dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...
dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


That does not really make any sense. How do you get something that
is extremely radioactive, and have a very long half life?

By having something extremely dense?

that just reduces the space it occupies...

So the same sized piece will have more nuclei to decay.

or the same mass will take as long as it ever took...

By definition you can't have something that decays fast (i.e. "highly
radioactive") and has a huge half life - they are mutually exclusive.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Not really. It came from the ground. Lots of things that come from the
ground are toxic, like mercury, lead, sulphur.


So it's OK to dump them in the sea, too?


Dunno. Better ask God. He's been doing it for years. Try analysing
seawater some time. Loaded with radioactive natural thorium. Sea beds
full of it. Comes from decay of natural uranium.


Allegedly sulphur plumes were the original source of life.


Why not throw in a few dioxins, cyanides, phthalates and polychlorinated
biphenyls too? They can't do much harm - they are all made from things
that came out of the ground, after all.


Quite. All entirely natural materials. That will in time break down.

Although they have caused far more deaths than any nuclear power
technology has.

I guess you have a binary mind. Aspirin good. Cyanide bad. Try taking
1000 aspirin..


If you consider smoke alarms, medical uses of radioactive compounds and
the like, radioactivity has probably saved more lives than its ever
cost. Those radioactive compounds are made in reactors.

You live in a radioactive world. Life developed in spite of, and
possibly even because of, radioactivity. We know that too much
radioactivity does in fact kill. A-bombs proved that. We know that a
small amount doesn't. Life itself proves that.

What we don't know, is much about what happens in between.So the current
safety standards are set and met, at the nuclear industry contributing
less than 0.1% of the total radiation that people receive naturally.

You on average will receive 150 times more than that from medical
treatments of one sort or another, x-rays primarily.

You will recieve around 500 times more than that from natural radon, on
average, in the UK. A very nasty radioactive element that can collect
in the lungs. Reckoned to be the second largest cause of lung cancer
after smoking, in the UK.

It is in fact about 30 times more dangerous in terms of radioactivity,
to live on e.g Dartmoor, because of natural radon, than here in East
Anglia, a mere 50 miles from Sizewell 'B'. People are not dropping like
flies on Dartmoor.

There is no detectable increase in background radiation from any nuclear
power station in the UK., a mad greeny lefty friend of mine went round
them ALL with a geiger counter, and was honest enough to admit his
disappointment.

It's a bit different around the reprocessing plant though. There was
indeed a measurable increase of a few percent over normal background.
Nothing like Dartmoor, but measurable.

MOST of the so called 'high decommissioning costs' of old nuclear power
stations arise precisely BECAUSE any release of radiation that would be
trivial on Dartmoor, and is orders of magnitude less than that in the
waste tip of any coal fired power station, is immediately leapt upon and
reported as a 'grave nuclear incident' by real ale swilling ex CND
bearded overweight earth mothers and the like. So extreme and
unnecessary measures are taken to meet standards that no other industry
in the world is required to meet, standards imposed long AFTER the power
stations were built, so there was no chance to actually enable them to
meet them in terms of decomissioning -though they routinely do meet them
in normal operation.

There are very powerful interests that do not want us to either
relinquish dependence on fossil fuel, nor indeed to remain as a
reasonably successful post industrial society. It matters little as to
whether we drown in our own cO2, or die from starvation and cold.

Be careful what you wish for. A 'nuclear free' world would be a very
very unpleasant place to live at current UK population densities..

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...

No doubt they are all professors of media studies, theoology, and
knitting..

Not quite, but not too far off :-).

They are far from it. What should they be experts in? Promoting nuclear
power. Fools like you will not be satisfied until we all glow.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Not really. It came from the ground. Lots of things that come from the
ground are toxic, like mercury, lead, sulphur.


So it's OK to dump them in the sea, too?


Dunno. Better ask God. He's been doing it for years. Try analysing
seawater some time. Loaded with radioactive natural thorium. Sea beds
full of it. Comes from decay of natural uranium.


Allegedly sulphur plumes were the original source of life.


Why not throw in a few dioxins, cyanides, phthalates and polychlorinated
biphenyls too? They can't do much harm - they are all made from things
that came out of the ground, after all.


Quite. All entirely natural materials. That will in time break down.


That's all I need to know from you. End of discussion. ;-)

Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Not really. It came from the ground. Lots of things that come from the
ground are toxic, like mercury, lead, sulphur.

So it's OK to dump them in the sea, too?

Dunno. Better ask God. He's been doing it for years. Try analysing
seawater some time. Loaded with radioactive natural thorium. Sea beds
full of it. Comes from decay of natural uranium.


Allegedly sulphur plumes were the original source of life.


Why not throw in a few dioxins, cyanides, phthalates and polychlorinated
biphenyls too? They can't do much harm - they are all made from things
that came out of the ground, after all.

Quite. All entirely natural materials. That will in time break down.


That's all I need to know from you. End of discussion. ;-)


You don't like truth and facts much, do you?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bruce wrote:

Why not throw in a few dioxins, cyanides, phthalates and polychlorinated
biphenyls too? They can't do much harm - they are all made from things
that came out of the ground, after all.

Quite. All entirely natural materials. That will in time break down.


That's all I need to know from you. End of discussion. ;-)


You don't like truth and facts much, do you?


You can have the last word; after all, you are the one who thinks
dioxins, cyanides, phthalates and polychlorinated biphenyls are
harmless.

Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Why not throw in a few dioxins, cyanides, phthalates and polychlorinated
biphenyls too? They can't do much harm - they are all made from things
that came out of the ground, after all.

Quite. All entirely natural materials. That will in time break down.

That's all I need to know from you. End of discussion. ;-)


You don't like truth and facts much, do you?


You can have the last word; after all, you are the one who thinks
dioxins, cyanides, phthalates and polychlorinated biphenyls are
harmless.

I never said that. Lying isn't the best way to promote your cause.

I simply said that they are natural substances that will in time break down.

If you equate 'natural' with 'harmless' it's not my problem. let me
introduce you to a hemlock, or a crocodile..

It's me that lives in the country, surrounded by things that are trying
to kill me, each other, and poison us all.

Let me guess, you live in a sterile suburban house, from which every
bacterium is scrubbed, and only eat food that's been radiated enough to
be stocked on supermarket shelves for 4 weeks without going off..and
wouldn't eat a wild mushroom if it bit you.


And you have this fanciful notion that 'natural' means 'not made by
human intervention==OK and good' and 'unnatural' means made by man == bad'

O dear. This is the religion that sets man apart fom the animals and
Nature again isn't it?

Lets think of all the natural products that are banned, or restricetd
shall we?

Well there's things like opium, and psylocybin and cannabis.

There's things like Asbestos, and Radon, arsenic and cyanide.

Then there things that will definitely kill you. Lying around the
countryside. Like belladonna, hemlock, monkshood, foxglove, and half a
dozen species of fungi like Destrying angel, Death cap, several of the
inocybes and a few more..

Not to mention toxic baccilli like Anthrax, botulism, tetanus and many
others found all over your body, like streptococcus which WILL kill you
if they get the chance.

But you have a higher chance of being killed in a car crash. The most
damaging radiation apart from Radon (all natural) that you are exposed
to is sunlight: responsible for many fatal skin cancers every year.

And yet ypou want to risk the entire health of the nation on the basis
of a few kg of somehwat radioactive and toxic materials, when you know
that it is at far greater risk from the wholly naturally occurring CO2?

Or involve it in massive industrialisation and a complete loss of any
wilderness spaces, and create a country that is completely broken
economically, and covered in industrial plant greater tan te land area
of all its towns and cities, to gather every last ounce of 'renewable
energy' from the Great Fusion Reactor In The Sky?

Dont you think a little rearrangemnt of priorites is in order?

Or must the whole country suffer, as with Blair and Brown, because you
can never ever admit that you are wrong?

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"John Rumm" wrote in message
net...
The Medway Handyman wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...clear-power-ye
s-please-1629327.html

At last some sense.

Shame we have lost 30 years of development while waiting...

Tidal lagoons are being looked into. If they come about then forget gas
and oil and all will be, hopefully cheap electricity.

How Lagoons Work

There are a number of them at various states of water levels. There
will always be power generated. Think of one large dam wall in a circle
in a shallow sea, split it into three sections. The centre section
could be 30 foot below the outer two and the high tide level, and fill
up via the other two or the high tide.

It is a matter of having the lagoons filling and emptying at different
times to ensure full power production 24/7. A test lagoon is being
suggested at Swansea in South Wales.

This is different to tidal only at La Rance, France. La Rance is just
one power station. It only generates when the tide is running one-way.
It is quite old now - 1966. Pioneering it is.

Political Spite Makes Matters Worse

Hard nosed cost/benefit eliminated the British coal industry (or more
political spite by Thatcher hating miners). Middle Eastern oil was
buttons to buy and the North Sea was full of cheap gas. Mrs Thatcher
was told to reserve the gas for primarily domestic use and not use it
to generate electricity - use the masses of coal we have under the
country to only generate electricity. She never. The coal industry
disappeared with amazing stocks still under our feet. The North Sea is
running out of oil and gas.

Fuel Poverty is a major Problem

Domestic gas prices went through the roof because of world market
conditions - the Uks gas is mainly imported. Fuel poverty is now a
major problem.

Long Term Political View is Important

We are now are semi-dependent on Russian gas as we used a lot of our
own reserves needlessly. Russia refused to supply gas to the Ukraine a
few years ago, so alarm bells rang. We need stable fuel supplies. We
get oil and gas from the politically unstable Middle East and Russia -
which is a political concern over cost/benefit. They have to look at
the long term and stability, not short term gains of utility companies.
there is the important eco angle too. Tidal lagoons are both the
long-term practical answer and politically acceptable.

25 Year Project

It will take 25 years. However benefits will come quicker than expected.

* The electricity will be introduced in phases,
* Knock-on effect fresh water reservoirs from rock excavations to
combat water shortages, bridges, etc, by rock excavations.
* Increased insulation levels in buildings at the same would reduce
oil, coal and gas dependency rather quicker than expected.
* Coal, gas and nuclear stations can be decommissioned and any planned
costs in introducing nuclear stations will off-set the lagoons building
costs.
* Such a scheme would bring zero unemployment, saving on public social
benefits over 25 years.
* There is the comfort of not being under the reliance of foreign
countries for energy, and being over-friendly with countries you would
rather not be.
* Savings on military as the world will be a more peaceful place - oil
has created wars.

The UK over 25 years can easily construct and afford such a scheme.
Advances in rock cutting & transporting machines and methods would
ensue. The technology and design and build can be exported elsewhere
for others too.

Unprecedented Project

To meet 100% of Britain and Ireland's need for energy, this is clearly
possible and mostly involves hauling rock from mountains and valleys to
the sea on an unprecedented scale.

* The British Isles geography is the best in the world for such an
undertaking with its high tidal rises and falls.
* It involves moving about 2,500 million tons of rock to the Irish Sea
* Tidal lagoons created out of about 20% of the Irish Sea
* 100% of Britain and Ireland's electricity needs met.

The numbers are staggering but possible:

* A heavy train can move perhaps 500 plus tons of rock
* About 4 or 5 million train loads are needed
* The UKs waste can be dumped into the lagoon walls while under
construction, saving on landfill and re-cycling costs.
* It would take maybe 30 railways to haul rock from say 30 large
quarries over 25 years

There Are Many Knock-On Benefits

* The insides of hills and mountains can be cut out for the rock and
lakes constructed top and bottom to make provision for instant use peak
time hydro stations for half time energy peaks in major football games
on TV.
* New valleys can be created
* New lakes
* Fresh water reservoirs
* Rail and road tunnels through mountains
* Rail and road bridges across the Irish Sea
* Deep water ship canals can be cut inland, reducing rail and road
transport of goods - good result for quarried rock.
* Some lagoons can be supertanker harbour/terminals, keeping these
massive pollution risk vessels away from the shore.
* The lagoon walls built can also be bridges
* The lagoons can also be anti tidal surge barriers. Empty the lagoons
at low tide when a surge is expected and allow the lagoons to fill
taking excess water - London will go under if nothing is done.
* Fish can be farmed inside the lagoons preventing foreign trawlers
overfishing and all fish goes to the UK.

Fuel Poverty & Pollution Eliminated

Fuel poverty and pollution will be a thing of the past.

Cheap Fast Transport

The EU has a transport dept that looks at transport for the EU 20, 30,
40 years hence. The aim is super fast intercity trains between all
major cities/centres. One idea is a tunnel between Liverpool and
Dublin. As Holyhead is the halfway point between the two cities that
appears a dumb suggestion and a loooooong expensive tunnel. But a
tunnel from Ireland to North Wales at the shortest point and then a
fast link to Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, London is feasible.

However, damming in the Irish Sea to make lagoons to produce all the
power for the UK and Ireland would create maybe two land links anyhow
and maybe one to the Isle of Man. This gives high speed transport
bridges. Super fast Maglev trains between major centres and to Ireland
become feasible as running cost are low.

All cars can be electric, and the auto industry is currently moving
that way.

Overall the lagoon project is well worth looking much deeper into, and
clearly looks highly feasible when all points are viewed.

Where did you pick that leaflet up from then ?



--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...

Overall the lagoon project is well worth looking much deeper into, and
clearly looks highly feasible when all points are viewed.

Where did you pick that leaflet up from then ?

Maxie, do you want one? Well you will not find one in the Citizens Advice
amongst the debt management leaflets.

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...

Overall the lagoon project is well worth looking much deeper into,
and clearly looks highly feasible when all points are viewed.

Where did you pick that leaflet up from then ?

Maxie, do you want one? Well you will not find one in the Citizens
Advice amongst the debt management leaflets.

yeah - ask the nurse for some more meds

--
geoff

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You can have the last word; after all, you are the one who thinks
dioxins, cyanides, phthalates and polychlorinated biphenyls are
harmless.

I never said that. Lying isn't the best way to promote your cause.

I simply said that they are natural substances that will in time break
down.

It was still a silly remark.
Homo sapiens will die out in time.
It all depends on the time.


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...

Overall the lagoon project is well worth looking much deeper into, and
clearly looks highly feasible when all points are viewed.

Where did you pick that leaflet up from then ?

Maxie, do you want one? Well you will not find one in the Citizens
Advice amongst the debt management leaflets.

yeah - ask the nurse for some more meds

Maxie, you will not find them at the clinic either. Maxie, are just
fantastic indeed. I'm sure you know all the clinics. Fabulous.

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:45:37 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

* It involves moving about 2,500 million tons of rock to the Irish Sea

Possible, in the very, very long term. Ignoring the challenges of
quarrying, and taking a long term 50 year view it's 137,000 tonnes per
day, or more than 30 fully loaded freight trains ever day for 18000
days. The energy used in moving that amount of material will probably
outweigh the electricity produced by the tidal generation.

* Tidal lagoons created out of about 20% of the Irish Sea

Very ambitious but that 20% target has a very serious flaw (see below)

* Rail and road bridges across the Irish Sea

Completely impossible, as a few minutes examining admiralty chart 1121
would confirm. The sea bed depths are such that even an immersed sea
bed tunnel isn't realistically viable, even across what some might
deem short crossings like the North Channel.

In respect of the 20% of the Irish Sea being used as tidal lagoons,
this is almost certainly impossible as no more than 5% of the Irish
Sea is shallower than the 20m contour.


--