:

scorpster wrote:

Your doctor's MRI scanning machine is also stored ON-SITE but I don't think
any protesters are threatning to rip those out of the hospitals or yank
people out from underneath their radiation.

Hmmm.

Another "genius". LOL

MRI (MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING) does NOT involve radioactive materials.

Technically some of the contrast media are radioactive.

Not the contrast medium (Gadolinium) used for MRIs.

So, Mr. Ullman, exactly WHAT do you "Medical Communicators" communicate?

I hope it's not about MRI technology. LOL.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

In article ,
Norminn wrote:


The poverty and homelessness figures in the US are a bit distorted due
to the deinstitutionalizing of the mentally ill. While there are


That would be a CHANGE, not a distortion. Mentally ill are not cared
for, and usually when
they are, it is in a jail. All kinds of horrible events because of that
- one I recall is a mentally
ill inmate gouging out his own eye. Folks go off meds, act out, get
tossed in jail, and end up
costing a whole lot more than if treatment was fashioned to their
needs. If they get too wild,
they sometimes are killed with Tazers. We treat dogs better.

More of that is related to politics, courts and laws than the
medical system, though. For example deinstitutionalization was started
under Kennedy where the concept of least restrictive environment was set
out, but never really given the resources to follow up on. It was
further intruded into by the Supremes when they decided that a person
had a constiutional right to refuse medication. I call it a Psychiatric
Miranda warning.. "You have a right to remain crazy"
Twenty years of working Psych as a both an in-patient and
"community action team" RN has shown that most of the reason that people
with mental illnesses end up in jail is because there is little the
mental health system can do if you aren't all nice and compliant.
They have problems, we tune 'em up, get them something approaching
okay, cut them loose, they refuse treatment, go off their meds and they
are off the races.


programs that offer services and help to these unfortunate folks, being
voluntary, the most ill and most in need won't take advantage of the
help. There is no easy solution to this problem, but again it has the
effect of distorting statistics when the same mentally ill folks are
institutionalized in the countries you try to compare with.

The underlying problem with all the rankings presented so far is that
they all attempt to reduce a complex country like the US to a lowest
common denominator which simply corrupts the data.

California electric rates are getting ridiculous
 

In article ,
Erma1ina wrote:


That is in dramatic CONTRAST with NO ACCEPTED LONG-TERM SYSTEM for the
disposal of the HIGH-level radioactive waste from "decommissioned"
nuclear power plants. That HIGH-level waste remains, in the majority of
cases, STILL STORED "temporarily"(in some cases for 30+ years) ON THOSE
SITES which are scattered around the US with no existing LONG-TERM plan
for storage of that waste.

There are a number of plans, just none that are politically acceptable
to someone. More a function of what started this discussion than
technology.