In article , Dave Hinz says...

So enlighten us, when *did* they removed the slumped core from the
containment at TMI?

That's not his point, Jim. His point is that it could kill everyone
because it's just like Chernobyl. It's not just like Chernobyl, not
even close.

Do not forget that TMI was a "big deal" (tm). They really didn't
know if the H2 bubble would dissolve back in. They had no clue
for the first few hours what was even going wrong, EVEN THOUGH THE
EXACT SAME THING HAD HAPPENED ONCE BEFORE. This was not the
first time the relief valve had stuck on one of those reactors,
the only reason it didn't go bad the first time was that the
operator was good and immediately figured it out, and closed the
secondary valve.

The entire chain hardly inspires confidence.

Yes, not the same as chernobyl. But it could have been much, much
worse than it was.

And the facts he presents are indeed mostly correct, up to the
'same as' part.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Chuck Sherwood" wrote in message
...

Anything can happen. TMI was deemed safe but three concurrent
mistakes allowed it to happen. One was a know defect that should
have been corrected but for some reason was not fixed.

The space shuttle challenger should not have crashed. There were
amply warning signs but the idiots in charge chose to ignore them
and not fix the problem.

Chernobly would not have happened either if the operators were
not told to do something stupid and in the process disabled
most of the safetly mechanisms on the reactor.

The wreck of the Exxon Valdeese should not have happened. We
knew that single hull tankers would cause exactly what happened.
In this case we allowed a single point of failure to case an
accident.

I believe the USA lost a couple nuke subs too.

The bottom line is that as long as humans are involved, sooner or
later somebody will do something stupid and cause an accident no
matter how safe the design. How many examples of human stupidity do
you need? Shall I quote Murphy here?


And yet not ONE case you've cited "killed the entire world with one
accident." In fact, I'll wager every penny I possess that you can't name any
example of human engineering that could "kill the entire world with one
accident." That's because no such thing exists. Even if we were to build a
thousand new nuclear reactors, not one of them could ever "kill the entire
world with one accident." Even a whole bunch of them failing simultaneously
(statistically impossible) could not "kill the entire world with one
accident."

Don't let the sky hit you on the head, Mr. Chicken Little.

Greetings and Salutations....

On Thu, 05 May 2005 14:36:10 GMT, "DeepDiver"
wrote:

*snip*


And yet not ONE case you've cited "killed the entire world with one
accident." In fact, I'll wager every penny I possess that you can't name any
example of human engineering that could "kill the entire world with one
accident." That's because no such thing exists. Even if we were to build a
thousand new nuclear reactors, not one of them could ever "kill the entire
world with one accident." Even a whole bunch of them failing simultaneously
(statistically impossible) could not "kill the entire world with one
accident."

Don't let the sky hit you on the head, Mr. Chicken Little.


Unlimited nuclear war, brought on by paranoia and insanity
(see the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the attitudes of many patches
of humanity, even today).
If you are like me, though, you probably have about $10
in pennies laying around. So...let's just say I won, and you
can keep the change (*smile*).
Regards
Dave Mundt

On Wed, 04 May 2005 22:01:05 GMT, Dave Mundt wrote:
Greetings and Salutations...

On 4 May 2005 14:42:27 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2005 03:04:40 GMT, Dave Mundt wrote:

By the by...Solar and wind power IS nuclear power...
just the fission reactor is located offsite.

fusion, not fission.

Sorry...my bad...I had fusion in my head...but,
managed to type fission...

Dang, I've heard of sinus headaches, but nothing like fusion in the
head. Hope it gets better soon. Maybe you could go fission and
forget about it?

On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:44:22 -0400, Strider wrote:
On 4 May 2005 17:52:12 GMT, (Chuck
Sherwood) wrote:

NIMBY much, Chuck?

What would happen if an accident like chernobly happened near
LA, New York City, or Chicago? It would affect millions of people.


and take out a Blue State area.
Gotta look on the bright side.

While I admire your approach, I am compelled to point out that even
in the blue "states", it's the urban areas which are blue, while
it's rural areas which get the nuke plants. So, all it would do is
make a blue state less red.

Good thought, though.

Dave Hinz

On 5 May 2005 13:59:19 GMT, Chuck Sherwood wrote:
What would happen if an accident like chernobly happened near
LA, New York City, or Chicago? It would affect millions of people.

It f****** CAn't, Chuck. We don't use that sort of reactor. Try to
pay attention.

Anything can happen.

No, Chuck, anything can _not_ happen. TMI or any other USA'n reactor
can NOT fail in the same way as Chernobyl, because it's an entirely
different type of nuclear reactor. This is like you claiming that
"that rock could catch fire, because I once saw a piece of coal burn and
it's rock". Coal is not granite. Granite will not catch fire, coal will.


TMI was deemed safe but three concurrent mistakes
allowed it to happen. One was a know defect that should have been corrected
but for some reason was not fixed.

And yet, even with the massive cluster**** of operations that day,
the release was minimal, and the containment building is _containing_
the hazard. As it was designed to do.

The space shuttle challenger should not have crashed. There were amply
warning signs but the idiots in charge chose to ignore them and not
fix the problem.

Let's focus on your misunderstanding of nuke plants first, then
we can get into rocket science.

Chernobly would not have happened either if the operators were not
told to do something stupid and in the process disabled most
of the safetly mechanisms on the reactor.

AND, if the Russians hadn't been using an inherently dangerous
design that the US does not use.

The wreck of the Exxon Valdeese should not have happened. We knew
that single hull tankers would cause exactly what happened. In this
case we allowed a single point of failure to case an accident.

You claim the Exxon Valdez was a single-point-of-failure accident?

I believe the USA lost a couple nuke subs too.

Yes, and?

The bottom line is that as long as humans are involved, sooner or later
somebody will do something stupid and cause an accident no matter how
safe the design. How many examples of human stupidity do you need?
Shall I quote Murphy here?

No, you've postulated that TMI has the same hazard as Chernobyl,
because they're both nuke plants. I think you've exhibited enough
supidity already. You don't understand the difference on a
technical or engineering level. That's _fine_, really it is. But
when you base your fears on a willing ignorance of reality, then
expect to have your fears and opinions disrespected and disregarded.

I would rather clean up an oil spill than clean up a nuclear accident.

Funny, I'd rather have a dozen TMI's than one Exxon Valdez.

Chernobly may not be habital for 500 years. Thousands of square
miles of land unuseable for generations. A pretty high price to pay.

WE DON'T USE ANYTHING VAGUELY LIKE THAT KIND OF REACTOR, CHUCK.

Time to close this thread and move on to metal working!

Fine, but be prepared to have your bull**** on nuke plants called
when you make more dramatically wrong statements about it.

On 5 May 2005 07:23:33 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

So enlighten us, when *did* they removed the slumped core from the
containment at TMI?

That's not his point, Jim. His point is that it could kill everyone
because it's just like Chernobyl. It's not just like Chernobyl, not
even close.

Do not forget that TMI was a "big deal" (tm). They really didn't
know if the H2 bubble would dissolve back in. They had no clue
for the first few hours what was even going wrong, EVEN THOUGH THE
EXACT SAME THING HAD HAPPENED ONCE BEFORE. This was not the
first time the relief valve had stuck on one of those reactors,
the only reason it didn't go bad the first time was that the
operator was good and immediately figured it out, and closed the
secondary valve.

The entire chain hardly inspires confidence.

Yes, not the same as chernobyl. But it could have been much, much
worse than it was.

And the facts he presents are indeed mostly correct, up to the
'same as' part.

So, you agree with him that a single accident could destroy the world,
or do you feel that he's being alarmist there?

"DeepDiver" wrote in message
...
"Chuck Sherwood" wrote in message
...

Anything can happen. TMI was deemed safe but three concurrent
mistakes allowed it to happen. One was a know defect that should
have been corrected but for some reason was not fixed.

The space shuttle challenger should not have crashed. There were
amply warning signs but the idiots in charge chose to ignore them
and not fix the problem.

Chernobly would not have happened either if the operators were
not told to do something stupid and in the process disabled
most of the safetly mechanisms on the reactor.

The wreck of the Exxon Valdeese should not have happened. We
knew that single hull tankers would cause exactly what happened.
In this case we allowed a single point of failure to case an
accident.

I believe the USA lost a couple nuke subs too.

The bottom line is that as long as humans are involved, sooner or
later somebody will do something stupid and cause an accident no
matter how safe the design. How many examples of human stupidity do
you need? Shall I quote Murphy here?


And yet not ONE case you've cited "killed the entire world with one
accident." In fact, I'll wager every penny I possess that you can't name
any example of human engineering that could "kill the entire world with
one accident."

gene engineered ebola escaping into a major city with international airports
could do it.

That's because no such thing exists. Even if we were to build a thousand
new nuclear reactors, not one of them could ever "kill the entire world
with one accident." Even a whole bunch of them failing simultaneously
(statistically impossible) could not "kill the entire world with one
accident."

Don't let the sky hit you on the head, Mr. Chicken Little.

In article , Dave Hinz says...

And the facts he presents are indeed mostly correct, up to the
'same as' part.

So, you agree with him that a single accident could destroy the world,
or do you feel that he's being alarmist there?

I said "up to" not "up to and including."

But he is presenting a viewpoint that nicely balances the
"don't worry about a thing, everything's under control"
that the Entergy folks distribute.

Allow me to put this in perspective.

Entergy has an alarm system and public evacuation plan for
the region surrounding the indian point nuclear plants.
Bus stops, maps, etc about what they will do if the area
needs to be evacuated.

Recently a single bridge in the area (tappan zee bridge) was
closed to all traffic because some poor unfortunate person
was trying to jump off it.

The entire westchester and rockland county areas became instantly
and totally gridlocked.

It's apparent that the evac plans are worse than useless because
they're diverting resources that could be othewise used elsehwere.
There is no hope that any of their plans could actually work in
practice.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Wed, 04 May 2005 12:20:07 -0700, Koz
said:


Funny that the survivalism guys seem to support the "suck up more oil
cheap" philosophy. I would have thought they would be the first to try
and get "off grid" and embrace lower use energy situations and localized
energy sourcing rather than global/country centralized energy.

Koz

Actually most of us survivalism guys are into off grid energy and
such, however a lot of us want our nation to survive. And that means
less reliance on offshore energy and more reliance on domestic energy
and that means nuclear power.

I want to be able to tell the entire ME to shove their oil up their
ass.

We could do a lot. We could get the car makers to build more diesel
powered vehicals (think bio-diesel, WVO, etc.... )

Bring back localized hydro-electric production (there used to be lots
of little dams that produced power, most are no longer used, this
should be reversed).

Promote localized energy production period, we need to stop relying on
big mega corperations for our energy needs.

Do away with the 'national' grid, energy production should be
localized.

Give big tax breaks and credits for those who go "Off grid" Be it
solar, compact windmills, etc....

Promote off grid home energy systems. Try to get more folks to just
make their own for their homes, it's not impossible and if more R&D
were avalible, then the systems would become more affordable and more
reliable.

Promote more alcohol conversions for gasoline powered vehicals, IOWs
lets grow our fuel instead of drill for it.

My point is that we can be doing lots of things to curb our addition
to offshore energy. We are simply not taking big enough steps to
achive this goal.

n.

North wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2005 12:20:07 -0700, Koz
said:



Funny that the survivalism guys seem to support the "suck up more oil
cheap" philosophy. I would have thought they would be the first to try
and get "off grid" and embrace lower use energy situations and localized
energy sourcing rather than global/country centralized energy.

Koz



Actually most of us survivalism guys are into off grid energy and
such, however a lot of us want our nation to survive. And that means
less reliance on offshore energy and more reliance on domestic energy
and that means nuclear power.

I want to be able to tell the entire ME to shove their oil up their
ass.

We could do a lot. We could get the car makers to build more diesel
powered vehicals (think bio-diesel, WVO, etc.... )

Bring back localized hydro-electric production (there used to be lots
of little dams that produced power, most are no longer used, this
should be reversed).

Promote localized energy production period, we need to stop relying on
big mega corperations for our energy needs.

Do away with the 'national' grid, energy production should be
localized.

Give big tax breaks and credits for those who go "Off grid" Be it
solar, compact windmills, etc....

Promote off grid home energy systems. Try to get more folks to just
make their own for their homes, it's not impossible and if more R&D
were avalible, then the systems would become more affordable and more
reliable.

Promote more alcohol conversions for gasoline powered vehicals, IOWs
lets grow our fuel instead of drill for it.

My point is that we can be doing lots of things to curb our addition
to offshore energy. We are simply not taking big enough steps to
achive this goal.

n.



Finally! A survivalist I agree with! Yes, there are many "pie in the
sky" notions about energy usage/production that will result in throwing
money down the toilet but the current lack of energy policy/business as
usual does the same thing. Simply sucking more local oil still doesn't
address the long term problem as the problem is at the point of use, not
production.

True freedon/security will come from localizing rather than globalizing.
One of the main points of design of the internet is the notion of a
distributed system so that descruction of part cannot destroy the whole.
Although it probably isn't reality with regards to the internet,
localized production of food, consumer goods, energy, etc would make the
country a whole lot stronger in the long run.

A theory of economics that is becomming more excepted is that continuing
to subsidize a product as we do (timber contracts given at below cost,
oil/mineral rights at below administratin costs) supresses growth of
competing and alternate technologies. The result is that instead of a
slow change to something better, the system blows up when either the
resources begin to dwindle or the back-handed subsidies can no longer be
met. We've gotta stop shooting ourselves in the foot via public
covering of costs to companies. These costs include tax breaks,
marketing subsidies, farm subsidies, discounted administrative costs,
"make work" military contracts, etc.

I rambled again...yea, I know it's more complex than this.

Koz

In article , Koz says...

Although it probably isn't reality with regards to the internet,
localized production of food, consumer goods, energy, etc would make the
country a whole lot stronger in the long run.

Unfortunately our present economic system encourages the exact
opposite: centralization of food and consumer good production
in a few mega-corporations.

At this point corporations have *so* much political power they
can control whoever gets elected. The elected officials are then
strongly beholden and see that the laws, regulations, and tax
codes favor even more centralization.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 5 May 2005 11:33:59 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

So, you agree with him that a single accident could destroy the world,
or do you feel that he's being alarmist there?

I said "up to" not "up to and including."

Gotcha. Didn't have his wording in front of me, thanks for
clarifying.

Recently a single bridge in the area (tappan zee bridge) was
closed to all traffic because some poor unfortunate person
was trying to jump off it.
The entire westchester and rockland county areas became instantly
and totally gridlocked.

Are you saying that a jumper would stop people from evacuating
the city? I think he'd get run over almost immediately.

It's apparent that the evac plans are worse than useless because
they're diverting resources that could be othewise used elsehwere.
There is no hope that any of their plans could actually work in
practice.

Well, hard to say. But the point stands that the safety precautions
are many layers deep, and even the massive cluster**** at TMI showed
that they're effective, even in an old design.

On 5 May 2005 17:18:34 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:44:22 -0400, Strider wrote:
On 4 May 2005 17:52:12 GMT, (Chuck
Sherwood) wrote:

NIMBY much, Chuck?

What would happen if an accident like chernobly happened near
LA, New York City, or Chicago? It would affect millions of people.


and take out a Blue State area.
Gotta look on the bright side.

While I admire your approach, I am compelled to point out that even
in the blue "states", it's the urban areas which are blue, while
it's rural areas which get the nuke plants. So, all it would do is
make a blue state less red.

Good thought, though.

Dave Hinz

Perfection is an unattainable goal....

Strider

On Tue, 03 May 2005 21:11:01 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

That's true, and the political think-tanks now serve a further role, to
keep out-of-office politicos gainfully employed and producing propaganda
until they may get back into office. Bush's team contains many people who
were in that condition during the Clinton years. Among the gifts they gave
the world was the New American Century program: preventive wars,
imposition of the American poltical system...the whole works.


I personally could not live with the hypocrisy of writing and promoting
ideas/products that I knew not to be true, or that I believed not to be
true, just for money.. Still, many people can.

Working in advertising and publicity will test anyone on that point. The
ideal, if you're going to be working at marketing something with your
writing, is to be an advocate, like a lawyer, but never to let yourself
get caught up in telling lies. Having worked in that biz for over 12 years
at different times I've seen the gamut of ethics displayed. Some people
play it straight and change agencies or clients if they have to. They tend
to be the better ones, and they do better, in general, than the whores.

See a short a sweet book, On Bull****, by Harry G. Frankfurt,
Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Princeton University:
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html

Although the above may sound a little unusual, the book's premise is
brilliant: his point is that there are liars and then there are
bull****ters. Liars are actually less corrupt: they know the truth, and
just chose to deny it. Bull****ters don't care for the truth; they will
spin anything in any way that suits their goals. Doesn't it sound familiar?

"przemek klosowski" wrote in message
ead.of.dot...
On Tue, 03 May 2005 21:11:01 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

That's true, and the political think-tanks now serve a further role, to
keep out-of-office politicos gainfully employed and producing propaganda
until they may get back into office. Bush's team contains many people
who
were in that condition during the Clinton years. Among the gifts they
gave
the world was the New American Century program: preventive wars,
imposition of the American poltical system...the whole works.


I personally could not live with the hypocrisy of writing and promoting
ideas/products that I knew not to be true, or that I believed not to be
true, just for money.. Still, many people can.

Working in advertising and publicity will test anyone on that point. The
ideal, if you're going to be working at marketing something with your
writing, is to be an advocate, like a lawyer, but never to let yourself
get caught up in telling lies. Having worked in that biz for over 12
years
at different times I've seen the gamut of ethics displayed. Some people
play it straight and change agencies or clients if they have to. They
tend
to be the better ones, and they do better, in general, than the whores.

See a short a sweet book, On Bull****, by Harry G. Frankfurt,
Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Princeton University:
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html

Although the above may sound a little unusual, the book's premise is
brilliant: his point is that there are liars and then there are
bull****ters. Liars are actually less corrupt: they know the truth, and
just chose to deny it. Bull****ters don't care for the truth; they will
spin anything in any way that suits their goals. Doesn't it sound
familiar?

I've heard of the book. Maybe I'll read it some day. There's another
interesting theoretical approach, which is that it is *all* bull****, in the
sense that we make up for ourselves what is important and what is valued,
and that, rather than objective facts, is the realm in which individual
realities occur. These become our personal myths, and we end up living in
individual spheres of understanding, in which there is no such thing as
direct communication. It's a kind of depressing view but it's interesting to
consider.

But I'll leave the resolution of that for the philosophers. The simpler fact
is that the role language serves in commerce, religion, law, politics, and
many other realms is that of a tool that we employ to get what we want. Each
of those realms has a set of rules, or ethics, which define what is
legitimate and not in the employment of language. We will never see
eye-to-eye about those rules across the gaps between those who want
something from others and the others who have the things that are wanted by
the first group. There is no "playing fair" that satisfies both sides.

That's the way most of the world has been, probably since the beginning.
We're OK with it as long as we don't lose sight of what is written or spoken
persuasion or coercion, and what is not. Being in tune with these roles of
language is one way to define what it means to understand a culture.

--
Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
At this point corporations have *so* much political power they
can control whoever gets elected.

You sound like we need another TR.

Tim

--
"California is the breakfast state: fruits, nuts and flakes."
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

On Thu, 05 May 2005 12:24:45 -0700, Koz
said:



North wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2005 12:20:07 -0700, Koz
said:



Funny that the survivalism guys seem to support the "suck up more oil
cheap" philosophy. I would have thought they would be the first to try
and get "off grid" and embrace lower use energy situations and localized
energy sourcing rather than global/country centralized energy.

Koz



Actually most of us survivalism guys are into off grid energy and
such, however a lot of us want our nation to survive. And that means
less reliance on offshore energy and more reliance on domestic energy
and that means nuclear power.

I want to be able to tell the entire ME to shove their oil up their
ass.

We could do a lot. We could get the car makers to build more diesel
powered vehicals (think bio-diesel, WVO, etc.... )

Bring back localized hydro-electric production (there used to be lots
of little dams that produced power, most are no longer used, this
should be reversed).

Promote localized energy production period, we need to stop relying on
big mega corperations for our energy needs.

Do away with the 'national' grid, energy production should be
localized.

Give big tax breaks and credits for those who go "Off grid" Be it
solar, compact windmills, etc....

Promote off grid home energy systems. Try to get more folks to just
make their own for their homes, it's not impossible and if more R&D
were avalible, then the systems would become more affordable and more
reliable.

Promote more alcohol conversions for gasoline powered vehicals, IOWs
lets grow our fuel instead of drill for it.

My point is that we can be doing lots of things to curb our addition
to offshore energy. We are simply not taking big enough steps to
achive this goal.

n.



Finally! A survivalist I agree with! Yes, there are many "pie in the
sky" notions about energy usage/production that will result in throwing
money down the toilet but the current lack of energy policy/business as
usual does the same thing. Simply sucking more local oil still doesn't
address the long term problem as the problem is at the point of use, not
production.

True freedon/security will come from localizing rather than globalizing.
One of the main points of design of the internet is the notion of a
distributed system so that descruction of part cannot destroy the whole.
Although it probably isn't reality with regards to the internet,
localized production of food, consumer goods, energy, etc would make the
country a whole lot stronger in the long run.

A theory of economics that is becomming more excepted is that continuing
to subsidize a product as we do (timber contracts given at below cost,
oil/mineral rights at below administratin costs) supresses growth of
competing and alternate technologies. The result is that instead of a
slow change to something better, the system blows up when either the
resources begin to dwindle or the back-handed subsidies can no longer be
met. We've gotta stop shooting ourselves in the foot via public
covering of costs to companies. These costs include tax breaks,
marketing subsidies, farm subsidies, discounted administrative costs,
"make work" military contracts, etc.

I rambled again...yea, I know it's more complex than this.

Koz




My Grandfather who served 30 years in the Marine corps, said that
"apathy" will be what destroys America. The American People have
become W A Y to apathitic to make any sort of real changes anytime
soon.

n.

Chuck Sherwood wrote:

Anything can happen.

No, "anything" cannot. And a lot of those that "could" are to unlikely
to worry about.

You worry about your lathe exploding from centrifugal force every time
you turn it on?

Dave Mundt wrote:

Unlimited nuclear war, brought on by paranoia and insanity

Lots of deaths, yes. Total wipeout? No. The earth is too big, and there
are too many people ready to use their ingenuity to stay alive.

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2005 22:01:05 GMT, Dave Mundt wrote:

Sorry...my bad...I had fusion in my head...but,
managed to type fission...


Dang, I've heard of sinus headaches, but nothing like fusion in the
head. Hope it gets better soon. Maybe you could go fission and
forget about it?

Must be a pretty weird looking dude, eyes glowing in the dark, steam
pouring out his ears, and all.

Gunner jingoed:

"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do
so would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of
regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well
please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long
that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals.
They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a
grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist
state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same
sex/different species marriage, others want voting rights for trees,
fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and complete
subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that
walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political
correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view
the competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate
each other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or
Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces
to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr

"Team America is afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do
so would result in even less self-esteem than they currently have.
Their methodology is to lie about what's really happening in the
hopes of remaining in power, and continue doing whatever they damn
well please. The problem is that they have concealed and obfuscated
for so longmthat, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of
their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed religious fanatics,
all holding on to an illusion of a cowboy on a horse. Some want to
hasten the return of somebody else's messiah, others just prefer the
evil foisted on the Earth by their 'God' and its spokesmen. They wish
to make the Second Amendment the eleventh commandment. I'll give them
that one anyway. Some want sex with temple virgins, others want voting
rights for their slaves and religious icons. Some want Fox 'News' and
subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that
walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political
correctness. I view the American voter in much the same way I view the
competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate each
other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or Israel.
The former hate everyone else, and only join forces to support the
international bankers and the God of War." ---unknown

Gio

"Offbreed" wrote in message
...
Dave Mundt wrote:

Unlimited nuclear war, brought on by paranoia and insanity

Lots of deaths, yes. Total wipeout? No. The earth is too big, and there
are too many people ready to use their ingenuity to stay alive.

That's what the Dinosaurs said isn't it?


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

"...name any example of human engineering that could "kill the entire
world with one accident..."

I accept the challenge! (He said, with tongue in cheek...)

#1 - Famous 'Software Maker' discovers 'error' in their operating
system for medical nanobots (nanotechnology).

'In the news, the Government has nuked several cities in an effort to
prevent the spread of defective Anti-Haemophilia nanobots. While
initially designed to help the blood of Haemophiliacs clot properly,
these nanobots cause massive, fatal bloodclots when accidentally
introduced to normal Humans-'

And the 'advertising slogan' for the medical nanobot range? 'Who do
you want to have working on you today?'

#2 - Genetically engineered food stuffs endowed with 'Human Genes'
(Google for it), result in plant diseases 'jumping species'.

'It was horrible', the Chief of Operations said, 'All those people
with 'rust' disease, we had no choice but to flame-thrower them all!'

#3 - GM (Genetically Modified) Mousepox, but done 'differently'.

'Child mortality rates for the age group 5 and under have soared to
100% with the advent of GM Chickenpox, said to have been released by
Al Quaeda. The mortality rate remains at 50% for those in the 6-10
age group, usually because they have significant immunity to the
normally occurring strain of the disease either through having
survived an infection or having been vaccinated prior to attending
school, but the rate rises to 75% for anyone over this age who has NOT
recently overcome an infection of the normal strain, or been
vaccinated against it... The Government is in emergency session over
what effects the loss of some 50 to 75% of the adult population will
mean on our National Security and Economy, as well as the almost total
loss of the newly born generation...'

--
Yours, DBM -
From Somewhere in Australia, the Land of Tree-hugging Funnelwebs...

"...TMI or any other USA'n reactor can NOT fail in the same way as
Chernoby..."

While I would like to be reassured by your statement, Mr Murphy would
probably shrug his shoulders and say 'So? They'll just find some
OTHER way to FUBAR...'

--
Yours, DBM -
From Somewhere in Australia, the Land of Tree-hugging Funnelwebs...

On Sat, 7 May 2005 00:16:56 +1000, "DBM"
said:

"...name any example of human engineering that could "kill the entire
world with one accident..."

I accept the challenge! (He said, with tongue in cheek...)

#1 - Famous 'Software Maker' discovers 'error' in their operating
system for medical nanobots (nanotechnology).

'In the news, the Government has nuked several cities in an effort to
prevent the spread of defective Anti-Haemophilia nanobots. While
initially designed to help the blood of Haemophiliacs clot properly,
these nanobots cause massive, fatal bloodclots when accidentally
introduced to normal Humans-'

And the 'advertising slogan' for the medical nanobot range? 'Who do
you want to have working on you today?'

#2 - Genetically engineered food stuffs endowed with 'Human Genes'
(Google for it), result in plant diseases 'jumping species'.

'It was horrible', the Chief of Operations said, 'All those people
with 'rust' disease, we had no choice but to flame-thrower them all!'

#3 - GM (Genetically Modified) Mousepox, but done 'differently'.

'Child mortality rates for the age group 5 and under have soared to
100% with the advent of GM Chickenpox, said to have been released by
Al Quaeda. The mortality rate remains at 50% for those in the 6-10
age group, usually because they have significant immunity to the
normally occurring strain of the disease either through having
survived an infection or having been vaccinated prior to attending
school, but the rate rises to 75% for anyone over this age who has NOT
recently overcome an infection of the normal strain, or been
vaccinated against it... The Government is in emergency session over
what effects the loss of some 50 to 75% of the adult population will
mean on our National Security and Economy, as well as the almost total
loss of the newly born generation...'

Or:

Something went wrong today when China tested their new "Anti-matter"
bomb. The anti-matter cloud will slow disolve the planet withing a
couple of days killing all life.

Have a nice day,

N.

On Fri, 06 May 2005 05:22:34 -0700, Offbreed
said:

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2005 22:01:05 GMT, Dave Mundt wrote:

Sorry...my bad...I had fusion in my head...but,
managed to type fission...


Dang, I've heard of sinus headaches, but nothing like fusion in the
head. Hope it gets better soon. Maybe you could go fission and
forget about it?

Must be a pretty weird looking dude, eyes glowing in the dark, steam
pouring out his ears, and all.


We'll name him "Atomo"

n.

On Fri, 06 May 2005 13:38:12 GMT, "J. R. Carroll"
wrote:


"Offbreed" wrote in message
...
Dave Mundt wrote:

Unlimited nuclear war, brought on by paranoia and insanity

Lots of deaths, yes. Total wipeout? No. The earth is too big, and there
are too many people ready to use their ingenuity to stay alive.

That's what the Dinosaurs said isn't it?

So John..you are now claiming that humans wiped out the dinosaurs?
Perhaps it was the Atlantians who in a fit of pique, used a tractor
beam on that asteroid and used it to commit suicide, incidently taking
out the dinos at the same time.

Sure you and John S havent been drinking from the same well?

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

On Sat, 7 May 2005 00:16:56 +1000, "DBM"
wrote:

"...name any example of human engineering that could "kill the entire
world with one accident..."

I accept the challenge! (He said, with tongue in cheek...)

#1 - Famous 'Software Maker' discovers 'error' in their operating
system for medical nanobots (nanotechnology).

'In the news, the Government has nuked several cities in an effort to
prevent the spread of defective Anti-Haemophilia nanobots. While
initially designed to help the blood of Haemophiliacs clot properly,
these nanobots cause massive, fatal bloodclots when accidentally
introduced to normal Humans-'

And the 'advertising slogan' for the medical nanobot range? 'Who do
you want to have working on you today?'

#2 - Genetically engineered food stuffs endowed with 'Human Genes'
(Google for it), result in plant diseases 'jumping species'.

'It was horrible', the Chief of Operations said, 'All those people
with 'rust' disease, we had no choice but to flame-thrower them all!'

#3 - GM (Genetically Modified) Mousepox, but done 'differently'.

'Child mortality rates for the age group 5 and under have soared to
100% with the advent of GM Chickenpox, said to have been released by
Al Quaeda. The mortality rate remains at 50% for those in the 6-10
age group, usually because they have significant immunity to the
normally occurring strain of the disease either through having
survived an infection or having been vaccinated prior to attending
school, but the rate rises to 75% for anyone over this age who has NOT
recently overcome an infection of the normal strain, or been
vaccinated against it... The Government is in emergency session over
what effects the loss of some 50 to 75% of the adult population will
mean on our National Security and Economy, as well as the almost total
loss of the newly born generation...'


None of the above examples would kill the entire world.

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

On Fri, 06 May 2005 07:27:50 -0600, Gio Medici
wrote:

Gunner jingoed:

"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do
so would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of
regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well
please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long
that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals.
They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a
grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist
state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same
sex/different species marriage, others want voting rights for trees,
fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and complete
subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that
walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political
correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view
the competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate
each other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or
Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces
to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr

"Team America is afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do
so would result in even less self-esteem than they currently have.
Their methodology is to lie about what's really happening in the
hopes of remaining in power, and continue doing whatever they damn
well please. The problem is that they have concealed and obfuscated
for so longmthat, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of
their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed religious fanatics,
all holding on to an illusion of a cowboy on a horse. Some want to
hasten the return of somebody else's messiah, others just prefer the
evil foisted on the Earth by their 'God' and its spokesmen. They wish
to make the Second Amendment the eleventh commandment. I'll give them
that one anyway. Some want sex with temple virgins, others want voting
rights for their slaves and religious icons. Some want Fox 'News' and
subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that
walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political
correctness. I view the American voter in much the same way I view the
competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate each
other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or Israel.
The former hate everyone else, and only join forces to support the
international bankers and the God of War." ---unknown

Gio

The author didnt think enough of his own dreck to put his name on it?

LOL

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 May 2005 13:38:12 GMT, "J. R. Carroll"
wrote:


"Offbreed" wrote in message
...
Dave Mundt wrote:

Unlimited nuclear war, brought on by paranoia and insanity

Lots of deaths, yes. Total wipeout? No. The earth is too big, and there
are too many people ready to use their ingenuity to stay alive.

That's what the Dinosaurs said isn't it?

So John..you are now claiming that humans wiped out the dinosaurs?
Perhaps it was the Atlantians who in a fit of pique, used a tractor
beam on that asteroid and used it to commit suicide, incidently taking
out the dinos at the same time.

Sure you and John S havent been drinking from the same well?



No,
Just that the earth isn't to big for an E.L.E., which is what Offbreed said.
It isn't. I believe our nuclear britches are big enough to compete in this
arena. Nuclear, or nucular to the unwashed and president booby, power is
safe these days and as soon as the residents of Nevada resign themselves to
the inevitable there will be adequate storage for the detritus. You can't do
much damage with a pebble bed and we ought to get about building as many as
are required. You know if we weren't so busy burning up our own considerable
oil reserves we could wait for oil to reach $100.00 per bbl and start
selling the stuff. This is what the Iranians want to do. **** Phillips
Conoco, the reserves are the property of the citizens of the US and the
revenue would come in very handy considering the considerable real and trade
deficits we are accumulating. I think it's time for Halliburton and the rest
to be my bitch instead of the other way around.
If they don't like it screw them and find somebody else. They aren't doing
any favors here but for themselves and their shareholders.

I can't tell you what well JS is drinking from but the guy can cook and
that's good enough for me!

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

On Sat, 7 May 2005 00:46:28 +1000, DBM wrote:
"...TMI or any other USA'n reactor can NOT fail in the same way as
Chernoby..."

While I would like to be reassured by your statement, Mr Murphy would
probably shrug his shoulders and say 'So? They'll just find some
OTHER way to FUBAR...'

Do you have any science better than Murphy's Law with which to back up
your thoughts?

"...None of the above examples would kill the entire world..."

Would they have to do that themselves, directly? What about the
'collateral damage' from a mass die-off? Doesn't that count?

If I remember correctly, 'Spanish Flu' only had a 2.5% kill rate, but
still managed over a 90% kill rate in some Alaskan communities - the
debilitating effects of the Flu meant that other dangerous factors
(environment) were able to capitalise and compound their effects.

Now, if any 'killer disease' kills off a significant portion of the
population, then areas of 'depleted' population may rapidly become
'uninhabitable', either from the loss of essential social services and
interactions (no food, power, water, gas, sewage, fire brigade,
police, etc), diseases from unburied corpses, or the
effects of subsequent disasters for which survivors are 'on their
own'.

Then there's any genetic problems caused by 'inbreeding' in isolated
pockets of survivors...

'Gunner looked at those around him, his fellow survivors were all
veteran Survivalists, surviving this unexpected TEOTWAWKI only because
they'd had the sense to 'get the Hell out of Dodge' years before the
Final Curtain came down...'

'...And that, ultimately, was to be their downfall...'

'It is said that wisdom comes with age, but this is not entirely
correct. It would be truer to say that 'time wounds all heels', and
that those lacking intelligence to prevent merely being 'wounded',
tended to die at a much faster rate than the average for their age
group...'

'All in the compound had proven their intelligence by being there,
alive and safe while others had died en masse, including spouses and
loved ones that could neither be convinced nor cajoled into coming...'

'...Of the two-score or so people around him, Gunner counted over a
dozen women, all of whom had proven their fertility time and again
over the course of their lives, sharing the secrets of child-raising
when in due time their own children became parents...'

'Feminine beauty worn by anxiety and the passage of rough years
'living on the land' stared apprehensively at Gunner... Their unsaid
questions answered by the presence of so few at the retreat...'

"I'm sorry..." Gunner said, his heart sinking, "But we're the only
ones who made it. The others... are not coming..."

'Tears flowed, silent grief at the realisation of what that meant,
that the adult children who had to work in and too near the blighted
cities, the much-loved grand children who had to attend the places of
Higher Learning, none would now arrive at the isolated sanctuary...'

'Gunner looked at those around him, his fellow survivors were all
well-trained, they had all adapted to living a self-sufficient
lifestyle, and continuing to live as they usually did would not be
hard...'

'...Or at least, not until their years caught up to them and they had
no younger ones to help them...'

'Gunner closed his eyes, the years suddenly weighing on him, just as
it had for some time on the women around him and their ability to bear
children...'

NOTE - Humanity can survive ONLY IF enough females are...
A) capable of becoming pregnant
B) capable of finding quality 'genetic donors'
C) capable of surviving pregnancy and giving birth
D) in environments that ensure survival of children until adulthood

A) If there are no pregnancies, there are no children. The fall in
fertility in many 'First World' countries has fallen below
'replacement' levels.

NOTE - Japan for example had over 120 million people in 2000 AD, but
will have less than 70 million by 2100 AD. On 'average' a Japanese
woman will have some 1.27 children, although in practice, Japanese
Couples that do have children 'average' about 1.5 per family - this
change to the Family structure (single child families are the norm)
has already created substantial changes in their society.

B) is important because about one-third of ALL 'fertilised' ova either
fail to implant in the uterine wall, or spontaneously abort if they do
(for various reasons, not least of which is an immune reaction if
there is chromosome damage). The more 'screwed' up the genetics in
either sperm or ova are, the LESS chance there is of a pregnancy, let
alone a 'viable' human being because of deformity, retardation,etc.

C) With women over 40 at increased risk of birth defects and problem
pregnancies in any event (the age of a person affects ova quality to a
much greater extent than it does sperm quality), comes the chance that
in a TEOTWAWKI situation, a woman's ability to conceive children will
not only diminish, but her ability (without current Medical resources)
to safely carry a child to term (or survive pregnancy) will greatly
diminish as well.

D) Unless children survive to 'grow up and carry on', a society will
fade away and die out.

NOTE - There is a thing called the 'morning after abortion pill'.
This is nothing more than a modern version of 'kissing under the
mistletoe', the connection being that tea made from mistletoe was used
to cause 'miscarriages' (abortions) since time immemorial. Such
knowledge was vital in times when Complications in
Pregnancy/Childbirth were the greatest killers of women, and
preventing pregnancy was not only a form of 'Family Planning', but
quite literally, a life-saver

--
Yours, DBM -
From Somewhere in Australia, the Land of Tree-hugging Funnelwebs...

On 6 May 2005 17:25:31 GMT, Dave Hinz said:

On Sat, 7 May 2005 00:46:28 +1000, DBM wrote:
"...TMI or any other USA'n reactor can NOT fail in the same way as
Chernoby..."

While I would like to be reassured by your statement, Mr Murphy would
probably shrug his shoulders and say 'So? They'll just find some
OTHER way to FUBAR...'

Do you have any science better than Murphy's Law with which to back up
your thoughts?

No matter how 'safe' you make something, there's aways the chance of a
'what if' or '**** happens'. For example, what if some terrorist
somehow snuck into the core of a reactor wearing a backpack nuke ?
You see, rather unlikely, but '**** happens'

n.

"DBM" wrote in message
...

The fall in fertility in many 'First World' countries has fallen
below 'replacement' levels.


Nonsense. It's *pregnancies carried to full-term and delivered* that have
fallen in the first-world, a huge difference. (Unless in your mind,
employing birth control and/or terminating pregnancies via medical abortion,
are metrics of a woman's fertility.)

Now it *is* true that first-world fertility levels are dropping amongst
women who are actively trying to get pregnant. But that's because most
first-world women are opting out of child bearing (by using birth control &
abortion) until they reach their late-30's (if at all), at which time their
advanced age works against them (not to mention any trauma to the uterus
from prior abortions, or the possible adverse fertility effects of decades
of using birth control hormones).

So if you're concerned about birth rates (not fertility) in first-world
countries, you have to cast your eye on the social issues that are driving
women to abandon child bearing (and to abandon child rearing, which is
another crisis in first-world countries). This can be traced to several key
factors:

1. Radical social feminism (often driven by lesbian activists) that teaches
society's women that being a mother and a house wife is "lower than dirt".
They emphasize and glamorize the goals of career and self-centeredness over
family values.

2. A tax-hungry socialist-driven government that demands so much revenues
from families that it is difficult, if not impossible, to survive without
two full-time incomes.

3. A media and celebrity-driven culture that, again, emphasizes
self-centeredness and "independence", while simultaneously degrading the
concept of traditional nuclear families.

4. A highly-commercialized and competitive culture that prizes the
accumulation of material possessions, while totally disregarding traditional
values (like family, morality, ethics, raising good children, etc.)

Of course, it's no coincidence that all of the above is mostly driven by the
same group of politically-motivated people.

- Michael

On Fri, 06 May 2005 16:49:02 -0400, North wrote:
On 6 May 2005 17:25:31 GMT, Dave Hinz said:

On Sat, 7 May 2005 00:46:28 +1000, DBM wrote:
"...TMI or any other USA'n reactor can NOT fail in the same way as
Chernoby..."

While I would like to be reassured by your statement, Mr Murphy would
probably shrug his shoulders and say 'So? They'll just find some
OTHER way to FUBAR...'

Do you have any science better than Murphy's Law with which to back up
your thoughts?

No matter how 'safe' you make something, there's aways the chance of a
'what if' or '**** happens'.

Yes. And if **** happens in the USA'n design of nuclear reactor, even
the relatively old TMI design, the results are a LOT less disasterous
than the Russian design at Chernobyl.

For example, what if some terrorist
somehow snuck into the core of a reactor wearing a backpack nuke ?
You see, rather unlikely, but '**** happens'

About the same as that same backpack-wearing terrorist taking out
the superbowl, I suppose.

"...Do you have any science better than Murphy's Law with which to
back up your thoughts?..."

Unfortunately, no. Nothing concrete, conclusive, or comforting.

The comment I made re 'Murphy' is perhaps not a 'scientific proof',
but more of a 'Humans are Prone to Error' statement - otherwise known
as the 'if the mechanics/electrics/hydraulics didn't fail, then it
must have been Pilot Error that caused the crash' school of thinking.

Then there's the matter of 'modern management' techniques...

Link to website dealing with a recent accident in a Japanese Nuclear
reactor - 4 dead, 7 injured (report MDN - Aug 11 2004).

http://www12.mainichi.co.jp/news/mdn...reactor-0-9.ht
ml

Search page for 'reactor stories' on MDN (Mainichi Daily News), all
pages should be in English.

http://www12.mainichi.co.jp/news/mdn...reactor-0-.htm
l

Regardless of reactor type or design, Humans are Humans...

--
Yours, DBM -
From Somewhere in Australia, the Land of Tree-hugging Funnelwebs...

"...It's *pregnancies carried to full-term and delivered* that have
fallen in the first-world, a huge difference...."

Point taken! Some 'fertility' statistics don't define whether they
use 'pregnancies' or 'live births' as their standard for 'fertility'.

While 'pregnancy' may be seen as the most basic indicator of
'fertility' (the woman became pregnant, therefore she must be
'fertile', right?), such use may not take into account possible
outcomes or complications that affect the birth rate (which is never
the same as the pregnancy rate in any case) like miscarriage,
'still-births', abortion.

Since a 'live birth' is the final proof of a 'successful fertility'
having gone the full course, these are (as far as I'm aware) the most
often used source for 'fertility' statistics.

"...Unless in your mind, employing birth control and/or terminating
pregnancies via medical abortion, are metrics of a woman's
fertility..."

The problem is that using 'birth control' (which prevents pregnancy),
may in itself 'mask' infertility problems, and by preventing pregnancy
in women who would other be 'fertile' enough to fall pregnant, mask
any inability (complications, etc) to carry a child to full term that
might not show up until well into the pregnancy.

Then (as you pointed out) there are 'social' effects that can muddy
the waters further - if people don't even try, how would they know?

Re comment I made above about 'live birth' statistics being used for
'fertility' statistics - Governments need info on 'how many mouths'
they have to feed, 'how many childcare places', 'schools', etc when
planning for the future. The 'live births' statistics gives an easy
number for 'bums on seats' statistics for childcare, etc.

Sorry, I've been up all night, I hope I've said that clearly.

--
Yours, DBM -
From Somewhere in Australia, the Land of Tree-hugging Funnelwebs...

"DBM" wrote in message
...
"...It's *pregnancies carried to full-term and delivered* that
have fallen in the first-world, a huge difference...."

Point taken! Some 'fertility' statistics don't define whether
they use 'pregnancies' or 'live births' as their standard for
'fertility'.

And even these numbers are useless if you don't consider other issues
including those I mentioned previously. For example, if most first-world
women intentionally put off pregnancies until their mid-30's or later, then
naturally the fertility rate statistics will be reduced no matter whether
you're counting pregnancies or births or both. After a woman passes her
youthful "prime" childbearing years, her fertility *will* steadily drop off.
You can't fool mother nature, even with modern "fertility treatments" (which
are merely a band-aid on the symptom of a greater social problem).


While 'pregnancy' may be seen as the most basic indicator of
'fertility' (the woman became pregnant, therefore she must be
'fertile', right?), such use may not take into account possible
outcomes or complications that affect the birth rate (which is
never the same as the pregnancy rate in any case) like miscarriage,
'still-births', abortion.

The basic fact is that first-world women actually have a greater "fertility
rate" than second- or third-world women. The problem is they are
intentionally not taking advantage of the health and standard-of-living
benefits of their advanced society. And therein lies the fundemental flaw in
your statistics, because your numbers do not differentiate between women
choosing not to have children versues women unable to have children.

A look at teen pregnancies in first-world countries illustrates that our
women have no problem getting pregnant. And many of the teens and young
women in the lower social classes do carry their pregnancies to full term
and birth which means that there isn't an endemic problem with first-world
child-bearing either. In fact, first-world mothers have a very low infant
mortality rate, even for high-risk babies (e.g., babies born of
crack-addicted mothers, alcoholic mothers, smoking mothers, poorly-nourished
mothers, etc.). In second-world contries, most of those babies would die
(either in utero or shortly after birth); in third-world countries,
virtually all of them would die.

If you want a different metric, look at traditional Catholics and Mormons in
first-world countries. They still have no problems attaining large families
via natural child birth.

On the other hand, third-world women have always had a relatively high-rate
of childbirth (excepting periods of extreme hardship like famine or
drought). There are a number of logical reasons for this too. One is the
lack of available birth control (and abortion-on-demand). Another is the
higher miscarriage and infant mortality rates. Yet another is the higher
mortality rates of people in general (so families and communities need to
bear more babies in order to keep the population stable). A third is that
economic production is primarily based on nuclear family units. For example,
a farmer needs to have a large number of children to help work the land. And
finally, there are the social reasons. Third-worlders are not indoctrinated
with feminist propaganda. Third-worlders are more traditional in their
cultural values. And third-worlders tend to be more adherant to religious
principles.

We can now identify two significant problems:

1. When third-worlders immigrate enmasse into first-world countries, they
tend to overwhelm their hosts. That's because first-world women socially
depress their own "fertility" rates, while third-world immigrants do not.
Combined with the higher standard of living and access to first-world health
care, the immigrant population booms and quickly outpaces the reproduction
of the first-world women.

2. With an influx of modern medicine and food supplies to third world
countries via "aid programs", third-world populations explode beyond the
capacity of their own production and resources. This leads to a need for
even more first-world aid. In essence, the natural balance of
self-regulating populations within a given enviroment is destroyed by the
outside "assistance".


Re comment I made above about 'live birth' statistics being used for
'fertility' statistics - Governments need info on 'how many mouths'
they have to feed, 'how many childcare places', 'schools', etc when
planning for the future.

Only if you subscribe to the policies of socialism or communism (both of
which oppose the basic tenets of freedom and independence). A Government has
no need to know how many mouths to feed, how many children to
institutionalize and indoctrinate, how many senior citizens to euthanize,
etc, unless it is presiding over a country of slaves.

If you free yourself from the chains of government bondage and servitude,
you will realize that all those things you mentioned (and more) are, in
fact, the responsibility of individuals and families.

- Michael

On Fri, 06 May 2005 16:49:02 -0400, North wrote:

On 6 May 2005 17:25:31 GMT, Dave Hinz said:

On Sat, 7 May 2005 00:46:28 +1000, DBM wrote:
"...TMI or any other USA'n reactor can NOT fail in the same way as
Chernoby..."

While I would like to be reassured by your statement, Mr Murphy would
probably shrug his shoulders and say 'So? They'll just find some
OTHER way to FUBAR...'

Do you have any science better than Murphy's Law with which to back up
your thoughts?

No matter how 'safe' you make something, there's aways the chance of a
'what if' or '**** happens'. For example, what if some terrorist
somehow snuck into the core of a reactor wearing a backpack nuke ?
You see, rather unlikely, but '**** happens'

n.

You could be T-boned by the catering truck that shows up 3 times a day
at the nuke plant.

Gunner

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling
which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being
free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
- John Stewart Mill