John R. Carroll wrote:

The AP1000 is a very good design by all accounts. China is going full bore
with these things but they bought hardware and the technology.
The emergency cooling is sort of a self licking ice cream cone.

I don't know how many reactors the Japanese are going to lose but it's at
least two so far.
Both are old but still, that's a lot of money to waste on a concrete land
mark.
I just read that they will be venting to the atmosphere for a considerable
period of time.
Possibly as long as a year - which seems a bit overstated - but people are
going to be unable to go home until the mess is buttoned up.
This is going to be an ongoing saga.

The Bank of Japan dumped more than eighty billion dollars into the Japanese
economy this morning.
That's real money.


By WILLIAM TUCKER

Even while thousands of people are reported dead or missing, whole
neighborhoods lie in ruins, and gas and oil fires rage out of control,
press coverage of the Japanese earthquake has quickly settled on the
troubles at two nuclear reactors as the center of the catastrophe.

Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), a longtime opponent of nuclear power, has
warned of "another Chernobyl" and predicted "the same thing could happen
here." In response, he has called for an immediate suspension of
licensing procedures for the Westinghouse AP1000, a "Generation III"
reactor that has been laboring through design review at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for seven years.

Before we respond with such panic, though, it would be useful to review
exactly what is happening in Japan and what we have to fear from it.

The core of a nuclear reactor operates at about 550 degrees Fahrenheit,
well below the temperature of a coal furnace and only slightly hotter
than a kitchen oven. If anything unusual occurs, the control rods
immediately drop, shutting off the nuclear reaction. You can't have a
"runaway reactor," nor can a reactor explode like a nuclear bomb. A
commercial reactor is to a bomb what Vaseline is to napalm. Although
both are made from petroleum jelly, only one of them has potentially
explosive material.

Once the reactor has shut down, there remains "decay heat" from traces
of other radioactive isotopes. This can take more than a week to cool
down, and the rods must be continually bathed in cooling waters to keep
them from overheating.

On all Generation II reactors—the ones currently in operation—the
cooling water is circulated by electric pumps. The new Generation III
reactors such as the AP1000 have a simplified "passive" cooling system
where the water circulates by natural convection with no pumping required.

If the pumps are knocked out in a Generation II reactor—as they were at
Fukushima Daiichi by the tsunami—the water in the cooling system can
overheat and evaporate. The resulting steam increases internal pressure
that must be vented. There was a small release of radioactive steam at
Three Mile Island in 1979, and there have also been a few releases at
Fukushima Daiichi. These produce radiation at about the level of one
dental X-ray in the immediate vicinity and quickly dissipate.

If the coolant continues to evaporate, the water level can fall below
the level of the fuel rods, exposing them. This will cause a meltdown,
meaning the fuel rods melt to the bottom of the steel pressure vessel.

Early speculation was that in a case like this the fuel might continue
melting right through the steel and perhaps even through the concrete
containment structure—the so-called China syndrome, where the fuel would
melt all the way to China. But Three Mile Island proved this doesn't
happen. The melted fuel rods simply aren't hot enough to melt steel or
concrete.

The decay heat must still be absorbed, however, and as a last-ditch
effort the emergency core cooling system can be activated to flood the
entire containment structure with water. This will do considerable
damage to the reactor but will prevent any further steam releases. The
Japanese have now reportedly done this using seawater in at least two of
the troubled reactors. These reactors will never be restarted.

None of this amounts to "another Chernobyl." The Chernobyl reactor had
two crucial design flaws. First, it used graphite (carbon) instead of
water to "moderate" the neutrons, which makes possible the nuclear
reaction. The graphite caught fire in April 1986 and burned for four
days. Water does not catch fire.

Second, Chernobyl had no containment structure. When the graphite caught
fire, it spouted a plume of radioactive smoke that spread across the
globe. A containment structure would have both smothered the fire and
contained the radioactivity.

If a meltdown does occur in Japan, it will be a disaster for the Tokyo
Electric Power Company but not for the general public. Whatever steam
releases occur will have a negligible impact. Researchers have spent 30
years trying to find health effects from the steam releases at Three
Mile Island and have come up with nothing. With all the death,
devastation and disease now threatening tens of thousands in Japan, it
is trivializing and almost obscene to spend so much time worrying about
damage to a nuclear reactor.

What the Japanese earthquake has proved is that even the oldest
containment structures can withstand the impact of one of the largest
earthquakes in recorded history. The problem has been with the
electrical pumps required to operate the cooling system. It would be
tragic if the result of the Japanese accident were to prevent
development of Generation III reactors, which eliminate this design flaw.

Mr. Tucker is author of "Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead
the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey" (Bartleby Press,
2010).

--
Steve W.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:20:14 -0400, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:


"rangerssuck" wrote in message
--nothing of value, as usual--

You call me an "asshole" and expect an apology? Does vulgarity make you feel
important and powerful? Good for you! You show your tiny little mentality with
everything you post, troll. Have you ever posted on-topic? Why don't you stay in
the
troll section of Usenet?

You -know- he's a troll and still you talk with him? sigh

--
You create your opportunities by asking for them.
-- Patty Hansen

My bad! I redid this laptop and haven't filled the loony bin yet. I had forgotten
how vitriolic and vulgar they are. What attracts these trolls to rcm? They know
nothing about the subjects. And, why do people respond to them? G

On Mar 14, 12:40*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 22:45:37 -0500, Ignoramus858

wrote:
On 2011-03-13, Jim Wilkins wrote:
What exactly does "Chernobyl" mean? I know the color but not the
second part.

Chernobyl means, in Ukrainian, this type of grass:

* * * * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_vulgaris

Not grass, it's usually called sagebrush or wormwood. *I have some
planted in my front yard for the wonderful, rural smell. I think it's
A. ludoviciana rather than vulgaris.

Oh, Chorno, not Cherno. I wondered if it could be translated
"Blackened Crater".

jsw

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:22:08 -0400, John
wrote:

Ignoramus858 wrote:
On 2011-03-14, Larry wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 15:04:18 -0500, Ignoramus858
wrote:

One more thing.

They are pumping seawater into the reactor.

I am smart enough to figure out that seawater comes from the sea.

But where does it go TO after it comes out of the reactor?

And are they cooling the inside of the reactor, or outside of this
shell?

That's just dumb. Let it melt. It's not going anywhere. Adding water
just increases the chance of radioactive steam release.

P.S: I forgot to say "Congrats" on having found and removed your
tumor. That's gotta be scary as hell.


Thanks. I lucked out big time. I am still not certain if Chernobyl is
to blame.

i

One of the workers at the local Nuke plant would set off the radiation
detector that they scan everyone with when they enter the plant. Come
to find out he took a vacation in Europe and brought back some food
products that he was consuming. The products had enough radiation to
set off the alarms.

Scary, but read up on naturally radioactive places and find that their
incidences of cancer are lower than the rest of society's. I guess
that living with a higher than normal rad count beefs up your immune
system.

Speaking of alarms, my BS alarm went off and I was astounded to read
in my newspaper a few years ago about a local guy in Medford, OR who
set off a fire truck's radiation alarm as he passed by the truck in
his car. They chased him down (while the police caught up to them) and
he told them he had just had nuclear chemo at the local hospital. Them
rad monitor thangs be SENSITIVE! No wonder they tell you to stay away
from your partner and all kids for a week after nuke chemo.

--
Small opportunities are often the beginning of great enterprises.
-- Demosthenes

On 2011-03-14, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:22:08 -0400, John
wrote:

Ignoramus858 wrote:
On 2011-03-14, Larry wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 15:04:18 -0500, Ignoramus858
wrote:

One more thing.

They are pumping seawater into the reactor.

I am smart enough to figure out that seawater comes from the sea.

But where does it go TO after it comes out of the reactor?

And are they cooling the inside of the reactor, or outside of this
shell?

That's just dumb. Let it melt. It's not going anywhere. Adding water
just increases the chance of radioactive steam release.

P.S: I forgot to say "Congrats" on having found and removed your
tumor. That's gotta be scary as hell.


Thanks. I lucked out big time. I am still not certain if Chernobyl is
to blame.

i

One of the workers at the local Nuke plant would set off the radiation
detector that they scan everyone with when they enter the plant. Come
to find out he took a vacation in Europe and brought back some food
products that he was consuming. The products had enough radiation to
set off the alarms.

Scary, but read up on naturally radioactive places and find that their
incidences of cancer are lower than the rest of society's. I guess
that living with a higher than normal rad count beefs up your immune
system.

Speaking of alarms, my BS alarm went off and I was astounded to read
in my newspaper a few years ago about a local guy in Medford, OR who
set off a fire truck's radiation alarm as he passed by the truck in
his car. They chased him down (while the police caught up to them) and
he told them he had just had nuclear chemo at the local hospital. Them
rad monitor thangs be SENSITIVE! No wonder they tell you to stay away
from your partner and all kids for a week after nuke chemo.


Larry, radiation has effects that are specific to where it is
applied. It is one thing to get a dose X from backgroud radiation,
spread over the entire body. It it quite another thing to get the same
dose from radioactive iodine, localized in a one ounce organ like
thyroid.

i

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 02:06:25 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:

John R. Carroll wrote:

The AP1000 is a very good design by all accounts. China is going full bore
with these things but they bought hardware and the technology.
The emergency cooling is sort of a self licking ice cream cone.

I don't know how many reactors the Japanese are going to lose but it's at
least two so far.
Both are old but still, that's a lot of money to waste on a concrete land
mark.
I just read that they will be venting to the atmosphere for a considerable
period of time.
Possibly as long as a year - which seems a bit overstated - but people are
going to be unable to go home until the mess is buttoned up.
This is going to be an ongoing saga.

The Bank of Japan dumped more than eighty billion dollars into the Japanese
economy this morning.
That's real money.


By WILLIAM TUCKER

Even while thousands of people are reported dead or missing, whole
neighborhoods lie in ruins, and gas and oil fires rage out of control,
press coverage of the Japanese earthquake has quickly settled on the
troubles at two nuclear reactors as the center of the catastrophe.

Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), a longtime opponent of nuclear power

....and complete asshole warmingist (though he supports dirty, hot coal
over cool, clean nuclear power) from Taxachusetts.


warned of "another Chernobyl" and predicted "the same thing could happen
here." In response, he has called for an immediate suspension of
licensing procedures for the Westinghouse AP1000, a "Generation III"
reactor that has been laboring through design review at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for seven years.

Predictable Liberal knee-jerk action.

--big snip--

Mr. Tucker is author of "Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead
the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey" (Bartleby Press,
2010).

Though I'm not completely in sync with his ideas, I highly recommend
this book. It covers the gamut of power options in detail.

--
Small opportunities are often the beginning of great enterprises.
-- Demosthenes

On Mar 13, 9:20*pm, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 13, 9:08 am, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:





"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 13, 12:19 am, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:

"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message

...

Thread should read an explosion at a Nuclear Power Plant.

If the plant exploded, not much would be left.

1. It was likely a Hydrogen gas explosion in the outer
containment building. It has two domes.

The unit is in serious condition - The rods are dropped,
but loss of power and the emergency backup failed the
pool let off steam. The outer dome was damaged in the
quake. That is one issue.

2. the scary issue is they still don't have coolant water
and reverted to pumping sea water.
That is a last level response as the salt does nothing good.

My understanding that with the salt water pumping the internal
temperature has dropped.

3. There isn't enough fuel to have a nuke explosion or implosion.

I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
sometime this week on the west coast.

Martin

On 3/12/2011 2:49 AM, azotic wrote:
Holy crap!!!!!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...77506/Japan-ea...

Best Regards
Tom.

The anti-nuke people are celebrating!-

celebrating? CELEBRATING? You really are a ****ing asshole, Tom.

Thanks! Coming from you, that's a complement. You are anti-nuke no doubt and see
this as a great opportunity to press the case for no nuke power. Good for you!
Anything that furthers your goals is A-Okay! The end ALWAYS justifies the means,
doesn't it? You don't give a damn how many people die, lose their homes and
livelihoods as long as it benefits your politics. You libs ALWAYS hate everything
not
in your pamphlet that tells you what and who to hate. I'm GLAD I'm on your hate
list,
it means I'm on the correct track. But, please don't do the "liberal mass-murder"
thing like you guys do when you don't get your way or your hate boils over. Instead,
why don't you seek psychological help? I know you relish your hatred but it consumes
you. With proper therapy, you might become a productive member of society.

You really are out of your mind. I suggest you go back and read my
other recent posts in this group regarding nuclear powerplants, and
then come back and apologize. But you won't.
****************

You call me an "asshole" and expect an apology? *Does vulgarity make you feel
important and powerful? *Good for you! *You show your tiny little mentality with
everything you post, troll. *Have you ever posted on-topic? *Why don't you stay in the
troll section of Usenet?-

Apparently, you have never read my posts IN SUPPORT of nuckear power.
nor have you read my posts concerning meatalworking. But that is to be
expected from narrow-minded, tunnel-vision-afflicted individuals like
you. I'm sorry I called you an asshole. It was a knee-jerk response to
your incredibly insensitive remark implying that anyone would be happy
about the release of radiation from a damaged nuclear plant.

Are you really so far out there on the wing that you don't believe
that people can agree on some subjects while disagreeing on others? Do
you really have no room in your life for anyone who isn't exactly like
you? If so, then plonk away.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:04:33 -0500, Ignoramus1540
wrote:

On 2011-03-14, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:22:08 -0400, John
wrote:

Ignoramus858 wrote:
On 2011-03-14, Larry wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 15:04:18 -0500, Ignoramus858
wrote:

One more thing.

They are pumping seawater into the reactor.

I am smart enough to figure out that seawater comes from the sea.

But where does it go TO after it comes out of the reactor?

And are they cooling the inside of the reactor, or outside of this
shell?

That's just dumb. Let it melt. It's not going anywhere. Adding water
just increases the chance of radioactive steam release.

P.S: I forgot to say "Congrats" on having found and removed your
tumor. That's gotta be scary as hell.


Thanks. I lucked out big time. I am still not certain if Chernobyl is
to blame.

i

One of the workers at the local Nuke plant would set off the radiation
detector that they scan everyone with when they enter the plant. Come
to find out he took a vacation in Europe and brought back some food
products that he was consuming. The products had enough radiation to
set off the alarms.

Scary, but read up on naturally radioactive places and find that their
incidences of cancer are lower than the rest of society's. I guess
that living with a higher than normal rad count beefs up your immune
system.

Speaking of alarms, my BS alarm went off and I was astounded to read
in my newspaper a few years ago about a local guy in Medford, OR who
set off a fire truck's radiation alarm as he passed by the truck in
his car. They chased him down (while the police caught up to them) and
he told them he had just had nuclear chemo at the local hospital. Them
rad monitor thangs be SENSITIVE! No wonder they tell you to stay away
from your partner and all kids for a week after nuke chemo.


Larry, radiation has effects that are specific to where it is
applied. It is one thing to get a dose X from backgroud radiation,
spread over the entire body. It it quite another thing to get the same
dose from radioactive iodine, localized in a one ounce organ like
thyroid.

I knew that. My comment was more regarding the Europeans than Japan. I
should have specified. And I know that people visiting high-rad areas
aren't as safe eating those foods as those who were born there.

--
Small opportunities are often the beginning of great enterprises.
-- Demosthenes

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:12:49 +0800, "Dennis #1"
wrote:

I agree Tom, the failures in Japan are going to put chances of many of us
(eg Australia) getting nuclear power back decades.

Yeah, damnit, it appears that way, but please wait until the truth
comes out. All that's happening right now is that the anti-nuke groups
are spewing bull**** fears.

I wonder if a few decades
into the future those like the anti-nuclear greenies will be effectively be
viewed as those who stuffed our evironment.

I already view them as the anti-environment terrorists. I wouldn't put
it past one of the venomous anti-nuke fidiots to blow up a plant, just
to prove how bad it could be. Crazy mofos.

Can you see the huge contradiction in your statement?
If opponents to nuclear are the ones in control
Why would they need to blow anything up
that would just weaken their position

Fact is the opponents to nuclear have
practically zero political clout
The only reason more nuclear plants are not being built
is because investors think the risks outweigh the rewards

Tom Gardner wrote:


Cheap, abundant energy HAS to be the bane of every liberal. With cheap, clean power,
all social problems go away and liberals exist to exploit victimhood and without
victims, liberals go away.

So liberals are literally undermining the efforts to extract resources
like oil?

Do Liberals dig holes under oil reservoirs
and that explains why the oil has become
so deep and difficult to extract?

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 13, 9:20 pm, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 13, 9:08 am, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:





"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 13, 12:19 am, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:

"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message

...

Thread should read an explosion at a Nuclear Power Plant.

If the plant exploded, not much would be left.

1. It was likely a Hydrogen gas explosion in the outer
containment building. It has two domes.

The unit is in serious condition - The rods are dropped,
but loss of power and the emergency backup failed the
pool let off steam. The outer dome was damaged in the
quake. That is one issue.

2. the scary issue is they still don't have coolant water
and reverted to pumping sea water.
That is a last level response as the salt does nothing good.

My understanding that with the salt water pumping the internal
temperature has dropped.

3. There isn't enough fuel to have a nuke explosion or implosion.

I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
sometime this week on the west coast.

Martin

On 3/12/2011 2:49 AM, azotic wrote:
Holy crap!!!!!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...77506/Japan-ea...

Best Regards
Tom.

The anti-nuke people are celebrating!-

celebrating? CELEBRATING? You really are a ****ing asshole, Tom.

Thanks! Coming from you, that's a complement. You are anti-nuke no doubt and see
this as a great opportunity to press the case for no nuke power. Good for you!
Anything that furthers your goals is A-Okay! The end ALWAYS justifies the means,
doesn't it? You don't give a damn how many people die, lose their homes and
livelihoods as long as it benefits your politics. You libs ALWAYS hate everything
not
in your pamphlet that tells you what and who to hate. I'm GLAD I'm on your hate
list,
it means I'm on the correct track. But, please don't do the "liberal mass-murder"
thing like you guys do when you don't get your way or your hate boils over.
Instead,
why don't you seek psychological help? I know you relish your hatred but it
consumes
you. With proper therapy, you might become a productive member of society.

You really are out of your mind. I suggest you go back and read my
other recent posts in this group regarding nuclear powerplants, and
then come back and apologize. But you won't.
****************

You call me an "asshole" and expect an apology? Does vulgarity make you feel
important and powerful? Good for you! You show your tiny little mentality with
everything you post, troll. Have you ever posted on-topic? Why don't you stay in the
troll section of Usenet?-

Apparently, you have never read my posts IN SUPPORT of nuckear power.
nor have you read my posts concerning meatalworking. But that is to be
expected from narrow-minded, tunnel-vision-afflicted individuals like
you. I'm sorry I called you an asshole. It was a knee-jerk response to
your incredibly insensitive remark implying that anyone would be happy
about the release of radiation from a damaged nuclear plant.

Are you really so far out there on the wing that you don't believe
that people can agree on some subjects while disagreeing on others? Do
you really have no room in your life for anyone who isn't exactly like
you? If so, then plonk away.
**************

Yes, the fringe left relishes anything that furthers the agenda as does the fringe
right, I point out both. I apologize for my reaction but I have seen and read such
comments that verify my observations. My politics is Capitalism, neither and both
liberal and conservative. I run my business for the benefit of my employees,
customers, suppliers and community and take advantage of or lie to none.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 03:56:45 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Mar 14, 12:40*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 22:45:37 -0500, Ignoramus858

wrote:
On 2011-03-13, Jim Wilkins wrote:
What exactly does "Chernobyl" mean? I know the color but not the
second part.

Chernobyl means, in Ukrainian, this type of grass:

* * * * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_vulgaris

Not grass, it's usually called sagebrush or wormwood. *I have some
planted in my front yard for the wonderful, rural smell. I think it's
A. ludoviciana rather than vulgaris.

Oh, Chorno, not Cherno. I wondered if it could be translated
"Blackened Crater".

jsw


Hmmm, I skipped over the third dead horse beating about magog in a
book. How did you get to blackended crater? That's what it looked
like. Strange, like Gilgamesh era comet, wormwood, Amarah Crater. Did
the designers or powers that be name it knowing eventually it would
melt down and look like a crater? The comet would look fuzzy like the
plant also. And it is north of Is it real.

http://www.prophecyfellowship.org/sh...d.php?t=246466

They should just build the power plants in a vertical hard rock mine
and just bury it in concrete when it expires.


SW

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:51:15 -0500, Sunworshipper SW@GWNTUNDRA
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 03:56:45 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Mar 14, 12:40*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 22:45:37 -0500, Ignoramus858

wrote:
On 2011-03-13, Jim Wilkins wrote:
What exactly does "Chernobyl" mean? I know the color but not the
second part.

Chernobyl means, in Ukrainian, this type of grass:

* * * * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_vulgaris

Not grass, it's usually called sagebrush or wormwood. *I have some
planted in my front yard for the wonderful, rural smell. I think it's
A. ludoviciana rather than vulgaris.

Oh, Chorno, not Cherno. I wondered if it could be translated
"Blackened Crater".

jsw


Hmmm, I skipped over the third dead horse beating about magog in a
book. How did you get to blackended crater? That's what it looked
like. Strange, like Gilgamesh era comet, wormwood, Amarah Crater. Did
the designers or powers that be name it knowing eventually it would
melt down and look like a crater? The comet would look fuzzy like the
plant also. And it is north of Is it real.

http://www.prophecyfellowship.org/sh...d.php?t=246466

They should just build the power plants in a vertical hard rock mine
and just bury it in concrete when it expires.


SW

Furthermore, impacts make green tektites from the nickel in iron
meteorites. Would nickel burn green like the plant in the atmosphere?


SW

John R. Carroll wrote:
Steve W. wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote:

The AP1000 is a very good design by all accounts. China is going
full bore with these things but they bought hardware and the
technology. The emergency cooling is sort of a self licking ice cream
cone.

I don't know how many reactors the Japanese are going to lose but
it's at least two so far.
Both are old but still, that's a lot of money to waste on a concrete
land mark.
I just read that they will be venting to the atmosphere for a
considerable period of time.
Possibly as long as a year - which seems a bit overstated - but
people are going to be unable to go home until the mess is buttoned
up. This is going to be an ongoing saga.

The Bank of Japan dumped more than eighty billion dollars into the
Japanese economy this morning.
That's real money.

By WILLIAM TUCKER

Even while thousands of people are reported dead or missing, whole
neighborhoods lie in ruins, and gas and oil fires rage out of control,
press coverage of the Japanese earthquake has quickly settled on the
troubles at two nuclear reactors as the center of the catastrophe.

Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), a longtime opponent of nuclear power, has
warned of "another Chernobyl" and predicted "the same thing could
happen here." In response, he has called for an immediate suspension
of licensing procedures for the Westinghouse AP1000, a "Generation
III" reactor that has been laboring through design review at the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for seven years.

Mr. Markey is a little behind the times.
The AP1000 design has been certified and approved.
At least I remember reading recently that it had been.


Since when do FACTS matter to the anti-nuke, anti-wind, anti-oil
drilling, anti-gun bunch...

Much better to come out screaming and get those sound bites about the
doom and gloom and determine what happened from a couple pictures
instead of actually asking about what actually happened.
Note just how many anti-nuke people on this group jumped up and started
saying "see what did WE tell you, look how bad those nukes are"
Instead of actually READING and listening to the facts about what is
happening and what is likely to occur, you have people screaming
"MELTDOWN, MELTDOWN the world is going to end." "It's going to be a
Chernobyl sized disaster."
Of course these same people only real education about nuclear power
comes from the TV or "news stories".

I have quite a few friend in the industry, one of whom was one of the
designers on the AP1000. A few more are high level operations and
containment designers. For the most part they are ALL saying that there
has NOT been enough information given yet for people who are not
actually on site to determine the level of damage.


--
Steve W.

jim wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

Cheap, abundant energy HAS to be the bane of every liberal. With cheap, clean power,
all social problems go away and liberals exist to exploit victimhood and without
victims, liberals go away.

So liberals are literally undermining the efforts to extract resources
like oil?

Do Liberals dig holes under oil reservoirs
and that explains why the oil has become
so deep and difficult to extract?

No they just place the areas where the material is off limits or declare
it a national reserve and lock it away.
They also like to make the regulatory system so difficult that there is
no way to get through it.

--
Steve W.

On Mar 14, 1:04*pm, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 13, 9:20 pm, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:





"rangerssuck" wrote in message

....
On Mar 13, 9:08 am, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:

"rangerssuck" wrote in message

....
On Mar 13, 12:19 am, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:

"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message

...

Thread should read an explosion at a Nuclear Power Plant.

If the plant exploded, not much would be left.

1. It was likely a Hydrogen gas explosion in the outer
containment building. It has two domes.

The unit is in serious condition - The rods are dropped,
but loss of power and the emergency backup failed the
pool let off steam. The outer dome was damaged in the
quake. That is one issue.

2. the scary issue is they still don't have coolant water
and reverted to pumping sea water.
That is a last level response as the salt does nothing good.

My understanding that with the salt water pumping the internal
temperature has dropped.

3. There isn't enough fuel to have a nuke explosion or implosion.

I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
sometime this week on the west coast.

Martin

On 3/12/2011 2:49 AM, azotic wrote:
Holy crap!!!!!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...77506/Japan-ea...

Best Regards
Tom.

The anti-nuke people are celebrating!-

celebrating? CELEBRATING? You really are a ****ing asshole, Tom.

Thanks! Coming from you, that's a complement. You are anti-nuke no doubt and see
this as a great opportunity to press the case for no nuke power. Good for you!
Anything that furthers your goals is A-Okay! The end ALWAYS justifies the means,
doesn't it? You don't give a damn how many people die, lose their homes and
livelihoods as long as it benefits your politics. You libs ALWAYS hate everything
not
in your pamphlet that tells you what and who to hate. I'm GLAD I'm on your hate
list,
it means I'm on the correct track. But, please don't do the "liberal mass-murder"
thing like you guys do when you don't get your way or your hate boils over.
Instead,
why don't you seek psychological help? I know you relish your hatred but it
consumes
you. With proper therapy, you might become a productive member of society.

You really are out of your mind. I suggest you go back and read my
other recent posts in this group regarding nuclear powerplants, and
then come back and apologize. But you won't.
****************

You call me an "asshole" and expect an apology? Does vulgarity make you feel
important and powerful? Good for you! You show your tiny little mentality with
everything you post, troll. Have you ever posted on-topic? Why don't you stay in the
troll section of Usenet?-

Apparently, you have never read my posts IN SUPPORT of nuckear power.
nor have you read my posts concerning meatalworking. But that is to be
expected from narrow-minded, tunnel-vision-afflicted individuals like
you. I'm sorry I called you an asshole. It was a knee-jerk response to
your incredibly insensitive remark implying that anyone would be happy
about the release of radiation from a damaged nuclear plant.

Are you really so far out there on the wing that you don't believe
that people can agree on some subjects while disagreeing on others? Do
you really have no room in your life for anyone who isn't exactly like
you? If so, then *plonk away.
**************

Yes, the fringe left relishes anything that furthers the agenda as does the fringe
right, I point out both. *I apologize for my reaction but I have seen and read such
comments that verify my observations. *My politics is Capitalism, neither and both
liberal and conservative. *I run my business for the benefit of my employees,
customers, suppliers and community and take advantage of or lie to none.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You may have read such comments, but I assure you, you did not read
them from me. My political beliefs are, in general, very different
from yours. That does not, however, mean that we need to be enemies,
nor does it mean that we disagree on everything.

"Steve W." wrote:

jim wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

Cheap, abundant energy HAS to be the bane of every liberal. With cheap, clean power,
all social problems go away and liberals exist to exploit victimhood and without
victims, liberals go away.

So liberals are literally undermining the efforts to extract resources
like oil?

Do Liberals dig holes under oil reservoirs
and that explains why the oil has become
so deep and difficult to extract?

No they just place the areas where the material is off limits or declare
it a national reserve and lock it away.

That may be, but extracting it from the ground
and consuming at a much faster rate
would have accomplished exactly what?

If the US continued to extract and consume US oil reserves
along the same trajectory as it was heading on in 1971
How much US oil would be left today?

In other words US is consuming half
as much domestic oil as it did in 1971
Had the US continued to extract and consume
along the trajectory it was set on in 1971
it would be consuming 3 times as much oil
from US sources instead of half as much

So how much oil would be left in the ground had the US taken
your pedal to the metal approach to extraction and consumption?


They also like to make the regulatory system so difficult that there is
no way to get through it.

Maybe there is no way for you to wrap your head around it
But...
Almost all industry regulation is formulated by
persons from the regulated industry
And then those regulations are administered
by persons from that regulated industry also
The oil industry is the prime example of this

-jim



--
Steve W.

jim wrote:
No they just place the areas where the material is off limits or declare
it a national reserve and lock it away.

That may be, but extracting it from the ground
and consuming at a much faster rate
would have accomplished exactly what?

If the US continued to extract and consume US oil reserves
along the same trajectory as it was heading on in 1971
How much US oil would be left today?

In case you haven't noticed there have been MORE oil reserves found in
the US since that time. Just been banned by the liberals from actually
getting them.


In other words US is consuming half
as much domestic oil as it did in 1971
Had the US continued to extract and consume
along the trajectory it was set on in 1971
it would be consuming 3 times as much oil
from US sources instead of half as much

So how much oil would be left in the ground had the US taken
your pedal to the metal approach to extraction and consumption?


They also like to make the regulatory system so difficult that there is
no way to get through it.

Maybe there is no way for you to wrap your head around it
But...
Almost all industry regulation is formulated by
persons from the regulated industry
And then those regulations are administered
by persons from that regulated industry also
The oil industry is the prime example of this

-jim

So in your world Obama isn't the person who signed the moratorium on
drilling offshore, and it couldn't have been Bill Clinton who signed the
laws that locked up thousands of acres of coal, and it must have been
the nasty people at BP who drew up abd singed the paperwork blocking
drilling on the north slope and in ANWAR.
I'm sure it was folks from Exxon who created the latest permit system
that runs the applicant in circles and stops anything from actually
happening in oil exploration .
Just like it is those folks who design and build the big wind turbines
who passed laws stopping them from being constructed off the coast of Mass.

Yep sure can see how it is the INDUSTRY in charge.


Maybe you need to actually understand how the REAL world operates. Not
your little SIM world.


--
Steve W.

"Steve W." wrote:

jim wrote:
No they just place the areas where the material is off limits or declare
it a national reserve and lock it away.

That may be, but extracting it from the ground
and consuming at a much faster rate
would have accomplished exactly what?

If the US continued to extract and consume US oil reserves
along the same trajectory as it was heading on in 1971
How much US oil would be left today?

In case you haven't noticed there have been MORE oil reserves found in
the US since that time. Just been banned by the liberals from actually
getting them.

Your not even going to make a wild guess
at what the answer is




In other words US is consuming half
as much domestic oil as it did in 1971
Had the US continued to extract and consume
along the trajectory it was set on in 1971
it would be consuming 3 times as much oil
from US sources instead of half as much

So how much oil would be left in the ground had the US taken
your pedal to the metal approach to extraction and consumption?


They also like to make the regulatory system so difficult that there is
no way to get through it.

Maybe there is no way for you to wrap your head around it
But...
Almost all industry regulation is formulated by
persons from the regulated industry
And then those regulations are administered
by persons from that regulated industry also
The oil industry is the prime example of this

-jim

So in your world Obama isn't the person who signed the moratorium on
drilling offshore, and it couldn't have been Bill Clinton who signed the
laws that locked up thousands of acres of coal, and it must have been
the nasty people at BP who drew up abd singed the paperwork blocking
drilling on the north slope and in ANWAR.

I didn't say anything about the hob goblins who sign stuff
Did hob goblins sign something
that locked up your ability to reason?
And why are you calling folks nasty
they're just trying to make a buck

I'm sure it was folks from Exxon who created the latest permit system
that runs the applicant in circles and stops anything from actually
happening in oil exploration .

I'm also sure it was the folks from Exxon (inter alia)
It is easy to tell (what appears like circles to you)
helps Exxon make more money in the long run
but why don't you try to tell me how it hurts Exxon

One of the things Exxon has probably noticed
that seems to have escaped your attention
the stuff is not losing value
as it sits there underground
And it isn't as if Exxon is sitting off in the corner
with nothing to do but
cry and mope about where they might find
a barrel of oil to sell


Just like it is those folks who design and build the big wind turbines
who passed laws stopping them from being constructed off the coast of Mass.

You mean the wind industry might not be so entrenched
as the oil industry
Oh My! Quelle surprise

"jim" "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote in message
...


"Steve W." wrote:

jim wrote:
No they just place the areas where the material is off limits or declare
it a national reserve and lock it away.

That may be, but extracting it from the ground
and consuming at a much faster rate
would have accomplished exactly what?

If the US continued to extract and consume US oil reserves
along the same trajectory as it was heading on in 1971
How much US oil would be left today?

In case you haven't noticed there have been MORE oil reserves found in
the US since that time. Just been banned by the liberals from actually
getting them.

Your not even going to make a wild guess
at what the answer is




In other words US is consuming half
as much domestic oil as it did in 1971
Had the US continued to extract and consume
along the trajectory it was set on in 1971
it would be consuming 3 times as much oil
from US sources instead of half as much

So how much oil would be left in the ground had the US taken
your pedal to the metal approach to extraction and consumption?


They also like to make the regulatory system so difficult that there is
no way to get through it.

Maybe there is no way for you to wrap your head around it
But...
Almost all industry regulation is formulated by
persons from the regulated industry
And then those regulations are administered
by persons from that regulated industry also
The oil industry is the prime example of this

-jim

So in your world Obama isn't the person who signed the moratorium on
drilling offshore, and it couldn't have been Bill Clinton who signed the
laws that locked up thousands of acres of coal, and it must have been
the nasty people at BP who drew up abd singed the paperwork blocking
drilling on the north slope and in ANWAR.

I didn't say anything about the hob goblins who sign stuff
Did hob goblins sign something
that locked up your ability to reason?
And why are you calling folks nasty
they're just trying to make a buck

I'm sure it was folks from Exxon who created the latest permit system
that runs the applicant in circles and stops anything from actually
happening in oil exploration .

I'm also sure it was the folks from Exxon (inter alia)
It is easy to tell (what appears like circles to you)
helps Exxon make more money in the long run
but why don't you try to tell me how it hurts Exxon

One of the things Exxon has probably noticed
that seems to have escaped your attention
the stuff is not losing value
as it sits there underground
And it isn't as if Exxon is sitting off in the corner
with nothing to do but
cry and mope about where they might find
a barrel of oil to sell


Just like it is those folks who design and build the big wind turbines
who passed laws stopping them from being constructed off the coast of Mass.

You mean the wind industry might not be so entrenched
as the oil industry
Oh My! Quelle surprise

So, just who the **** is responsible for me not getting my atomic-powered flying car
that I was promised when I was a kid?

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:22:08 -0400, John

One of the workers at the local Nuke plant would set off the radiation
detector that they scan everyone with when they enter the plant. Come
to find out he took a vacation in Europe and brought back some food
products that he was consuming. The products had enough radiation to
set off the alarms.

Scary, but read up on naturally radioactive places and find that their
incidences of cancer are lower than the rest of society's. I guess
that living with a higher than normal rad count beefs up your immune
system.

Speaking of alarms, my BS alarm went off and I was astounded to read
in my newspaper a few years ago about a local guy in Medford, OR who
set off a fire truck's radiation alarm as he passed by the truck in
his car. They chased him down (while the police caught up to them) and
he told them he had just had nuclear chemo at the local hospital. Them
rad monitor thangs be SENSITIVE! No wonder they tell you to stay away
from your partner and all kids for a week after nuke chemo.

Isn't it terribly strange that "radiation," which is used to _treat_
cancer, is now also getting blamed for _causing_ it?

Which does it do, cause it or cure it? Can you really have it both
ways?

Thanks,
Rich

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 14, 1:04 pm, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 13, 9:20 pm, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:





"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 13, 9:08 am, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:

"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 13, 12:19 am, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:

"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message

...

Thread should read an explosion at a Nuclear Power Plant.

If the plant exploded, not much would be left.

1. It was likely a Hydrogen gas explosion in the outer
containment building. It has two domes.

The unit is in serious condition - The rods are dropped,
but loss of power and the emergency backup failed the
pool let off steam. The outer dome was damaged in the
quake. That is one issue.

2. the scary issue is they still don't have coolant water
and reverted to pumping sea water.
That is a last level response as the salt does nothing good.

My understanding that with the salt water pumping the internal
temperature has dropped.

3. There isn't enough fuel to have a nuke explosion or implosion.

I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
sometime this week on the west coast.

Martin

On 3/12/2011 2:49 AM, azotic wrote:
Holy crap!!!!!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...77506/Japan-ea...

Best Regards
Tom.

The anti-nuke people are celebrating!-

celebrating? CELEBRATING? You really are a ****ing asshole, Tom.

Thanks! Coming from you, that's a complement. You are anti-nuke no doubt and see
this as a great opportunity to press the case for no nuke power. Good for you!
Anything that furthers your goals is A-Okay! The end ALWAYS justifies the means,
doesn't it? You don't give a damn how many people die, lose their homes and
livelihoods as long as it benefits your politics. You libs ALWAYS hate
everything
not
in your pamphlet that tells you what and who to hate. I'm GLAD I'm on your hate
list,
it means I'm on the correct track. But, please don't do the "liberal
mass-murder"
thing like you guys do when you don't get your way or your hate boils over.
Instead,
why don't you seek psychological help? I know you relish your hatred but it
consumes
you. With proper therapy, you might become a productive member of society.

You really are out of your mind. I suggest you go back and read my
other recent posts in this group regarding nuclear powerplants, and
then come back and apologize. But you won't.
****************

You call me an "asshole" and expect an apology? Does vulgarity make you feel
important and powerful? Good for you! You show your tiny little mentality with
everything you post, troll. Have you ever posted on-topic? Why don't you stay in
the
troll section of Usenet?-

Apparently, you have never read my posts IN SUPPORT of nuckear power.
nor have you read my posts concerning meatalworking. But that is to be
expected from narrow-minded, tunnel-vision-afflicted individuals like
you. I'm sorry I called you an asshole. It was a knee-jerk response to
your incredibly insensitive remark implying that anyone would be happy
about the release of radiation from a damaged nuclear plant.

Are you really so far out there on the wing that you don't believe
that people can agree on some subjects while disagreeing on others? Do
you really have no room in your life for anyone who isn't exactly like
you? If so, then plonk away.
**************

Yes, the fringe left relishes anything that furthers the agenda as does the fringe
right, I point out both. I apologize for my reaction but I have seen and read such
comments that verify my observations. My politics is Capitalism, neither and both
liberal and conservative. I run my business for the benefit of my employees,
customers, suppliers and community and take advantage of or lie to none.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You may have read such comments, but I assure you, you did not read
them from me. My political beliefs are, in general, very different
from yours. That does not, however, mean that we need to be enemies,
nor does it mean that we disagree on everything.
***************

I prefer civil discourse but bristle when insulted. Most people don't like vulgar
terms. And, I don't just agree or just disagree with anyone and learn something from
everyone.

Steve W. wrote:

Note just how many anti-nuke people on this group jumped up and started
saying "see what did WE tell you, look how bad those nukes are"

How many? Where?

All I see are pro-nuke people repeatedly jumping up to tell us what
anti-nuke people must be saying.

Tom Gardner wrote:
"jim""sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote in message
...


"Steve W." wrote:

jim wrote:
No they just place the areas where the material is off limits or declare
it a national reserve and lock it away.

That may be, but extracting it from the ground
and consuming at a much faster rate
would have accomplished exactly what?

If the US continued to extract and consume US oil reserves
along the same trajectory as it was heading on in 1971
How much US oil would be left today?

In case you haven't noticed there have been MORE oil reserves found in
the US since that time. Just been banned by the liberals from actually
getting them.

Your not even going to make a wild guess
at what the answer is




In other words US is consuming half
as much domestic oil as it did in 1971
Had the US continued to extract and consume
along the trajectory it was set on in 1971
it would be consuming 3 times as much oil
from US sources instead of half as much

So how much oil would be left in the ground had the US taken
your pedal to the metal approach to extraction and consumption?


They also like to make the regulatory system so difficult that there is
no way to get through it.

Maybe there is no way for you to wrap your head around it
But...
Almost all industry regulation is formulated by
persons from the regulated industry
And then those regulations are administered
by persons from that regulated industry also
The oil industry is the prime example of this

-jim

So in your world Obama isn't the person who signed the moratorium on
drilling offshore, and it couldn't have been Bill Clinton who signed the
laws that locked up thousands of acres of coal, and it must have been
the nasty people at BP who drew up abd singed the paperwork blocking
drilling on the north slope and in ANWAR.

I didn't say anything about the hob goblins who sign stuff
Did hob goblins sign something
that locked up your ability to reason?
And why are you calling folks nasty
they're just trying to make a buck

I'm sure it was folks from Exxon who created the latest permit system
that runs the applicant in circles and stops anything from actually
happening in oil exploration .

I'm also sure it was the folks from Exxon (inter alia)
It is easy to tell (what appears like circles to you)
helps Exxon make more money in the long run
but why don't you try to tell me how it hurts Exxon

One of the things Exxon has probably noticed
that seems to have escaped your attention
the stuff is not losing value
as it sits there underground
And it isn't as if Exxon is sitting off in the corner
with nothing to do but
cry and mope about where they might find
a barrel of oil to sell


Just like it is those folks who design and build the big wind turbines
who passed laws stopping them from being constructed off the coast of Mass.

You mean the wind industry might not be so entrenched
as the oil industry
Oh My! Quelle surprise

So, just who the **** is responsible for me not getting my atomic-powered flying car
that I was promised when I was a kid?




I didn't get an atomic car but I did have a chemistry set with some
uranium and some other stuff that would cause the agents to raid your
house today if they knew you had the stuff.


John

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:22:08 -0400, John

One of the workers at the local Nuke plant would set off the radiation
detector that they scan everyone with when they enter the plant. Come
to find out he took a vacation in Europe and brought back some food
products that he was consuming. The products had enough radiation to
set off the alarms.

Scary, but read up on naturally radioactive places and find that their
incidences of cancer are lower than the rest of society's. I guess
that living with a higher than normal rad count beefs up your immune
system.

Speaking of alarms, my BS alarm went off and I was astounded to read
in my newspaper a few years ago about a local guy in Medford, OR who
set off a fire truck's radiation alarm as he passed by the truck in
his car. They chased him down (while the police caught up to them) and
he told them he had just had nuclear chemo at the local hospital. Them
rad monitor thangs be SENSITIVE! No wonder they tell you to stay away
from your partner and all kids for a week after nuke chemo.

Isn't it terribly strange that "radiation," which is used to _treat_
cancer, is now also getting blamed for _causing_ it?

Which does it do, cause it or cure it? Can you really have it both
ways?

Thanks,
Rich


It depends on the polarity and frequency of the radiation.

On 14-Mar-2011, Beryl wrote:

Steve W. wrote:

Note just how many anti-nuke people on this group jumped up and started
saying "see what did WE tell you, look how bad those nukes are"

How many? Where?

All I see are pro-nuke people repeatedly jumping up to tell us what
anti-nuke people must be saying.

It is difficult to ignore the journalists, though.
They are positively squealing and touching themselves over this.

"WHAT? They did not design something for a 9.0 earthquake, followed by a 30
foot tsunami??"

"That's why we need WIND and SOLAR! And HYDROGEN!"
It's all free, you know.

Every dump-picker on EBay is selling every treadmill motor they find as a
"wind generator", so it must be true.

jim wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

Cheap, abundant energy HAS to be the bane of every liberal. With cheap,
clean power, all social problems go away and liberals exist to exploit
victimhood and without victims, liberals go away.

So liberals are literally undermining the efforts to extract resources
like oil?

Do Liberals dig holes under oil reservoirs
and that explains why the oil has become
so deep and difficult to extract?

Well, duh. Of course not. They have their Obamessiah issue an imperial
edict forbidding drilling.

If you can't see the difference there, then you either need medical
attention or at least remedial education in elementary science.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

jim wrote:
"Steve W." wrote:

No they just place the areas where the material is off limits or declare
it a national reserve and lock it away.

That may be, but extracting it from the ground
and consuming at a much faster rate
would have accomplished exactly what?

1. Reduce dependence on Islamist countries' oil.
2. Keep the cost of gasoline below $4.00 (going on 5)/gallon.
3. Let the corn farmers actually produce food, rather than have their
resources diverted to pie-in-the-sky schemes for "ethanol."
4. Remove the necessity for the astronomical government subsidies (paid for
out of your pocket, unless you evade your taxes) needed to create the
illusion that solar and wind are viable.
5. Employ a lot of people who build and operate the rigs and refineries.

OK, that's all I have so off the top of my head - anybody else want to chime
in on this one?

Thanks,
Rich

Tom Gardner wrote:

So, just who the **** is responsible for me not getting my atomic-powered
flying car that I was promised when I was a kid?

Flying cars? Are you kidding? We would need full implementation of some
sort of collision-avoidance system - can you imagine if the drivers who
kill 50,000 people every year on the highways, which are well-defined
paths, were allowed to fly in three dimensions?

Well, maybe it would help with Darwinizing the idiots. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

On Mar 14, 7:06*pm, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:

So, just who the **** is responsible for me not getting my atomic-powered flying car
that I was promised when I was a kid?

Tom -

Yet another thing we agree on (imagine that - two in a day!).

I plan to start a class-action lawsuit against the publishers of
Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. They promised me a flying car,
a jetpack and a gyrocopter and a hovercraft. They have utterly failed
to deliver, and I'm ****ed. I think about this every time I'm forced
to drive into midtown Manhattan on business (as I will be doing
tomorrow). It would be so completely cool to be flying around the city
like the Jetsons.

Rich Grise wrote:

jim wrote:
? "Steve W." wrote:
??
?? No they just place the areas where the material is off limits or declare
?? it a national reserve and lock it away.
?
? That may be, but extracting it from the ground
? and consuming at a much faster rate
? would have accomplished exactly what?

1. Reduce dependence on Islamist countries' oil.
2. Keep the cost of gasoline below $4.00 (going on 5)/gallon.
3. Let the corn farmers actually produce food, rather than have their
resources diverted to pie-in-the-sky schemes for "ethanol."
4. Remove the necessity for the astronomical government subsidies (paid for
out of your pocket, unless you evade your taxes) needed to create the
illusion that solar and wind are viable.
5. Employ a lot of people who build and operate the rigs and refineries.


The only thing your plan accomplishes is to deplete
the oil supply earlier rather than later
Are you in a hurry to get it out of the ground
before the price goes up?

Farmers are much happier growing crops
they can sell at a profit
rather growing food that no one wants at a loss
and having the government make up the difference

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
Tom Gardner wrote:

So, just who the **** is responsible for me not getting my atomic-powered
flying car that I was promised when I was a kid?

Flying cars? Are you kidding? We would need full implementation of some
sort of collision-avoidance system - can you imagine if the drivers who
kill 50,000 people every year on the highways, which are well-defined
paths, were allowed to fly in three dimensions?

Well, maybe it would help with Darwinizing the idiots. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich


How did the Jetsons do it?

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 14, 7:06 pm, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:

So, just who the **** is responsible for me not getting my atomic-powered flying car
that I was promised when I was a kid?

Tom -

Yet another thing we agree on (imagine that - two in a day!).

I plan to start a class-action lawsuit against the publishers of
Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. They promised me a flying car,
a jetpack and a gyrocopter and a hovercraft. They have utterly failed
to deliver, and I'm ****ed. I think about this every time I'm forced
to drive into midtown Manhattan on business (as I will be doing
tomorrow). It would be so completely cool to be flying around the city
like the Jetsons.
*********

That's why I'm such a bitter old man.

Tom Gardner wrote:
"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
Tom Gardner wrote:

So, just who the **** is responsible for me not getting my
atomic-powered flying car that I was promised when I was a kid?

Flying cars? Are you kidding? We would need full implementation of some
sort of collision-avoidance system - can you imagine if the drivers who
kill 50,000 people every year on the highways, which are well-defined
paths, were allowed to fly in three dimensions?

Well, maybe it would help with Darwinizing the idiots. ;-)

How did the Jetsons do it?

Well, being a cartoon probably helped. ;-D

Cheers!
Rich

rangerssuck wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:06*pm, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:

So, just who the **** is responsible for me not getting my atomic-powered
flying car that I was promised when I was a kid?

Yet another thing we agree on (imagine that - two in a day!).

I plan to start a class-action lawsuit against the publishers of
Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. They promised me a flying car,
a jetpack and a gyrocopter and a hovercraft. They have utterly failed
to deliver, and I'm ****ed. I think about this every time I'm forced
to drive into midtown Manhattan on business (as I will be doing
tomorrow). It would be so completely cool to be flying around the city
like the Jetsons.

Well, you _could_ get or build a gyrocopter; jetpacks exist, but they're
prohibitively expensive and can only carry a few minutes' worth of
fuel, and you can build your own hovercraft:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...tion+p roject

There have been several flying cars on the market in the past, but
apparently nobody could afford one, and there's that pesky pilot's
license issue, but I guess you don't need a license for an ultralight.

So what's your real problem?

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 02:09:10 -0400, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:


"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
Tom Gardner wrote:

So, just who the **** is responsible for me not getting my atomic-powered
flying car that I was promised when I was a kid?

Flying cars? Are you kidding? We would need full implementation of some
sort of collision-avoidance system - can you imagine if the drivers who
kill 50,000 people every year on the highways, which are well-defined
paths, were allowed to fly in three dimensions?

Well, maybe it would help with Darwinizing the idiots. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich


How did the Jetsons do it?

With sprockets. They were pre-Flubber.

--
Small opportunities are often the beginning of great enterprises.
-- Demosthenes

Rich Grise wrote:

So liberals are literally undermining the efforts to extract resources
like oil?

Do Liberals dig holes under oil reservoirs
and that explains why the oil has become
so deep and difficult to extract?


Well, duh. Of course not. They have their Obamessiah issue an imperial
edict forbidding drilling.



If you can't see the difference there, then you either need medical
attention or at least remedial education in elementary science.


I can see the difference or
why would I have posed it as a premise to a question
that depended solely on pondering the difference

But instead of pondering
You assert without any thought or evidence in support
that consumption of US domestic oil reserves
at the maximum possible rate is an inherently good thing

And you make it clear that anyone who questions
this self-serving logic
is obviously evil

and thus ends the discussion

On Mar 16, 3:13*am, Rich Grise wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:06*pm, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:

So, just who the **** is responsible for me not getting my atomic-powered
flying car that I was promised when I was a kid?

Yet another thing we agree on (imagine that - two in a day!).

I plan to start a class-action lawsuit against the publishers of
Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. They promised me a flying car,
a jetpack and a gyrocopter and a hovercraft. They have utterly failed
to deliver, and I'm ****ed. I think about this every time I'm forced
to drive into midtown Manhattan on business (as I will be doing
tomorrow). It would be so completely cool to be flying around the city
like the Jetsons.

Well, you _could_ get or build a gyrocopter; jetpacks exist, but they're
prohibitively expensive and can only carry a few minutes' worth of
fuel, and you can build your own hovercraft:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ft+constructio...

There have been several flying cars on the market in the past, but
apparently nobody could afford one, and there's that pesky pilot's
license issue, but I guess you don't need a license for an ultralight.

So what's your real problem?

Thanks,
Rich

What's the deal, Rich? Are you a corporate shill for Popular Science?
Promises were made, promises were broken. I intend to hold them (or is
it you?) to account.

On Mar 16, 2:10*am, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 14, 7:06 pm, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:

So, just who the **** is responsible for me not getting my atomic-powered flying car
that I was promised when I was a kid?

Tom -

Yet another thing we agree on (imagine that - two in a day!).

I plan to start a class-action lawsuit against the publishers of
Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. They promised me a flying car,
a jetpack and a gyrocopter and a hovercraft. They have utterly failed
to deliver, and I'm ****ed. I think about this every time I'm forced
to drive into midtown Manhattan on business (as I will be doing
tomorrow). It would be so completely cool to be flying around the city
like the Jetsons.
*********

That's why I'm such a bitter old man.

You ought to try being a bitter old man driving in the neighborhood of
the Empire State Building. THAT will really put a frown on you :-)

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 16, 3:13 am, Rich Grise wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:06 pm, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:

So, just who the **** is responsible for me not getting my
atomic-powered
flying car that I was promised when I was a kid?

Yet another thing we agree on (imagine that - two in a day!).

I plan to start a class-action lawsuit against the publishers of
Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. They promised me a flying car,
a jetpack and a gyrocopter and a hovercraft. They have utterly failed
to deliver, and I'm ****ed. I think about this every time I'm forced
to drive into midtown Manhattan on business (as I will be doing
tomorrow). It would be so completely cool to be flying around the city
like the Jetsons.

Well, you _could_ get or build a gyrocopter; jetpacks exist, but they're
prohibitively expensive and can only carry a few minutes' worth of
fuel, and you can build your own
hovercraft:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ft+constructio...

There have been several flying cars on the market in the past, but
apparently nobody could afford one, and there's that pesky pilot's
license issue, but I guess you don't need a license for an ultralight.

So what's your real problem?

Thanks,
Rich

Not exactly a "jet" pack... more like a "ducted fan" pack; but still
pretty cool: http://www.martinjetpack.com/video-gallery.aspx