 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT-Very OT-Geen Fruitcakes in action
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. But to complete its assault on the refuge, Congress must still pass two different budget measures. We urgently need your help to prevent passage of any final budget agreement that includes Arctic drilling. Please go to the NRDC Action Fund website (http://www.nrdcactionfund.org/redfor...p=2&item=52387) right now and send a message telling your U.S. senators and representative to reject this sneak attack on the Arctic Refuge. And please forward my message to your friends, family, and colleagues. We must mobilize millions of Americans in opposition as quickly as possible. Don't believe for a second that the president is targeting the Arctic Refuge for the sake of America's energy security or to lower gas prices at the pump. President Bush knows full well that oil drilled in the Arctic Refuge would take ten years to get to market and would never equal more than a paltry one or two percent of our nation's daily consumption. Simply put, sacrificing the crown jewel of our wildlife heritage would do nothing to reduce gas prices or break our addiction to Persian Gulf oil. But if the raid on the Arctic Refuge isn't really about gas prices or energy security, then what is it about? It's the symbolism. The Arctic Refuge represents everything spectacular and everything endangered about America's natural heritage. It embodies a million years of ecological serenity . . . a vast stretch of pristine wilderness . . . an irreplaceable birthing ground for polar bears, caribou and white wolves. It is the greatest living reminder that conserving nature in its wild state is a core American value. It stands for every remnant of wilderness that we, as a people, have wisely chosen to protect from the relentless march of bulldozers, chain saws and oil rigs. And that's why the Bush administration is dead set on destroying it. By unlocking the Arctic Refuge, they hope to open the door for oil, gas and coal giants to invade our last and best wild places: our western canyonlands, our ancient forests, our coastal waters, even our national monuments. This is the real agenda behind the raid on the Arctic Refuge and the entire Bush-Cheney energy plan: to transfer our public estate into corporate hands so it can be liquidated for a quick buck. Please go to the NRDC Action Fund website (http://www.nrdcactionfund.org/redfor...p=2&item=52387) and tell your senators and representative they have no mandate to destroy the Arctic Refuge. Then please be sure to forward this message to as many people as you can. And thank you for speaking out at this critical time. Sincerely, Robert Redford NRDC Action Fund "[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 |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
If it were up to me we would drill a hole every 5 feet, the Canadians are
already drilling sideways. I thought Robert Redford was moving out of the country after the election? I hope he takes Jane Fonda with him! "Gunner" wrote in message ... 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. But to complete its assault on the refuge, Congress must still pass two different budget measures. We urgently need your help to prevent passage of any final budget agreement that includes Arctic drilling. Please go to the NRDC Action Fund website (http://www.nrdcactionfund.org/redfor...p=2&item=52387) right now and send a message telling your U.S. senators and representative to reject this sneak attack on the Arctic Refuge. And please forward my message to your friends, family, and colleagues. We must mobilize millions of Americans in opposition as quickly as possible. Don't believe for a second that the president is targeting the Arctic Refuge for the sake of America's energy security or to lower gas prices at the pump. President Bush knows full well that oil drilled in the Arctic Refuge would take ten years to get to market and would never equal more than a paltry one or two percent of our nation's daily consumption. Simply put, sacrificing the crown jewel of our wildlife heritage would do nothing to reduce gas prices or break our addiction to Persian Gulf oil. But if the raid on the Arctic Refuge isn't really about gas prices or energy security, then what is it about? It's the symbolism. The Arctic Refuge represents everything spectacular and everything endangered about America's natural heritage. It embodies a million years of ecological serenity . . . a vast stretch of pristine wilderness . . . an irreplaceable birthing ground for polar bears, caribou and white wolves. It is the greatest living reminder that conserving nature in its wild state is a core American value. It stands for every remnant of wilderness that we, as a people, have wisely chosen to protect from the relentless march of bulldozers, chain saws and oil rigs. And that's why the Bush administration is dead set on destroying it. By unlocking the Arctic Refuge, they hope to open the door for oil, gas and coal giants to invade our last and best wild places: our western canyonlands, our ancient forests, our coastal waters, even our national monuments. This is the real agenda behind the raid on the Arctic Refuge and the entire Bush-Cheney energy plan: to transfer our public estate into corporate hands so it can be liquidated for a quick buck. Please go to the NRDC Action Fund website (http://www.nrdcactionfund.org/redfor...p=2&item=52387) and tell your senators and representative they have no mandate to destroy the Arctic Refuge. Then please be sure to forward this message to as many people as you can. And thank you for speaking out at this critical time. Sincerely, Robert Redford NRDC Action Fund "[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 |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let me see... The debate on this ultimately involves a trade-off
between keeping humans healthy and alive here in the US, or keeping some obscure but endangered species of animal life alive and healthy for a short time longer in the Arctic Wastelands. Seem to me that this decision is a 'no-brainer', except for someone with a seriously distorted sense of values and who has never personally witnessed unfortunate homeless people sleeping on top of culverts and under bridges just to keep warm in zero-degree winter weather because the local shelter has no heat or space for them. I've seen oil wells in operation for decades everywhere from Long Beach California to Pennsylvania, but I have yet to see one create any notable environmental hazard, nor have the thousands of miles of oil pipeline that we have criss-crossing the US. How many polar bears, seals and birds does it take to equal one human life? Think about it. Harry C. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
On misc.survivalism, in et, "Alan Connor" wrote:
snip hhc314@yahoo... Tom Obvious troll aliases. **** off. Say anything you want, I couldn't care less. Won't be reading your posts, nor any responses to them, anyplace, anytime, anysubject. Here's your big clue for the decade: As a rule, nobody that I care to talk to reads your posts either. If they did, and responded, I wouldn't read those posts either. 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 |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gunner wrote:
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. Yes, oil drilling is so very deadly and destructive that one square mile used for drilling will kill every living thing for thousands of square miles of the Arctic yet it is somehow is safe to drill in a tropical paradise. And the wildlife is fragile that just one drop of oil will kill thousands of animals, yet they are tough enough to survive 40 below winters. And oil spilled ice somehow just goes everywhere and attacks everything even when covered up by the next snowfall. Environmentally is there a lower impact place on the planet to drill? Stop letting SeeBS tell you what to think. D'uh. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... Let me see... The debate on this ultimately involves a trade-off between keeping humans healthy and alive here in the US, or keeping some obscure but endangered species of animal life alive and healthy for a short time longer in the Arctic Wastelands. Seem to me that this decision is a 'no-brainer', except for someone with a seriously distorted sense of values and who has never personally witnessed unfortunate homeless people sleeping on top of culverts and under bridges just to keep warm in zero-degree winter weather because the local shelter has no heat or space for them. I've seen oil wells in operation for decades everywhere from Long Beach California to Pennsylvania, but I have yet to see one create any notable environmental hazard, nor have the thousands of miles of oil pipeline that we have criss-crossing the US. How many polar bears, seals and birds does it take to equal one human life? Think about it. Forget the d*@ned polar bears. They will all be dead in a few years anyway at the rate the ice packs are melting. Think about this. Not one gallon of ANWAR oil is ever going to mean the difference between life and death for anyone. What it will do is avoid the automobile makers having to increase average efficiency by about 0.2 mpg, supply the same amount of gasoline that would be saved if everyone increased the tire pressure by 1 PSI and give the oil companies something to do with their money rather than increase refining capacity so they are free to declare regional shortages and jack up prices whenever they want. You wingers better face up to the fact that from now on there will never be enough oil and WalMart is shipping all our money to China so they can out bid us for what oil there is. This "energy bill" is just a giant give away to big oil partially financed by cutting research in alternative sources off at the knees. -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 2 May 2005 22:30:32 -0400, "Glenn Ashmore"
said: wrote in message roups.com... Let me see... The debate on this ultimately involves a trade-off between keeping humans healthy and alive here in the US, or keeping some obscure but endangered species of animal life alive and healthy for a short time longer in the Arctic Wastelands. Seem to me that this decision is a 'no-brainer', except for someone with a seriously distorted sense of values and who has never personally witnessed unfortunate homeless people sleeping on top of culverts and under bridges just to keep warm in zero-degree winter weather because the local shelter has no heat or space for them. I've seen oil wells in operation for decades everywhere from Long Beach California to Pennsylvania, but I have yet to see one create any notable environmental hazard, nor have the thousands of miles of oil pipeline that we have criss-crossing the US. How many polar bears, seals and birds does it take to equal one human life? Think about it. Forget the d*@ned polar bears. They will all be dead in a few years anyway at the rate the ice packs are melting. Think about this. Not one gallon of ANWAR oil is ever going to mean the difference between life and death for anyone. What it will do is avoid the automobile makers having to increase average efficiency by about 0.2 mpg, supply the same amount of gasoline that would be saved if everyone increased the tire pressure by 1 PSI and give the oil companies something to do with their money rather than increase refining capacity so they are free to declare regional shortages and jack up prices whenever they want. You wingers better face up to the fact that from now on there will never be enough oil and WalMart is shipping all our money to China so they can out bid us for what oil there is. This "energy bill" is just a giant give away to big oil partially financed by cutting research in alternative sources off at the knees. They (the car makers and Gov) need to make more diesel powered vehicals avalible in the U.S., but big oil and the EPA won't let them and it's ****ed up. n. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
North wrote:
[ snip ] They (the car makers and Gov) need to make more diesel powered vehicals avalible in the U.S., but big oil and the EPA won't let them and it's ****ed up. I've been driving a diesel-powered vehicle for 10 years now, and have seen the price of Diesel fuel rise from about 20% less than the cheapest regular gasoline to about 10% more than the mose expensive premium gasoline. Care to try to explain that? -jc- |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Chase" wrote in message
... North wrote: [ snip ] They (the car makers and Gov) need to make more diesel powered vehicals avalible in the U.S., but big oil and the EPA won't let them and it's ****ed up. I've been driving a diesel-powered vehicle for 10 years now, and have seen the price of Diesel fuel rise from about 20% less than the cheapest regular gasoline to about 10% more than the mose expensive premium gasoline. Care to try to explain that? Well, it's been going up and down, above and below the price of gasoline, for 30 years that I know of. You can play an entirely different market game with diesel in the US. The demand is relatively inflexible. Most of it is consumed in commercial use, and commercial users can't decide to vacation close to home instead of across the country, nor can they car pool or decide to take the bus. So, it's a market game, but it's a different market game than the one for gasoline. So the relative prices are out of step. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
John Chase wrote: North wrote: [ snip ] They (the car makers and Gov) need to make more diesel powered vehicals avalible in the U.S., but big oil and the EPA won't let them and it's ****ed up. I've been driving a diesel-powered vehicle for 10 years now, and have seen the price of Diesel fuel rise from about 20% less than the cheapest regular gasoline to about 10% more than the mose expensive premium gasoline. Care to try to explain that? Somebody (the refineries) noticed that the consumer noticed the difference in price and started buying diesels to avoid the gouging for a gallon of gasoline, and they figured it was a cash-cow waiting to be milked, so they jacked the prices accordingly. Any other explanation is bull****, with a capital "BULL****". Diesel is, quite simply, garbage left over from turning crude into gasoline, and because of the way the cracking process works, it's actually cheaper to make than gasoline - heat the crude to the temperature to boil off the mess of compounds we pump into the tank as gasoline. Let the leftover "gunk" cool a bit, and you're left with a puddle of diesel standing on top of (or is it laying underneath? I've forgotten which one floats on the other) a slab of wax and what amounts to tar. -- Don Bruder - - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004. Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address. See http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html for full details. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don Bruder wrote:
In article , John Chase wrote: North wrote: [ snip ] They (the car makers and Gov) need to make more diesel powered vehicals avalible in the U.S., but big oil and the EPA won't let them and it's ****ed up. I've been driving a diesel-powered vehicle for 10 years now, and have seen the price of Diesel fuel rise from about 20% less than the cheapest regular gasoline to about 10% more than the mose expensive premium gasoline. Care to try to explain that? Somebody (the refineries) noticed that the consumer noticed the difference in price and started buying diesels to avoid the gouging for a gallon of gasoline, and they figured it was a cash-cow waiting to be milked, so they jacked the prices accordingly. That's pretty close to my theory ... Any other explanation is bull****, with a capital "BULL****". Diesel is, quite simply, garbage left over from turning crude into gasoline, and because of the way the cracking process works, it's actually cheaper to make than gasoline - heat the crude to the temperature to boil off the mess of compounds we pump into the tank as gasoline. Let the leftover "gunk" cool a bit, and you're left with a puddle of diesel standing on top of (or is it laying underneath? I've forgotten which one floats on the other) a slab of wax and what amounts to tar. .... and I recall that as substantially correct, too. So, looks like the best we can do is gripe about getting shafted. And buy stock in oil companies.... :-) -jc- |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 2 May 2005 22:30:32 -0400, "Glenn Ashmore"
wrote: You wingers better face up to the fact that from now on there will never be enough oil and WalMart is shipping all our money to China so they can out bid us for what oil there is. This "energy bill" is just a giant give away to big oil partially financed by cutting research in alternative sources off at the knees. -- Glenn Ashmore http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html Gunner "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
John Chase wrote: North wrote: [ snip ] They (the car makers and Gov) need to make more diesel powered vehicals avalible in the U.S., but big oil and the EPA won't let them and it's ****ed up. I've been driving a diesel-powered vehicle for 10 years now, and have seen the price of Diesel fuel rise from about 20% less than the cheapest regular gasoline to about 10% more than the mose expensive premium gasoline. Care to try to explain that? -jc- The explanation is simple: TAXES. I bought a Diesel Rabbit in 81 to use more efficient cheaper fuel, and within 90 days the feds jacked up the taxes so much it killed any savings I had hoped for. They even gave me a tax deduction to defray part of the tax increase, but it convinced me to never buy diesel again. I will stick to gas or whatever the majority of the voters use, there is safety in numbers. -- Free men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
In rec.crafts.metalworking North wrote:
(snip) They (the car makers and Gov) need to make more diesel powered vehicals avalible in the U.S., but big oil and the EPA won't let them and it's ****ed up. n. What we need is about another 200 nuclear power plants built with new modern intrinsically safe designs. Which will let us stop burning so much coal that is currently putting 2000 tons of uranium and thorium in the air. Then we can use the excess power generation to crack water to produce hydrogen to fuel cars and other vehicles. Net results: Pollution dramatically down, reliance of foregin oil almost gone. Could probably be done in 10 years or less and save the country billions of dollars. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's your point other than to get us all laughing at your "old and
dear friend"? ral |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gummer, a lot of your posts just illustrate the fact that you have a 50
caliber mouth and a 22 caliber brain. Take a look at this link before you start throwing insults. http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-16-04.html The Cato Institute is not exactly a hotbed of liberal weenies. -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 03 May 2005 03:47:22 GMT, the inscrutable John Chase
spake: North wrote: [ snip ] They (the car makers and Gov) need to make more diesel powered vehicals avalible in the U.S., but big oil and the EPA won't let them and it's ****ed up. I've been driving a diesel-powered vehicle for 10 years now, and have seen the price of Diesel fuel rise from about 20% less than the cheapest regular gasoline to about 10% more than the mose expensive premium gasoline. Care to try to explain that? Well, it can't be "winterizing" the fuel or "Californicating" it. I'll call it Shrubberized Diesel(tm). I've watched store prices rise along with the diesel price surge, too. -- STOP THE SLAUGHTER! || http://diversify.com Boycott Baby Oil! || Programmed Websites |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don Bruder wrote:
Diesel is, quite simply, garbage left over from turning crude into gasoline, and because of the way the cracking process works, it's actually cheaper to make than gasoline - heat the crude to the temperature to boil off the mess of compounds we pump into the tank as gasoline. Let the leftover "gunk" cool a bit, and you're left with a puddle of diesel standing on top of (or is it laying underneath? I've forgotten which one floats on the other) a slab of wax and what amounts to tar. All true, if Refiners were still only using thermal cracking like they did 80 years ago. But that gives you too much low octane gasoline and Naptha. during WWII, more High Octane Gasolines were needed, so Alkylation and Catalytic Cracking were added to Refineries So now your barrel of Crude now gives less Tars, heavy Oils and Naptha, but more useful fuels like Jet Fuel, hi-Octane Gasoline _and_ Diesel are made than straight Thermal does. Those processes also allow the Refiners to select for more Gasoline or Heating Oil, depending on the season. However, technology doesn't cover the addition of the 'Magic Dye' that seperate the very similar Home Heating Oil and Diesel into different cost products. Thats a Government thing. ** mike ** |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:WwJde.1278$sy6.939@lakeread04... Gummer, a lot of your posts just illustrate the fact that you have a 50 caliber mouth and a 22 caliber brain. Take a look at this link before you start throwing insults. http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-16-04.html The Cato Institute is not exactly a hotbed of liberal weenies. I don't follow Gunner's links, but the fact is that the Cato Institute is a hotbed of *libertarian* weenies. They're not particularly good on research or writing, either. They write papers in a publish-or-perish environment, in which they have to say *something* to keep their incomes flowing. Heritage Foundation is a lot better, in terms of the quality of thought behind their writings. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Todd Rich wrote:
What we need is about another 200 nuclear power plants built with new modern intrinsically safe designs. Which will let us stop burning so much coal that is currently putting 2000 tons of uranium and thorium in the air. Then we can use the excess power generation to crack water to produce hydrogen to fuel cars and other vehicles. Net results: Pollution dramatically down, reliance of foregin oil almost gone. Man, I'm all for that! And depending on whome you listen too, there's either a warmer climate or an ice age in the near future, and nothing better to mitigate that than lots of nuclear power. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ed Huntress" wrote I don't follow Gunner's links, but the fact is that the Cato Institute is a hotbed of *libertarian* weenies. They're not particularly good on research or writing, either. They write papers in a publish-or-perish environment, in which they have to say *something* to keep their incomes flowing. Heritage Foundation is a lot better, in terms of the quality of thought behind their writings. Well, I think Gunner claims to be a Libertarian and for sure his research, while prolific, is not particularly good, he should fit right in. -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:NMLde.1289$sy6.1079@lakeread04... "Ed Huntress" wrote I don't follow Gunner's links, but the fact is that the Cato Institute is a hotbed of *libertarian* weenies. They're not particularly good on research or writing, either. They write papers in a publish-or-perish environment, in which they have to say *something* to keep their incomes flowing. Heritage Foundation is a lot better, in terms of the quality of thought behind their writings. Well, I think Gunner claims to be a Libertarian and for sure his research, while prolific, is not particularly good, he should fit right in. Cato is political and economic theory for the simple-minded. If you hear someone say, about some aspect of economics or society, politics international or domestic, "it's all very simple...what part of it don't you get?," they're a natural for Cato Institute white papers. In my job now I often have to dumb-down consumer medical information to the level of 6th-grade readers (not for physicians, so far -- thank God g), using the FRY readability scale. When I read a Cato paper, it looks to me like the editor has FRY'd it. It's dumbed-down politics, sociology, and economics. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 3 May 2005 07:47:05 -0400, "Glenn Ashmore"
wrote: Gummer, a lot of your posts just illustrate the fact that you have a 50 caliber mouth and a 22 caliber brain. Take a look at this link before you start throwing insults. http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-16-04.html The Cato Institute is not exactly a hotbed of liberal weenies. Noted. One should also note that a lot of your posts appear to come from the febril brain of a deranged Liberal with delusions of importance. Shrug. I strongly suggest keeping your Aluminum Deflector Beanie handy. As far as I can tell, your not wearing it as allowed significant brain damage to already occur. 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 |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 3 May 2005 10:20:32 -0400, "Glenn Ashmore"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote I don't follow Gunner's links, but the fact is that the Cato Institute is a hotbed of *libertarian* weenies. They're not particularly good on research or writing, either. They write papers in a publish-or-perish environment, in which they have to say *something* to keep their incomes flowing. Heritage Foundation is a lot better, in terms of the quality of thought behind their writings. Well, I think Gunner claims to be a Libertarian and for sure his research, while prolific, is not particularly good, he should fit right in. Tell your handlers in the DNC that I said they need to improve your style. 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 |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
The problem is with the Rock generation that's bringing us closer to the
stone age and is so adamantly scared of nuclear power, that they will resist building power plants until they are all replaced by the next generation. The job would be to start educating our grandchildren and removing the scary nuke fantasy from their brains now. cheerst T.Alan "Todd Rich" wrote in message ... What we need is about another 200 nuclear power plants built with new modern intrinsically safe designs. Which will let us stop burning so much coal that is currently putting 2000 tons of uranium and thorium in the air. Then we can use the excess power generation to crack water to produce hydrogen to fuel cars and other vehicles. Net results: Pollution dramatically down, reliance of foregin oil almost gone. Could probably be done in 10 years or less and save the country billions of dollars. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
I suggest you read about three-mile island and Chernobl.
I wound rather rather more to a farm and cut my own wood for heat than build a potentail time bomb that could kill the entire world with one accident. The problem is with the Rock generation that's bringing us closer to the stone age and is so adamantly scared of nuclear power, that they will resist building power plants until they are all replaced by the next generation. The job would be to start educating our grandchildren and removing the scary nuke fantasy from their brains now. cheerst T.Alan "Todd Rich" wrote in message ... What we need is about another 200 nuclear power plants built with new modern intrinsically safe designs. Which will let us stop burning so much coal that is currently putting 2000 tons of uranium and thorium in the air. Then we can use the excess power generation to crack water to produce hydrogen to fuel cars and other vehicles. Net results: Pollution dramatically down, reliance of foregin oil almost gone. Could probably be done in 10 years or less and save the country billions of dollars. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
T.Alan Kraus wrote: The problem is with the Rock generation that's bringing us closer to the stone age and is so adamantly scared of nuclear power, that they will resist building power plants until they are all replaced by the next generation. The job would be to start educating our grandchildren and removing the scary nuke fantasy from their brains now. cheerst T.Alan "Todd Rich" wrote in message ... What we need is about another 200 nuclear power plants built with new modern intrinsically safe designs. Which will let us stop burning so much coal that is currently putting 2000 tons of uranium and thorium in the air. Then we can use the excess power generation to crack water to produce hydrogen to fuel cars and other vehicles. Net results: Pollution dramatically down, reliance of foregin oil almost gone. Could probably be done in 10 years or less and save the country billions of dollars. The problem is that nuclear power plants are another huge subsidy to corporations as well as a way to bilk investors (look up WPPSS). Just a paragraph from one site: Several factors combined to ruin construction schedules and to drive costs to three and four times the original estimates. Inflation and design changes constantly plagued all the projects. Builders often got ahead of designers who modified their drawings to conform to what had been built. Safety changes imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission increased costs too, but the biggest cause of delays and overruns was mismanagement of the process by the WPPSS. The directors and the managers of the system had no experience in nuclear engineering or in projects of this scale. System managers were unable to develop a unified and comprehensive means of choosing, directing, and supervising contractors. One contractor, already shown to be incompetent, was retained for more work. In a well-publicized example, a pipe hanger was built and rebuilt 17 times. Quality control inspectors complained of inadequate work that went unaddressed. Nuclear itself is probably a good way to go if waste disposal problems and such can be addressed. The real problem with our whole energy policy is that it relies on massive scale at a source-point rather than comprehensive sourcing at localities. Investments into smaller scale localized energy sourcing as well as efficiency technologies would be FAR better in the long run than massive subsidies to keep old technologies profitable. If this means bio-diesel on a more localized scale of sourcing and production, "mini" nuclear, wind technologies, localized water cracking, or something we haven't even envisioned yet, it would still be a better energy policy than continuing to subsidize oil companies to suck wherever they want. Last I heard, in the Midwest it was cheaper to buy every (coal based) electricity user a new energy efficient refrigerator than it was to increase capacity to cover continued use of older refrigerators (and use growth). They opted to increase capacity instead and bilked consumers for the costs. Drilling in ANWAR is just stupid policy because it doesn't accomplish anything except keeping current technologies profitable for another couple of years. It's typical short-sighted policy of both the Democrats and Republicans. Short term profits before long term sensibility (just like the American busness model). There is no gain to the American public, only a gain in temporary profits to already large and profitable corporations. Koz |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 3 May 2005 17:05:04 GMT, Chuck Sherwood wrote:
I suggest you read about three-mile island and Chernobl. Yes Chuck, please do. Then you can understand how different the Russian design is from ours, and how TMI was much less serious than: I wound rather rather more to a farm and cut my own wood for heat than build a potentail time bomb that could kill the entire world with one accident. ....that, would imply. I don't mind if people object to a technology for real reasons, but when they think that TMI was capable of "killing the entire world", or that USA'n plants have _anything_ to do with the Soviet design, well, it shows their objections are based on something other than reality. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chuck Sherwood wrote:
I suggest you read about three-mile island and Chernobl. I wound rather rather more to a farm and cut my own wood for heat than build a potentail time bomb that could kill the entire world with one accident. I recommend a little research in publications other than Mother Jones. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chuck Sherwood" wrote in message ... I suggest you read about three-mile island and Chernobl. I wound rather rather more to a farm and cut my own wood for heat than build a potentail time bomb that could kill the entire world with one accident. Death toll from Chernobyl so far about 41. The death toll from Three Mile Island, 0. Now compare farming: Farmers lead healthy lives but, farming is dangerous. Farmers smoke less, drink less, and are more active than most other adults. Their calorie intake and cholesterol percentage is higher but their death rate from coronary artery heart disease is 10% lower than matched contemporaries. Each year, four of every 10,000 agricultural workers (an average of 700 people per year in the United States) are killed and 140,000 disabling accidents occur especially in planting and harvest seasons. Agricultural workers are 8% of the work force but sustain 29% of work fatalities. http://www.vh.org/adult/patient/inte...accidents.html Now consider coal: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/ma...chin-m16.shtml (a US Coal industry report.) Fatal accidents in the nation's coal mines dropped to an historic low of 27 in 2002, according to preliminary figures from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Forty-two miners died in chargeable accidents in 2001, MSHA said. The previous low fatality record for the coal industry was 29, set in 1998, MSHA said. Powered haulage equipment accidents, the leading cause of fatalities in the mines, contributed to seven deaths in coal mines last year. From: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/ma...chin-m16.shtml (the world socialist web site) Every year, gas explosions, cave-ins and mine flooding kill thousands of miners who are driven by deepening poverty to risk their lives in China's notoriously dangerous coal mining industry. According to China's State Administration of Work Safety, 6,702 died in mining accidents in 2003, but other sources put the number at 7,197. This is a report that kind of ties it all in together: http://www.ecolo.org/documents/docum...e_Cohen.en.htm "The epidemiological evidence, however, seems fairly clear in indicating that something like 30,000 deaths per year in U.S. result from air pollution due to emissions from fossil fuel burning power plants." -- Roger Shoaf About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then they come up with this striped stuff. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chuck Sherwood wrote:
"I suggest you read about three-mile island and Chernobl. I wound rather rather more to a farm and cut my own wood for heat than build a potentail time bomb that could kill the entire world with one accident." Wow, how paranoid can you get? Here's a link to what actually happened and was the result of the TMI event: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...mile-isle.html Note that not one single person was either killed or injured as a result, except for the financial injury on the owners of the plant. Chernobl was quite a different situation, but a rather moot example since the US does not use graphite pile reactors (which can catch fire as Chernobl did) for power production. "Kill the entire world" -- Get serious! Read some books on the subject. Become educated. Realize that you're now receiving more ionizing radiation from your local fossil fuel power plant than from all the nuclear power reactors in the world combined. I'm not sure that I should mention the radioactive radon gas you'll be exposing yourself too if you decide to build or farm in any rural area of the US having granite based ledge under your property, because you seem already on the verge of panic! :-) Harry C. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cato, Rand, Booze Allen Hamilton and a number of other think/research
tanks solely exist to provide the politicians with material to reference in their speeches that happens to correlate with their pre-orchestrated platforms. Just who do you believe is paying salaries of these researchers. Business does the same thing to dazzle their shareholders and customers, except for the fact that the research firms that they engage deal in a different field than politics. For example, The Gartner Group and D.H. Brown firms supply the computer industry with reports justifying and/or praising any of the product that a particular computer manufacturer wishes to promote (and who happens to be funding the research). Similarly, J.D. Power supplies research reports on 'customer satisfaction' whose results alway support the customer satisfaction superiority of the company funding them at that moment. I worked in the field for one year, and then couldn't stand it. The firm was heavily funded by IBM, and when I once wrote a research report praising the Silicon Graphics products over those of IBM on the basis of price/performance, I found myself unemployed so I returned to the world of real engineering work. Getting back to Cato, their researchers and writers know who pays their salary, and report accordingly. Having worked in a similar, but Wall Street related environment, the analysts at Cato are not anxious to halve their salaries and go back to working as the price of honestly expressing what they actually believe, and I can't blame them for this. 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. Harry C. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Do it now and remove a big source of ignorance from posting on the net, OK? OBTW, why hasn't the world ended yet, given the number of nuclear weapons that have been exploded above ground since 1945? Why didn't the world end when Chernobyl did a melt-down? People like you are part of the problem. PDW In article , Chuck Sherwood wrote: I suggest you read about three-mile island and Chernobl. I wound rather rather more to a farm and cut my own wood for heat than build a potentail time bomb that could kill the entire world with one accident. The problem is with the Rock generation that's bringing us closer to the stone age and is so adamantly scared of nuclear power, that they will resist building power plants until they are all replaced by the next generation. The job would be to start educating our grandchildren and removing the scary nuke fantasy from their brains now. cheerst T.Alan "Todd Rich" wrote in message ... What we need is about another 200 nuclear power plants built with new modern intrinsically safe designs. Which will let us stop burning so much coal that is currently putting 2000 tons of uranium and thorium in the air. Then we can use the excess power generation to crack water to produce hydrogen to fuel cars and other vehicles. Net results: Pollution dramatically down, reliance of foregin oil almost gone. Could probably be done in 10 years or less and save the country billions of dollars. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Peter Wiley wrote:
Do it now and remove a big source of ignorance from posting on the net, OK? OBTW, why hasn't the world ended yet, given the number of nuclear weapons that have been exploded above ground since 1945? Why didn't the world end when Chernobyl did a melt-down? People like you are part of the problem. What was it we used to say? "More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than in nuclear power plant accidents"? I guess we have to change it to US nuclear power plant accidents. PDW In article , Chuck Sherwood wrote: I suggest you read about three-mile island and Chernobl. I wound rather rather more to a farm and cut my own wood for heat than build a potentail time bomb that could kill the entire world with one accident. The problem is with the Rock generation that's bringing us closer to the stone age and is so adamantly scared of nuclear power, that they will resist building power plants until they are all replaced by the next generation. The job would be to start educating our grandchildren and removing the scary nuke fantasy from their brains now. cheerst T.Alan "Todd Rich" wrote in message ... What we need is about another 200 nuclear power plants built with new modern intrinsically safe designs. Which will let us stop burning so much coal that is currently putting 2000 tons of uranium and thorium in the air. Then we can use the excess power generation to crack water to produce hydrogen to fuel cars and other vehicles. Net results: Pollution dramatically down, reliance of foregin oil almost gone. Could probably be done in 10 years or less and save the country billions of dollars. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
ups.com... Cato, Rand, Booze Allen Hamilton and a number of other think/research tanks solely exist to provide the politicians with material to reference in their speeches that happens to correlate with their pre-orchestrated platforms. Just who do you believe is paying salaries of these researchers. Well, that varies quite a lot. It's easy to find out who funds most of them, because, even if they don't report it publicly, they all have enough enemies with the means and the motivation to find out, and *they* report it. Richard Scaife is big on Heritage Foundation, for example, mostly through three "charitable" funds he and his wife set up. As for Cato, the biggies are the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, the Barre Seid Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation (Richard's wife), and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc. These are all well-known, right-wing provocateurs. Anything with Scaife's sticky fingers attached to it, from the Washington Times to the faux book (later renounced by its author) _The Real Anita Hill_, is a guarenteed propaganda operation. Still, even the right-wing..ah, captains of industry, need love. If they need it bad, they buy it. Business does the same thing to dazzle their shareholders and customers, except for the fact that the research firms that they engage deal in a different field than politics. For example, The Gartner Group and D.H. Brown firms supply the computer industry with reports justifying and/or praising any of the product that a particular computer manufacturer wishes to promote (and who happens to be funding the research). Similarly, J.D. Power supplies research reports on 'customer satisfaction' whose results alway support the customer satisfaction superiority of the company funding them at that moment. I dunno about J.D. Power. I'd have to see the evidence on that one. There's a mixture out there, Harry. Some research firms are known for playing it straight. The way that clients use them is to have them produce private studies. I've bought some of those myself, for clients. If they like the results, they make them public. But the research itself, from many of them, is straight as an arrow. Some companies want the truth. What they do with it is their own business. If they want the truth, they go to a research firm that is known for sticking absolutely to the truth. I worked in the field for one year, and then couldn't stand it. The firm was heavily funded by IBM, and when I once wrote a research report praising the Silicon Graphics products over those of IBM on the basis of price/performance, I found myself unemployed so I returned to the world of real engineering work. Getting back to Cato, their researchers and writers know who pays their salary, and report accordingly. Having worked in a similar, but Wall Street related environment, the analysts at Cato are not anxious to halve their salaries and go back to working as the price of honestly expressing what they actually believe, and I can't blame them for this. 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. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Mundt" wrote in message .. . By the by...Solar and wind power IS nuclear power... just the fission reactor is located offsite. For that matter you could also argue that hydro is solar therefore nuclear, and for that matter fossil fuel would meet the same definition it is only separated by time. -- Roger Shoaf About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then they come up with this striped stuff. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roger Shoaf wrote:
Death toll from Chernobyl so far about 41. The death toll from Three Mile Island, 0. And there in lies another reason for not having nuclear power. Dodgy figures. Actually, another reason I am againsy my country digging up uranium and selling it overseass is the idea being floated that we whould take the frigging waste back. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Bolt Action or Double Rifle! | Metalworking | |||
| OT Guns more Guns | Metalworking | |||
| Anyone breaking a grand piano? (looking for escapement action) | UK diy | |||
| Any way to fix leaky ABS drain without ripping apart wall? (also, class action suit) | Home Repair | |||
| Is a DA (Dual Action) sander same as a orbital sander | Woodworking | |||
Linear Mode
