On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:43:49 -0600, dpb wrote:

What, precisely, aren't you convinced of and why based on test
documented test results? You seriously think the test results were
somehow fabricated? If that's the case it's tinfoil hat time, sorry.

I'm not convinced when I see those in "the know" speak out both sides
of their mouth.

Just recently the local Mayor declared he would arrest, detain train
conductors and await legal matters. The trains will not travel the
tracks along the Vegas strip on the way to Yucca Mtn.

I'm not convinced the unknowing can lead the unwilling.

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 07:33:58 -0800, yar wrote:

How about building a dozen or so reactors at the nevada test site?
Then all the waste could be stored right there.

How 'bout you keep it in your own back yard?!!

Besides, Area 51 does not exist!

Norminn wrote:

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?

Yet another invalid comparison. Tokyo is essentially a single race,
single culture, single everything city and needs to be compared to like
cities, of which there aren't very many.


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).

And this drug related crime affects almost exclusively a small
percentage of the population.


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.

Income is not a measure in itself, it has to be balanced against the
cost of living in the area where the income is earned. It may well be
uniform for a very small country, but it most certainly is not in the
US.


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?

So any comparison attempting to be valid has to adjust to match the
income to the cost of living in an area to produce a meaningful value.


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?

I've been at the gov site with the statistics and it's 14% that don't
have some type of health insurance. You're confusing the percentage with
the total number, with your 43 being pretty close to the number of
million persons that 14% of the US population represents.


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.

I'm generally healthy, and the medical care I receive is high quality.
I'm one of the 86% with health insurance though.

Medicaid is horribly
wasteful, and doesn't even cover physicians' costs.

Indeed and one of the many arguments against socializing health care. An
objective look at health care in countries with socialized health care
reveals it does not live up to the hype, with long waiting lists, having
to pay for a higher level of care, etc.

100,000 deaths per
year from hospital errors.

Certainly a place to look for improvement, but minuscule as a percentage
of hospital patients.

I worked in healthcare, in a variety of settings, for over 30 years.
Visited anyone in a nursing
home recently? How did it smell?

No, I'm happy to say I have not. When I did a couple years ago, the one
I visited was just fine.


A good deal of the problem with healthcare, esp. for inner cities, has
everything to do with
guns and gun crimes.

No, the problem in inner cities is gangs and gang crimes. If the
hospitals stopped patching up those gang members and putting them back
on the streets to commit more gang crimes, the gang problem would
rapidly dissipate as the gang members killed each other off.

No clinics, so sick folks have to go to ER's.

No clinics because the gang members rob them for drugs.

Hospitals go broke due
to non-payment.

This is certainly an issue, and the government requiring the treatment
of non-paying patients needs to foot that bill.

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,

It wouldn't be an issue without the unfunded mandates.


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.

No easy answers to the problem, institutionalize them and they are
generally better off, but the some folks think that is bad and would
rather have them free on the streets where they are a danger to both
themselves and the public. Someone else posted a good analysis on this
issue.


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.

On 12/4/2008 10:43 PM Erma1ina spake thus:

scorpster wrote:

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

You have NO IDEA what you're talking about. LOL.

True; the entity known as "scorpster" apparently doesn't know the
difference between low-level and high-level rad waste, or is ignoring it
or is confused on the issue.

Just to be clear, when we talk about such things as Yucca Mountain,
we're talking about *high level* water disposal.


--
Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

- Paulo Freire

On 12/4/2008 11:23 PM scorpster spake thus:

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.

Wrong.

Sacramento (you know, Ahnold's home) is not usually considered part of
the Bay Area. It's more likely to be associated with the Central Valley,
which is light years apart from the SFBA politically. (Like red, as
opposed to blue.)


--
Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

- Paulo Freire

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"scorpster" wrote in message
...
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.

BFD, that is meaningless to all of us outside of CA. What is the rate
per kW hour? I'm paying 18¢.



18¢, eeek! Where is that Ed?


NC, Public Works Commission, aka PWC

MONTHLY RATE -
Basic Facilities Charge $9.00
Energy Charge
For the first 500 kWh $0.0750 per kWh
For all additional kWh $0.0815 per kWh

Pete C. wrote:
43% do not have health insurance. Where ya' been?

I've been at the gov site with the statistics and it's 14% that don't
have some type of health insurance. You're confusing the percentage
with the total number, with your 43 being pretty close to the number
of million persons that 14% of the US population represents.


Of these 43 million, 14 million are illegal immigrants. Eight million are
eligible for Medicaid and will sign up when they get sick. Six million are
between jobs. About 7 million are young and healthy and choose not to pay
for insurance.

That leaves about eight million that want insurance but can't get it for one
reason or another.

Two things to remember:
1. The eight million are not without health CARE, they are just without
insurance.
2. Any change to cover the eight million would **** up a pretty good system
for 292 million others. Sounds like a poor trade to me.

Although not a compelling reason, we should leave the American health-care
system alone, else where would Canadians go to get cured?

David Nebenzahl wrote in news:493884f4$0$21296
:

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 game's over for all of us.


Nahhhh, haven't you seen the movie Contact?! "Wanna go for a ride?" :-)

On Dec 5, 9:08*pm, Red Green wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote in news:493884f4$0$21296
:

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 game's over for all of us.

Nahhhh, haven't you seen the movie Contact?! "Wanna go for a ride?" :-)

just to throw more fuel on the fire

enter these keywords into googel and read a few of the hits

radioactivity from coal

Mark

So, what does that mean?

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


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


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.

"Red Green" wrote in message
BFD, that is meaningless to all of us outside of CA. What is the rate
per kW hour? I'm paying 18¢.



18¢, eeek! Where is that Ed?


NC, Public Works Commission, aka PWC

MONTHLY RATE -
Basic Facilities Charge $9.00
Energy Charge
For the first 500 kWh $0.0750 per kWh
For all additional kWh $0.0815 per kWh

I'm in CT, but MA is just as bad. We also, proudly, have the highest
gasoline prices after Hawaii. As an industrial user, at work we are paying
..151. And people wonder why manufacturing has moved out of New England.

Based on my most recent Nov electric bill, my CA rate is 20¢ per kWh. A big
reason for the inflated rate is the ridiculous Tier 1, 2, 3, 4 structure
where they put me in Tier 4 even though our 4-person household is already
very efficient with our energy use. I think Tier 1 and 2 is reserved for
singles living in apartments. I feel like I am being ripped off because of
the coal and fossil fuel-loving nuclear-haters.

I'm talking about the radiation level once the waste is properly stored.

The common CAT scan at the doctor's office produces much more frightening
levels of radiation in ONE SESSION than the public exposure to high-level
waste radiation even if there were some kind of accident at one of these
remote storage sites. Amazing how you try to scare the general public, it's
all propaganda with little scientific basis.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Red Green" wrote in message
BFD, that is meaningless to all of us outside of CA. What is the rate
per kW hour? I'm paying 18¢.



18¢, eeek! Where is that Ed?


NC, Public Works Commission, aka PWC

MONTHLY RATE -
Basic Facilities Charge $9.00
Energy Charge
For the first 500 kWh $0.0750 per kWh
For all additional kWh $0.0815 per kWh

I'm in CT, but MA is just as bad. We also, proudly, have the highest
gasoline prices after Hawaii. As an industrial user, at work we are paying
.151. And people wonder why manufacturing has moved out of New England.

That wasn't the only reason. Manufacturing was actively driven out of CT
because it wasn't trendy. The politicos wanted only high tech companies
to fit their vision of a prosperous educated state, and of course
educated people don't stoop as low as manufacturing jobs. That is why CT
now has a dangerously stratified economy with high end jobs, low end
service jobs and little in between.

scorpster wrote:

Based on my most recent Nov electric bill, my CA rate is 20¢ per kWh. A big
reason for the inflated rate is the ridiculous Tier 1, 2, 3, 4 structure
where they put me in Tier 4 even though our 4-person household is already
very efficient with our energy use. I think Tier 1 and 2 is reserved for
singles living in apartments.


I feel like I am being ripped off because of
the coal and fossil fuel-loving nuclear-haters.

You are, in part, but the mock "deregulation" CA tried to pull also
backfired badly.

On 12/5/2008 9:07 PM Pete C. spake thus:

scorpster wrote:

Based on my most recent Nov electric bill, my CA rate is 20¢ per kWh. A big
reason for the inflated rate is the ridiculous Tier 1, 2, 3, 4 structure
where they put me in Tier 4 even though our 4-person household is already
very efficient with our energy use. I think Tier 1 and 2 is reserved for
singles living in apartments.

I feel like I am being ripped off because of
the coal and fossil fuel-loving nuclear-haters.

You are, in part, but the mock "deregulation" CA tried to pull also
backfired badly.

There was nothing "mock" about it--and by the bye, we have a California
Democrat, Steve Peace*, to thank for that disastrous deregulation that
left us open to the depredations of Enron, et al. (See "The Smartest
Kids in the Room" for the full story.)


* Not to mention the deposed Gov. Gray Davis, also a Democrat.


--
Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

- Paulo Freire

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 12/5/2008 9:07 PM Pete C. spake thus:

scorpster wrote:

Based on my most recent Nov electric bill, my CA rate is 20¢ per kWh. A big
reason for the inflated rate is the ridiculous Tier 1, 2, 3, 4 structure
where they put me in Tier 4 even though our 4-person household is already
very efficient with our energy use. I think Tier 1 and 2 is reserved for
singles living in apartments.

I feel like I am being ripped off because of
the coal and fossil fuel-loving nuclear-haters.

You are, in part, but the mock "deregulation" CA tried to pull also
backfired badly.

There was nothing "mock" about it--and by the bye, we have a California
Democrat, Steve Peace*, to thank for that disastrous deregulation that
left us open to the depredations of Enron, et al. (See "The Smartest
Kids in the Room" for the full story.)

* Not to mention the deposed Gov. Gray Davis, also a Democrat.


It was indeed "mock" deregulation as in typical CA fashion, they tried
to lock consumer utility rates while making the utilities absorb all
risk from fluctuation in the energy markets.

Here in Texas deregulation is legitimate and we have a wide array of
supplier choices and rates that are pretty midrange relative to other
states. We can even select a 100% wind generation source if we want for
a few cents more per kwh. Of course given the intermittent generation of
wind, we're still dependent on other generation technologies to fill in
the gaps, the primary drawback of wind generation, but they claim 100%
wind on an equivalent KWH basis at any rate.

On Dec 5, 9:07*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Pete C. wrote:
43% do not have health insurance. *Where ya' been?

I've been at the gov site with the statistics and it's 14% that don't
have some type of health insurance. You're confusing the percentage
with the total number, with your 43 being pretty close to the number
of million persons that 14% of the US population represents.

Of these 43 million, 14 million are illegal immigrants. Eight million are
eligible for Medicaid and will sign up when they get sick. Six million are
between jobs. About 7 million are young and healthy and choose not to pay
for insurance.

That leaves about eight million that want insurance but can't get it for one
reason or another.

Two things to remember:
1. The eight million are not without health CARE, they are just without
insurance.
2. Any change to cover the eight million would **** up a pretty good system
for 292 million others. Sounds like a poor trade to me.

Although not a compelling reason, we should leave the American health-care
system alone, else where would Canadians go to get cured?


One other component here to consider when comparing standards of
living is this. How much does Norway, Sweden or Switzerland spend to
keep the world free? And how much has the US spent, since WWII doing
exactly that? How many aircraft carriers do those countries have in
hot spots like the Straits of Hormoz, keeping the worlds oil supply
lanes, which their own economies depend on, open and protected from
countries like Iran?

Had the US not spent trillions on defense over the last 6 decades,
we could have spent that money on a higher standard of living. But
then those other three countries likely wouldn't be free because the
communists would have taken them over, and perhaps the rest of the
world too. Must be nice to be one of those countries, living so
well, knowing that someone else is bearing the majority costs of
defending the world and will be there to save you if necessary.

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:31:09 -0600, Red Green
wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:
-snip-
BFD, that is meaningless to all of us outside of CA. What is the rate
per kW hour? I'm paying 18¢.



18¢, eeek! Where is that Ed?


NC, Public Works Commission, aka PWC

MONTHLY RATE -
Basic Facilities Charge $9.00
Energy Charge
For the first 500 kWh $0.0750 per kWh
For all additional kWh $0.0815 per kWh

In upstate NY where Niagara Mohawk used to be king and was the
cheapest power outside of the TVA until they tried and failed to go
nuclear. . .

National Grid bought them out a while back. In the past 2 years the
"stated cost" has gone from 7.1 to 15 [and back down to 7.8cents this
month]. But the delivery fees & all the other crap has upped the
rate from 14.6 to 16.4- and last month was 14.2.

Jim

Hmmmmm... 84 articles in the que. Pass. Sorry to butt-in...

I am grateful that we had the good sense and foresight to build a nice,
little nuke 40 miles away.

I absolutely LOVE our electric rate. My monthly "level pay" plan just
went from $89 to $84 - the yearly adjustment to occur in one month.

We'd better remain alert: There's a new sheriff in town and he and his
posse don't like ANY of this energy stuff because they believe it is all
too DANGEROUS - if not to you and me then the environment.

We MUST do whatever is necessary to ensure the completion of those
plants that are approved but not yet ONLINE.

Those that favor sensible construction and use of proven, fuel-abundant
energy technologies must organize an opposition to those that are
already united to impede the expansion of existing, proven energy:
Nuclear and clean-burning, low sulfur coal.

You can bet your bippy that "they'll" never let us build another Hoover
dam to get the almost free and virtually endless power such a project
would yield. Environmentalists. sigh Ya gotta love 'em...

We pay higher rates due, in part, to the expansion delaying tactics of
the radical Environmentalist. Theirs must NOT be the only voice heard
at public meetings regarding energy policy.

You'll notice, as a last gasp effort to impede, the very gas we EXHALE,
is now the unbeatable boogyman in the closet. What a CROCK!

We have the means for clean, safe, reasonably-priced energy at our
fingertips. Why can't we keep using that? Let the lawyers and
politicians debate the infinite points that either support or implicate
the technology. They'll never end.

Drill here. Drill now. Build here. Build now.
Reliable, abundant, safe and affordable
OIL COAL NUCLEAR
--

JR

On Dec 5, 10:43*am, BobR wrote:
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".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I'm just wondering here. Do you live in a vacuum? Does the US? If
nukes are so bad, how is it that other countries get 70% of their
electric power from nukes today? And I'm not talking about some third
world country. I'm talking about France, which is supposed to be one
of the enlightened socialist utopia of the world. Clearly they have
only the highest regard for human life, safety and the environment of
the planet. So, how is it that they have nukes out the whazoo?

Oren wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:43:49 -0600, dpb wrote:

What, precisely, aren't you convinced of and why based on test
documented test results? You seriously think the test results were
somehow fabricated? If that's the case it's tinfoil hat time, sorry.

I'm not convinced when I see those in "the know" speak out both sides
of their mouth.

I don't know what you mean, specifically. The question is (or should
be) "what is specifically inadequate in the shipping cask design as
demonstrated by a failure during test or for what additional achievable
condition(s) of any conceivable accident haven't been tested?"

The above statement is unanswerable and doesn't help anything.

Just recently the local Mayor declared he would arrest, detain train
conductors and await legal matters. The trains will not travel the
tracks along the Vegas strip on the way to Yucca Mtn.

More populist politics with no reasonable basis in risk as compared to
ordinary activities along the Strip every day. Great for grandstanding
politicians to get attention; not so much value for accomplishing
anything useful.

I'm not convinced the unknowing can lead the unwilling.

Again, the unknowing are more the unwilling than vice versa imo.
Another poster upthread claimed the protest movement didn't really
affect much and in some minor ways that's true. What it did do,
however, is a great disservice in that it raised irrational fear based
on ignorance in the general populace.

--

On Dec 5, 7:31*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/4/2008 11:23 PM scorpster spake thus:

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.

Wrong.

Sacramento (you know, Ahnold's home) is not usually considered part of
the Bay Area. It's more likely to be associated with the Central Valley,
which is light years apart from the SFBA politically. (Like red, as
opposed to blue.)

--
* Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

- Paulo Freire


I can only wonder what would happen if someone came to you anti-nuke
extremists with some other ideas. How about a device with 4 wheels
and a motor that could transport 4 people at 60MPH? But the downside
is that 50,000 a year in the US will die in it due to accidents.
Yet, we all live with automobiles. Should we eliminate them too?

Or how about airplanes? We have those and huge international
airports close to major cities. I could conjure up images of plane
crashes in highly populated areas and make the case for eliminating
them too.

As a side note, the only reason all that nuclear waste is still
sitting around at nukes, both operating and decommissioned, is that
extremists have blocked moving it to a single, safe, secure storage
facility, ie Yucca. Had extremists not still be doing everything
they can to try to stop or slow it down, the waste would be there now.

Nuclear isn't perfect or without risks. Neither is any other form
of energy. Particularly amusing to me is how the same environmental
extremists who rail against nukes are telling us that in a few more
decades we're going to have disastrous climate change from CO2
emissions which will kill hundreds of millions, if not all of us.
So, we have nuclear power, which could be a quick and major way to
reduce CO2 emissions, yet we shouldn't use it even as other supposedly
enlightened countries like France openly embrace it?

And I'm tired of the usual nonsense about how we can just conserve.
The simple fact is that the world's population is growing every
year. And countries like India and China are becoming rapidly
developed. At most, conservation can slow the rate of increase of
energy growth. And BTW, these other countries are going to build
nukes whether we do or not. By not doing so ourselves, all we do is
put ourselves at an economic disadvantage to them.

dpb wrote:
....
Just recently the local Mayor declared he would arrest, detain train
conductors and await legal matters. The trains will not travel the
tracks along the Vegas strip on the way to Yucca Mtn.
....
Other than the aforementioned fact that if so it's only an act of
political grandstanding, I'd question whether a local official has the
jurisdiction to interfere w/ legitimate interstate commerce?

--

on 12/4/2008 8:34 PM David Nebenzahl said the following:
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.



All life on earth will be dead millions of years before the Sun finally
dies.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Dec 5, 4:28*am, 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.

Unfortunately 'nuclear' electric power has NOT proven to be as
economical as originally thought. Also, leaving aside Chernobyl and
much lesser dramatic, Three Mile island accidents etc. and the problem
of 10,000 to 100,000 year disposal/storage of nuclear wastes, nuclear
after some 50 years has not yet proved itself a viable technology for
the day to day production of electrcity.
Isotopes and other medical products etc. yes.
In norther Canada, especially Labrador there is a vast potential for
(although it does involve further flooding of native lands) less
polluting further production of electrcity that can and will be
developed during next few years.
It would be wise for the rulers of California and other energy hungry
and inefficient users of energy to a) Conserve, get more efficient. b)
Think internationally for the purchase of energy from a politically
stable and friendly country to the north. There is no doubt that
Canada is expanding it's own East-West energy corridors/links and that
hydro generated power is relatively cheaper, and less directly
polluting (especially at point of use). And just wait until electric
cars are a an actuality!
As opposed to dragging barrels of oil from the political turmoil of
the Middle East, past the pirates of Somali-land, burning off some of
it to make gasoline etc.!
Plug into an outlet and recharge your vehicle in a few hours.
There is a story (true or otherwise?) that some hybrid car owners are
already doing some home recharging after daily commuting? Also that it
is economical?

wrote:
On Dec 5, 9:07 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Pete C. wrote:
43% do not have health insurance. Where ya' been?

I've been at the gov site with the statistics and it's 14% that
don't have some type of health insurance. You're confusing the
percentage with the total number, with your 43 being pretty close
to the number of million persons that 14% of the US population
represents.

Of these 43 million, 14 million are illegal immigrants. Eight
million are eligible for Medicaid and will sign up when they get
sick. Six million are between jobs. About 7 million are young and
healthy and choose not to pay for insurance.

That leaves about eight million that want insurance but can't get it
for one reason or another.

Two things to remember:
1. The eight million are not without health CARE, they are just
without insurance.
2. Any change to cover the eight million would **** up a pretty good
system for 292 million others. Sounds like a poor trade to me.

Although not a compelling reason, we should leave the American
health-care system alone, else where would Canadians go to get cured?


One other component here to consider when comparing standards of
living is this. How much does Norway, Sweden or Switzerland spend to
keep the world free? And how much has the US spent, since WWII doing
exactly that? How many aircraft carriers do those countries have in
hot spots like the Straits of Hormoz, keeping the worlds oil supply
lanes, which their own economies depend on, open and protected from
countries like Iran?

Had the US not spent trillions on defense over the last 6 decades,
we could have spent that money on a higher standard of living. But
then those other three countries likely wouldn't be free because the
communists would have taken them over, and perhaps the rest of the
world too. Must be nice to be one of those countries, living so
well, knowing that someone else is bearing the majority costs of
defending the world and will be there to save you if necessary.

You make an excellent point. We ARE the world's policeman, but, like police
everywhere, we don't do a perfect job. We do do a good enough job to
(mostly) discourage the really bad perps from taking over the world. As the
Color Sergeant said in "Zulu" when asked "Why us?" he replied: "Because
we're here, lad. No one else. Just us. Now face to the front. Mark your
target when he comes. And button that tunic. That's a good lad."

In his book, "The Pentagon's New Map," Thomas Barnett makes exactly the
point you raise.

It's also interesting that the United States Coast Guard is larger than any
other country's navy.

Consider Sadaam Hussein - he ****ed off somebody. So we invaded his country,
evicted him from his homes, confiscated his fortune, exiled his family,
killed his children, imprisoned most of his friends, and ultimately hanged
his ass. Presumably this will have a sobering effect on others similarly
inclined.


As an aside, the complaint that some soldiers die as a result of American
adventures is specious. Our warriors volunteered knowing that death or
injury was possible. Exactly the same as someone who wants to climb a
mountain or drive a race car or take a dive to the Titantic. But those
hobbyists don't get an opportunity to kill people and blow things up.

Oren wrote:
....
I'm just more skeptical of the government than I am of the dangers of
a quake. But I live here 100 miles away.

I guess familiarity helps here -- 30 years primarily in commercial power
generation with BSNE and MS Physics w/ an emphasis on nuclear energy
degrees means makes for not being scared and recognizing what is
fearmongering and what is at least a rational argument.

Having a fair amount of that 30 years also being in the Oak Ridge area
and also doing a fair amount of consulting to DOE at the various
facilities including some review studies of vendor cask licensing design
and analysis submittals and knowing many of the other individuals at
Sandia, Los Alamos, Savannah River, Argonne, ..., on a professional
basis concern over their credentials and integrity is not a concern of mine.

Without that background and given the general level of political
doubletalk I can understand skepticism from the pronouncement of
politicos. The underlying questions here, however, aren't actually
political.

As a comforting thought, there are three basic rules for radiation
exposure protection -- time, shielding, distance. You have the cheapest
and easiest to obtain one going for you--distance.

--

terry wrote:
It would be wise for the rulers of California and other energy hungry
and inefficient users of energy to a) Conserve, get more efficient. b)
Think internationally for the purchase of energy from a politically
stable and friendly country to the north. There is no doubt that
Canada is expanding it's own East-West energy corridors/links and that
hydro generated power is relatively cheaper, and less directly
polluting (especially at point of use). And just wait until electric
cars are a an actuality!
As opposed to dragging barrels of oil from the political turmoil of
the Middle East, past the pirates of Somali-land, burning off some of
it to make gasoline etc.!
Plug into an outlet and recharge your vehicle in a few hours.
There is a story (true or otherwise?) that some hybrid car owners are
already doing some home recharging after daily commuting? Also that it
is economical?

Electricity is not a power SOURCE, it is a power DISTRIBUTION system.

Charging the batteries in an electric car is conceptually NOT the same as
filling the tank with gas.

wrote:

I can only wonder what would happen if someone came to you anti-nuke
extremists with some other ideas. How about a device with 4 wheels
and a motor that could transport 4 people at 60MPH? But the downside
is that 50,000 a year in the US will die in it due to accidents.
Yet, we all live with automobiles. Should we eliminate them too?

Or how about airplanes? We have those and huge international
airports close to major cities. I could conjure up images of plane
crashes in highly populated areas and make the case for eliminating
them too.

As a side note, the only reason all that nuclear waste is still
sitting around at nukes, both operating and decommissioned, is that
extremists have blocked moving it to a single, safe, secure storage
facility, ie Yucca. Had extremists not still be doing everything
they can to try to stop or slow it down, the waste would be there now.

Nuclear isn't perfect or without risks. Neither is any other form
of energy. Particularly amusing to me is how the same environmental
extremists who rail against nukes are telling us that in a few more
decades we're going to have disastrous climate change from CO2
emissions which will kill hundreds of millions, if not all of us.
So, we have nuclear power, which could be a quick and major way to
reduce CO2 emissions, yet we shouldn't use it even as other supposedly
enlightened countries like France openly embrace it?

And I'm tired of the usual nonsense about how we can just conserve.
The simple fact is that the world's population is growing every
year. And countries like India and China are becoming rapidly
developed. At most, conservation can slow the rate of increase of
energy growth. And BTW, these other countries are going to build
nukes whether we do or not. By not doing so ourselves, all we do is
put ourselves at an economic disadvantage to them.

Excellent points, all.

The bottom line is that anti-nukes, evironmentalism, and conservation are
all MOVEMENTS. The logic behind the movement is immaterial, it is membership
in the movement that is important - to be a part of something, to give
meaning to an otherwise useless life. The same people who are members of the
anti-nuke movement are also members of the ban-the-bra parade, promote (or
oppose) metrification, home owner association advocates, or any other
protest group.

"willshak" wrote in message

All life on earth will be dead millions of years before the Sun finally
dies.


All life? That is a rather bold statement. Do you think it is impossible
for other forms of life may evolve along the way? Or if there is a
Creator, that he may make some other form?

on 12/6/2008 12:12 PM Ed Pawlowski said the following:
"willshak" wrote in message

All life on earth will be dead millions of years before the Sun finally
dies.



All life? That is a rather bold statement. Do you think it is impossible
for other forms of life may evolve along the way? Or if there is a
Creator, that he may make some other form?




Any life on Mars, or any other planets in our solar system? We are at
the optimum distance from the Sun to sustain life as we know it. The
less - or more - solar energy, the less life. As the Sun burns out over
the course of gigennia, it will become a 'Red Giant" star and all the
planets will gradually vaporize. Nothing on Earth will experience this
event.
I don't believe in invisible entities, nor any afterlife.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

dpb wrote:

Oren wrote:
...
I'm just more skeptical of the government than I am of the dangers of
a quake. But I live here 100 miles away.

I guess familiarity helps here -- 30 years primarily in commercial power
generation with BSNE and MS Physics w/ an emphasis on nuclear energy
degrees means makes for not being scared and recognizing what is
fearmongering and what is at least a rational argument.

Having a fair amount of that 30 years also being in the Oak Ridge area
and also doing a fair amount of consulting to DOE at the various
facilities including some review studies of vendor cask licensing design
and analysis submittals and knowing many of the other individuals at
Sandia, Los Alamos, Savannah River, Argonne, ..., on a professional
basis concern over their credentials and integrity is not a concern of mine.

Without that background and given the general level of political
doubletalk I can understand skepticism from the pronouncement of
politicos. The underlying questions here, however, aren't actually
political.

As a comforting thought, there are three basic rules for radiation
exposure protection -- time, shielding, distance. You have the cheapest
and easiest to obtain one going for you--distance.

--

"dpb", let me "translate" your recitation of experience: BSNE likely via
US military/Navy(?) with a "terminal" MS (likely from some university
with close ties to military and which hands out MS degrees essentially
for class attendance)-- no thesis, no true specialization. The rest of
your experience is osmotic ("knowing many of the other individuals") and
a legacy of having served the industry well while in your military
position (probably "procurement") in active duty so that when you
retired, you were rewarded by the industry with some harmless but
lucrative "consulting" positions. In short, you are a low-level industry
shill.

That explains your bias and inability to provide objective support for
your assertions.

"willshak" wrote in message

Any life on Mars, or any other planets in our solar system? We are at the
optimum distance from the Sun to sustain life as we know it. The less -
or more - solar energy, the less life. As the Sun burns out over the
course of gigennia, it will become a 'Red Giant" star and all the planets
will gradually vaporize. Nothing on Earth will experience this event.
I don't believe in invisible entities, nor any afterlife.


Mars has a different composition and we don't know that it ever had any life
to evolve to another form. Right now we have penguins and polar bears.
They may run rampant over the rest of the earth if it cools down some.
Plant life ma take some other forms that is cold resistant. Life as we know
it, I agree, but it can change. How did we get here? What existed before,
during, and after the ice age? I just don't think that any of us can make
a definite statement about the future. Could be space ships on the way here
from a distant galaxy a million years away.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:19:36 -0600, dpb wrote:

dpb wrote:
...
Just recently the local Mayor declared he would arrest, detain train
conductors and await legal matters. The trains will not travel the
tracks along the Vegas strip on the way to Yucca Mtn.
...
Other than the aforementioned fact that if so it's only an act of
political grandstanding, I'd question whether a local official has the
jurisdiction to interfere w/ legitimate interstate commerce?

Union Pacific denied a request from the Mayor just last year. A
runaway tanker with 30,000 gallons of chlorine.

..."But when officials like Mayor Oscar Goodman asked for basic
notification, letting the valley know when dangerous stuff was heading
our way, the railroad declined. Since this is interstate commerce,
there's nothing local governments can do about it."

- Listen to all of the 911 calls

"We just had a tanker come flying by the railroad tracks. No
locomotive at all. It was doing 35 to 40 miles an hour," said a caller
to 911. The operators who took the first calls seemed mystified.

"I've got a runaway rail car going north," said the caller.

"What's it running away on?" asked the operator.

"The railroad tracks. There is no, uh, head on the train," said the
caller.

The 8th call to police was from the railroad. It was an embarrassing
admission. "Yeah, we just had a runaway rail car and we believe it's
loaded with chlorine," said the Union Pacific caller.

"Do you have sight of it?" asked the operator.

"No, we lost sight of it but we are attempting to run it down right
now," said the Union Pacific caller.

A tanker car filled with 30,000 gallons of deadly chlorine sped all
the way across the Las Vegas valley and stopped only because it
eventually rolled uphill.

The fact that it did not slam into a train parked on the tracks is
considered miraculous by many. A later study estimated it could have
killed up to 90,000 people if it had derailed in the middle of town.

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/Story.asp?s=8631836

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 11:02:45 -0600, dpb wrote:

As a comforting thought, there are three basic rules for radiation
exposure protection -- time, shielding, distance. You have the cheapest
and easiest to obtain one going for you--distance.

Thanks for thought. What about this report?

..."The DOE suffered serious credibility setbacks when e-mails written
by U.S. Geological Survey employees working on the Yucca Mountain
project became public, indicating that documents related to climate
and water infiltration studies had been falsified."

http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/information/3286.htm

"Oren" wrote in message

The fact that it did not slam into a train parked on the tracks is
considered miraculous by many. A later study estimated it could have
killed up to 90,000 people if it had derailed in the middle of town.

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/Story.asp?s=8631836

But no one was killed. If a nuclear missile accidentally fired it could
kill a million. If, if, if. If's don't count.

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 18:10:57 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:

If a nuclear missile accidentally fired

How does that happen?!!

...explain it to me Lucy; hurry up, I have Bongo lessons....

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Red Green" wrote in message
BFD, that is meaningless to all of us outside of CA. What is the
rate per kW hour? I'm paying 18¢.



18¢, eeek! Where is that Ed?


NC, Public Works Commission, aka PWC

MONTHLY RATE -
Basic Facilities Charge $9.00
Energy Charge
For the first 500 kWh $0.0750 per kWh
For all additional kWh $0.0815 per kWh

I'm in CT, but MA is just as bad. We also, proudly, have the highest
gasoline prices after Hawaii. As an industrial user, at work we are
paying .151. And people wonder why manufacturing has moved out of New
England.



Was born in Stamford and lived there 25 yrs. Now have relatives in
Stamford, Shelton and Naugatuck. Doesn't sound like I could afford to live
there any more! Well, not and have the luxury of electricity anyway.

Speaking of gas tax, I was talking to one of my VT buds just the other day
about gas taxes and $/gal. They were wondering why gas has come down so
slowly there. At the time gas was 1.99 in CT and in the Burlington VT area
it was still like 2.30. So I went on GasBuddy.com where it shows the taxes
by state.

http://www.waterburygasprices.com/tax_info.aspx

CT 62.5 cents and VT 38.4 yet gas is noteably more expensive in VT.

BobR wrote:
On Dec 4, 10:10 am, Norminn wrote:
BobR wrote:
On Dec 4, 8:45 am, 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?
By who's measure? And if you think they are so damn great, why don't
you move your butt there and shut up?
I like to express myself and I like living where I'm free to do so. I
should have phrased the statement
about Socialist countries more carefully......... a lot of
them.......Scandinavian countries?....do much better
than we do. Our healthcare is not only grossly expensive, it is hugely
wasteful. Our public education
system is horrible. What weighs on both, and on the economy, is greed
and irresponsibility. Last
time I filled the gas tank of my car, the price of gasoline was $4/gal
and everyone was howling for
the gov't. to do something. PEOPLE need to get off their fat arses and
solve the problems; take
responsibility for their debt/spending, and for their fuel consumption.
Take responsibility for their
brats who need $1,000 in crap every Christmas so's they will stop acting
like little monsters who
want what they want when they want it.......the blue hair for school,
the trip to rave clubs every
weekend, the sorry excuses for vandalism and misbehaving in school.
"Children learn what they
live".The idiots who spent 10 years obsessing about Bill Clinton's sex
life have gotten what they
deserve. The religious zealots who vote on the basis of one narrow
issue have voted us to disaster.
Lots of folks think in terms of sports figures being "role models" for
their children......how about
the dope in the White House who can't even speak in complete sentences?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think maybe you should re-examine some of those Scandinavian
countries that you seem to think so highly of. Many of them don't
have to deal with the same issues of huge numbers of illegal
immigrants that are currently straining our system. In addition, you
will find that some of those very countries are experiencing their own
problems with health care costs. From what I have read, many of those
socialist countries are having substantial problems with both
availability, quality, and costs.
Hi,
Illegal immigrants? If they are all removewd for a moment. U.S. economy
will be semi-paralyzed. People(specially young ones) move/work free in EU.