"North" wrote in message
...

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've obviously never been in the military, because you think like a
civilian (who's watched too much Hollywood drivel).

Try to think about your absurd scenario for just one moment. A terrorist has
obtained a very high-value man-portable nuclear bomb (which, by the way, are
very large and quite noticeable: think large fully-stuffed backpacking pack,
not a child's schoolbook backpack). With this device, he could easily
destroy several square blocks of a metropolitan city, or perhaps take out
the U.S. Capitol building (with Congress in session). But, no. Instead he
tries to walk, with his large backpack unnoticed mind you, into a
tightly-controlled, high-security area like a nuclear power plant. Yeah,
that's a great plan! And even if he did manage to successfully penetrate
security and detonate the device, the overall effect would not be much worse
than if he had blown the thing up anywhere else.

Too bad terrorists in real life are not as stupid as Hollywood--or you--make
them out to be.

J. R. Carroll wrote:
"Offbreed" wrote in message

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 what? That meteor was not man, or dinosaur, made.

http://www.edwardmuller.com/right17.htm

Little Boy, 13 kilotons.
Fat man, 20 kilotons.
The Tanguska Event, 10 megatons
The Bravo test, 15 megatons
One pound of antimatter 16 megatons
Mount St. Helen May 18, 1980. 24 megatons
Tsar Bomba, 50 megatons
The third 1883 eruption of Krakatoa 150 megatons
World War III, 10,000 megatons
"Dinosaur Killer" 100,000,000 megatons or 10^8 megatons


"World War III, computed as the simultaneous explosion of all known
nuclear devices (about 15,000 today)"

Gio Medici wrote:
Gunner jingoed:


" 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

Gio, you don't think it's a little weird for the queer activists (their
name, not mine) to walk beside Moslem fundamentalists "in solidarity",
while the Moslems they are marching beside are killing homosexual
Moslems for being homosexual?

Know where the queer Moslems go for sanctuary? Israel. Yet the queer
activists are marching in support of the destruction of Israel?

We can go right on down the line, and pick more pairs of "Leftist"
groups having only a hatred of the "right wing" as their Common Cause.

On Sat, 07 May 2005 07:44:09 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

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

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.

I'm surprised that those roach coaches don't set off the rad alarms.


------------------------------------------------------
No matter how hard you try, you cannot baptize a cat.
----------------------------
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
---------------------------------------------------

Offbreed wrote:

Gio, you don't think it's a little weird for the queer activists (their
name, not mine) to walk beside Moslem fundamentalists "in solidarity",
while the Moslems they are marching beside are killing homosexual
Moslems for being homosexual?


Sure it's wierd. Religion is wierd. Chaney and his daughter are wierd.

Know where the queer Moslems go for sanctuary? Israel. Yet the queer
activists are marching in support of the destruction of Israel?

So, why support Israel, enemy to all?

We can go right on down the line, and pick more pairs of "Leftist"
groups having only a hatred of the "right wing" as their Common Cause.

Just like most folks, I think much of the stupid **** foisted on us by
'the left' should stay (legally) behind closed doors. But Rupert
Murdoch, the Right-wing owner of Fox, propagates it

Getting the people to fight over bull**** issues is the goal of the
criminal scum seeking to dominate them.

The goal of politicians, priests, and bankers is to steal your life,
and make you a slave. For eternity, if they only could.

Gio

In rec.crafts.metalworking Offbreed wrote:
(snip)
So what? That meteor was not man, or dinosaur, made.

http://www.edwardmuller.com/right17.htm

Little Boy, 13 kilotons.
Fat man, 20 kilotons.
The Tanguska Event, 10 megatons
The Bravo test, 15 megatons
One pound of antimatter 16 megatons
Mount St. Helen May 18, 1980. 24 megatons
Tsar Bomba, 50 megatons
The third 1883 eruption of Krakatoa 150 megatons

Average hurricane 5000 megatons PER DAY!!!

World War III, 10,000 megatons
"Dinosaur Killer" 100,000,000 megatons or 10^8 megatons


"World War III, computed as the simultaneous explosion of all known
nuclear devices (about 15,000 today)"

Sorry to jump in, I thought the hurricane statisic was a good one to add.

On Sat, 07 May 2005 08:15:12 GMT, "DeepDiver"
said:

"North" wrote in message
.. .

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've obviously never been in the military, because you think like a
civilian (who's watched too much Hollywood drivel).

Try to think about your absurd scenario for just one moment. A terrorist has
obtained a very high-value man-portable nuclear bomb (which, by the way, are
very large and quite noticeable: think large fully-stuffed backpacking pack,
not a child's schoolbook backpack). With this device, he could easily
destroy several square blocks of a metropolitan city, or perhaps take out
the U.S. Capitol building (with Congress in session). But, no. Instead he
tries to walk, with his large backpack unnoticed mind you, into a
tightly-controlled, high-security area like a nuclear power plant. Yeah,
that's a great plan! And even if he did manage to successfully penetrate
security and detonate the device, the overall effect would not be much worse
than if he had blown the thing up anywhere else.

Too bad terrorists in real life are not as stupid as Hollywood--or you--make
them out to be.



Asshole, I did mention that it was unlikey to happen. But what about
this: The dude at the control panel sets his beer down on top of the
wrong button ? Accidently of course.

n.

In rec.crafts.metalworking Charles Spitzer wrote:
(snip)
gene engineered ebola escaping into a major city with international airports
could do it.
(snorp)

Naw, at least not until we get to the point we can custom design the
effects of a virus/bacteria. At which point, a counteragent could be
designed. The problem is we currently have to work with snippets of
genetic code with known effects. The problem with the spread of really
nasty diseases is that they usually work very fast, resulting in carriers
that don't move around very long after infection. Not to say there
wouldn't be a large loss of life. Under idea (for spread) situations,
civilization might collapse entirely, but humans as a species would
survive. An ebola is still not 100% fatal.

In rec.crafts.metalworking 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).

(snip description)

Assuming that there would be no way to deal with this you still don't kill
the world. You don't even wipe out humans. You just wind up with
hemophillia in all of humanitys genetic code.

#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!'

Not only not able to kill the world, not even very likely to do major
damage.

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

(snip)
Answered in another post.

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

In rec.crafts.metalworking North wrote:
(snip)
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.

First off anti-matter is hard to make, it does not spontaniously generate.
Secondly, while you would get total conversion to energy when it reacts
with regular matter, it would take enough about an anti-matter mass the
size of a continet to destory the earth. Maybe a anit-matter asteriod
will float through our system and do that, but we certainly won't be
involved with it.

In rec.crafts.metalworking North wrote:
(snip)
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.

Backback nuke (btw which weighs about 60-80 pounds) damage equals X.
Backpack nuke in nuclear reactor damage equals X + 5% (mainly from more
radioactive than normal fallout).

In rec.crafts.metalworking DBM wrote:
(snip)
Regardless of reactor type or design, Humans are Humans...

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

You still aren't getting it. Just becase humans are human, doesn't mean
impossible things will happen. The reactor design I mentioned earlier due
to the frickin laws of science can't melt down. There isn't enough
radioactive material in it to do so. You have to add control rods to even
get it to work, and at it's maximum possible output it doesn't generate
enough heat to be able to melt down. Unless you think the energy to do
so will suddenly pop into existance from another reality. If you pick up
a rock, all the vibrations of the atoms it it aren't going to suddenly
line up into one direction at one instant in time and launch it through
your head just because you are a human!!!

"Todd Rich" wrote in message
...
In rec.crafts.metalworking North wrote:
(snip)
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.

Backback nuke (btw which weighs about 60-80 pounds) damage equals X.
Backpack nuke in nuclear reactor damage equals X + 5% (mainly from more
radioactive than normal fallout).


I won't discuss specifics beyond saying that, while your premise is right,
you conclusion is wrong.

"North" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 07 May 2005 08:15:12 GMT, "DeepDiver"
said:


Too bad terrorists in real life are not as stupid as Hollywood--or
you--make
them out to be.

Asshole, I did mention that it was unlikey to happen.


Oh, well, in THAT case, I guess you can make up any bull**** you want and
post it as a reason for not building nuclear power plants. So why didn't you
include this scenario in your "thesis"...

"Little green men from mars see that we're building nuclear plants and get
****ed off. So they come swooping down in flying saucers and destroy Earth.
You see, rather unlikely, but '**** happens'."


But what about this: The dude at the control panel sets his beer down on
top of the wrong button ? Accidently of course.

Watching "The Simpsons" a bit too much, eh? Allow me to offer you some
advice that will greatly assist you in life: don't base your arguments and
decisions on ideas you've gotten from watching TV cartoons.


I may be an asshole for correcting your faulty "logic" (if you can call it
that), but at least I'm not a moron.

On misc.survivalism, in et, "Alan Connor" wrote:


On misc.survivalism, in
, "Gunner" wrote:


An email forwarded from an old and dear but green as alge
friend

"Dear Friend,

No one voted on Election Day to destroy the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. But President Bush is now claiming a mandate
to do exactly that.

Congressional leaders are pushing for a budget bill that would
turn America's greatest sanctuary for Arctic wildlife into a
vast, polluted oil field. The U.S. Senate has already passed
a budget resolution that would open the Arctic Refuge to oil
drilling.



snip

Funny. I wonder why your friend is not concerned about
all of the other ecosystems/habitats that are being
trashed for the things that he uses every day in his
life.

Does he think that all of the other oil fields are
somehow earth-friendly, just for starters?

AC


--
alanconnor AT earthlink DOT net
Use your real return address or I'll never know you
even tried to mail me. http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp


23:[hhc314@yahoo]
49:[Glenn Ashmor]
50:[North ]
19:[Todd Rich ]
24:[T.Alan Kraus]
32:[Chuck Sherwo]
17:[Dave Hinz ]
18:[Chuck Sherwo]
32:[Dave Hinz ]
19:[Chuck Sherwo]
28:[Dave Hinz ]
6:[Chuck Sherwo]
9:[Dave Hinz ]
35:[Chuck Sherwo]
74:[Dave Hinz ]
12:[DBM ]
11:[Dave Hinz ]
20:[North ]
29:[DeepDiver ]
38:[North ]
34:[DeepDiver ]


Yap Yap Yap

Hate to tell you this, bozos, but neither myself, nor any other
educated and sane adults, read your posts nor care what you post
or think.

AND (this is your big revelation for the decade) your prattling
doesn't remove my post from the Usenet servers nor the Usenet
Archives at groups.google.com.

The only people worth talking to that read these groups do it
from the Archives and ignore everything you post.

Just like they step over piles of dog **** on the sidewalk when
they are walking.

And then we talk by email and leave you all to live in your
own ****.

Consider getting lives that are worth living.

AC


--
alanconnor AT earthlink DOT net
Use your real return address or I'll never know you
even tried to mail me. http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp

~

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'

It's pretty hard to sneak into the core of
something that's running at about 2000 psi
and 2000 degrees. Maybe you meant "building"
or "containment" or "parking lot".

I've been up close to 5 nuclear reactors in
my life. Not in the core, mind you, but I've
stood over the pressure vessel at WPPS 2 and
been as close to N reactor as any un-suited
up civilian could be. While they were running.
N reactor has been decommisioned, but WPP 2
is still up and running.

I've also worked on security systems that
guard SNM and I've had an AEC "Q" clearance
so I kinda know what I'm talking about.

I'm not going to speak of the security that I've
seen at nuclear plants except to say that it's
very intense. And they've certainly considered
the scenario of a terrorist with a backpack bomb.

On Sat, 07 May 2005 22:01:21 GMT, Alan Connor wrote:

***snip***

Bruce, get back on your meds.You are showing signs of another
meltdown.

Strider

Todd Rich wrote:
Average hurricane 5000 megatons PER DAY!!!

Sorry to jump in, I thought the hurricane statisic was a good one to add.

An excellent one. Two days equals all the nukes in the world.

"Offbreed" wrote in message
...
Todd Rich wrote:
Average hurricane 5000 megatons PER DAY!!!

Sorry to jump in, I thought the hurricane statisic was a good one to
add.

An excellent one. Two days equals all the nukes in the world.

Actually, not, except in terms of total heat produced. The energy in a
hurricane is so dispersed in both time and space that there is little
comparison with the consequences of a nuclear explosion.

The 5000 megaton-per-day figure seems to have acquired a pass-along status;
it's interesting that hurricane experts at the University of California say
that the total accumulated energy acquired by a typical Atlantic hurricane
is 1/5 of that amount, and that its energy is released over the entire path
of the hurricane, over the course of days.

Regardless, the key point is to be careful about getting worked up over
these comparisons. If you dispersed the energy of a bomb over tens of
thousands of square miles, and stretched the time domain from milliseconds
to days, you'd have something useful to think about. If not, not.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

Actually, not, except in terms of total heat produced. The energy in a
hurricane is so dispersed in both time and space that there is little
comparison with the consequences of a nuclear explosion.

Back a long time ago in one of the gun mags, someone claimed that a
Volkswagen at some low speed had as much kinetic energy as an elephant
gun, but using one to hunt elephants was not to be recommended.

So, point taken.

However, the original context was that the energy be released on the
planet Earth, to "kill the entire world". In that event, the energy is
sufficiently concentrated to be relevant even as you describe.

Even if the energy released is overstated. Still, hurricanes last long
enough to release as much energy as the entire collection of nukes.

Resulting pollution being a somewhat different matter, but the pollution
from the dino killing meteor was enormously greater than the worst case
nuclear war is likely to be, as far as I can see.

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Offbreed" wrote in message
...

Todd Rich wrote:

Average hurricane 5000 megatons PER DAY!!!

Sorry to jump in, I thought the hurricane statisic was a good one to

add.

An excellent one. Two days equals all the nukes in the world.


Actually, not, except in terms of total heat produced. The energy in a
hurricane is so dispersed in both time and space that there is little
comparison with the consequences of a nuclear explosion.

The 5000 megaton-per-day figure seems to have acquired a pass-along status;
it's interesting that hurricane experts at the University of California say
that the total accumulated energy acquired by a typical Atlantic hurricane
is 1/5 of that amount, and that its energy is released over the entire path
of the hurricane, over the course of days.

Regardless, the key point is to be careful about getting worked up over
these comparisons. If you dispersed the energy of a bomb over tens of
thousands of square miles, and stretched the time domain from milliseconds
to days, you'd have something useful to think about. If not, not.

--
Ed Huntress


Ed -
I think that is the mis-concept for you. Time domain isn't it. Energy is.
Take both and divide them along the way.

I don't think people really understand the energy in 5000 Megatons - I believe
bad science generated it.

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Offbreed" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Actually, not, except in terms of total heat produced. The energy in a
hurricane is so dispersed in both time and space that there is little
comparison with the consequences of a nuclear explosion.

Back a long time ago in one of the gun mags, someone claimed that a
Volkswagen at some low speed had as much kinetic energy as an elephant
gun, but using one to hunt elephants was not to be recommended.

So, point taken.

However, the original context was that the energy be released on the
planet Earth, to "kill the entire world". In that event, the energy is
sufficiently concentrated to be relevant even as you describe.

Well, there's destructive energy and constructive energy. For perspective's
sake, the 13 kilotons of TNT equivalent or so of energy released by the
Hiroshima bomb killed, what, 150,000 people? Last year's hurricanes in the
US killed...ah, a few dozen? So, to relate hurricanes to nuclear bombs, if
you're going to compare them in terms of total energy released in the
context of this thread, you probably should look also at some relative
measure of destructive effect -- the *destructive* energy, in other words.
You could do a complicated analysis of property damage but the thing most
people care about is how many people wind up dead. And, by that measure, how
many zeroes are behind the multiple of nuclear bombs versus hurricanes? My
calculator that does scientific notation is downstairs in my briefcase, or
I'd give it a shot.


Even if the energy released is overstated. Still, hurricanes last long
enough to release as much energy as the entire collection of nukes.

That's true. How does it stack up against the energy represented by the
total insolation received by the Earth each day from the sun? I'm told it's
55.6 x 10^23 joules/year. I'm also told that the energy released by an
exploding megaton of TNT is 4.184 x 10^15 joules.

Which makes a nuclear bomb trivial, except when it kills a few million
people in a couple of seconds, rather than making plants grow or heating the
Earth to a comfortable temperature that warms your bones, rather than one
that instantly turns your bones into quicklime.


Resulting pollution being a somewhat different matter, but the pollution
from the dino killing meteor was enormously greater than the worst case
nuclear war is likely to be, as far as I can see.

It appears so. And your point about pollution is a good one, because, as the
examples above show, you can't relate the "pollution" from energy released
to the two different kinds of energy sources. Whoever may have tried to make
some equation there was on a non-productive track.

The reason I jumped in was that the dramatic figures for energy released
from a hurricane have nothing to do with anything much, especially when
comparing them to nuclear bombs. The percentage of that energy that is
*destructive* is astronomically different in the two cases.

--
Ed Huntress

"lionslair at consolidated dot net" "lionslair at consolidated dot net"
wrote in message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Offbreed" wrote in message
...

Todd Rich wrote:

Average hurricane 5000 megatons PER DAY!!!

Sorry to jump in, I thought the hurricane statisic was a good one to

add.

An excellent one. Two days equals all the nukes in the world.


Actually, not, except in terms of total heat produced. The energy in a
hurricane is so dispersed in both time and space that there is little
comparison with the consequences of a nuclear explosion.

The 5000 megaton-per-day figure seems to have acquired a pass-along
status;
it's interesting that hurricane experts at the University of California
say
that the total accumulated energy acquired by a typical Atlantic
hurricane
is 1/5 of that amount, and that its energy is released over the entire
path
of the hurricane, over the course of days.

Regardless, the key point is to be careful about getting worked up over
these comparisons. If you dispersed the energy of a bomb over tens of
thousands of square miles, and stretched the time domain from
milliseconds
to days, you'd have something useful to think about. If not, not.

--
Ed Huntress


Ed -
I think that is the mis-concept for you. Time domain isn't it. Energy
is.
Take both and divide them along the way.

I'm afraid I don't follow that at all. What I meant by "time domain" is the
term as it's used in graphing dimensions. You plot the energy released
(Y-axis) against time (X-axis), and you get a graph of the *rate* of energy
release. If you plot surface area on X against energy on Y, you get a graph
of the *geometrical dispersion* of energy. That's how I was using those
terms.


I don't think people really understand the energy in 5000 Megatons - I
believe
bad science generated it.

I doubt if it's bad science. It sounds like it might be an extreme case or
an exaggeration, based on other figures I saw when I checked it out. The
funny thing is that the 5,000 megaton figure shows up all over Google --
with no attribution or cited references.

In any case, it's just a small part of the energy that the Earth receives
from the sun each day, if all you want to see is impressive energy figures.

--
Ed Huntress

Strider wrote:

On Sat, 07 May 2005 22:01:21 GMT, Alan Connor wrote:

***snip***

Bruce, get back on your meds.You are showing signs of another
meltdown.

Strider


He got bored when Jim wouldnt play his game in alt.christian something
something anymore. So now he's back in here.

On Sat, 7 May 2005 07:44:51 +1000, DBM wrote:
"...Do you have any science better than Murphy's Law with which to
back up your thoughts?..."

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

So you're ignoring science in preference to folk wisdom. That explains
much.

The comment I made re 'Murphy' is perhaps not a 'scientific proof',
but more of a 'Humans are Prone to Error' statement

Of course. And if the design is made to minimize the ill effects of
operator error, that's a safer design than one where operator error
has catastrophic consequences.

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

Yes, and depending on the design, the humans are protected, or not.

"Ed Huntress" wrote to:

...... 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.

It's at the cutting edge of particle physics, where there is no
reality apart from the observer.

There's also the problem of the survival-oriented 'lizard brain'
controlling our response to stimuli when more of the prefrontal cortex
is appropriate.


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.

Could the story of the Tower of Babel be talking about the loss of
communication without language?

Gio

"Gio Medici" wrote in message
...

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.

Could the story of the Tower of Babel be talking about the loss of
communication without language?

If you're asking me, Gio, I don't know. I haven't read the story since I was
a kid.

--
Ed Huntress