"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
J G Miller wrote:
And in parliament, they are indistinguishable right now, at least on the
labour benches.

There's a big fat rat with jug ears in the same bag as a one eyed rat with
cauliflower eras, a very nasty rat with sharp teeth and dubious sexual
orientation..all drowning n the same bag.

Ha ha! I like it!

Bill

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:28:15 +0000, J G Miller wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:56:02 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

I wanted to kill the cat.

What despicable and ignominious act had the cat committed that resulted
in you wishing it to be dead?

Obvious... it refused to be both dead and alive at the same time and was
therefore upsetting the results of the experiment.

BW

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:04:19 +0000, J G Miller wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:57:33 +0000, Bambleweeny57 wrote:

nor the colour of the cat.

This is precisely what Comrade Deng Xiaoping said in 1961, at the
Guangzhou conference,

"I don't care if it's a white cat or a black cat.
It's a good cat so long as it catches mice."

and the reason why the People's Republic of China is no longer a
communist state. And yes, it is still an dictatorship.

But have the Chinese got any relatives that have gone on to build any
inertial mass nuclear reactors !?! No... just goes to prove my point!

BW

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:43:33 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Uranium for instance can be safely kept in a cardboard box under the
bed.

And breathing in the radon gas is not a hazard?


What radon gas?

You also forget that aside from the radioactive hazards of uranium,
it is a toxic metal.


Indeed. its as nasty as lead or mercury really.

Mercury is a good deal nastier since it is liquid at room temperature
and hence emits mercury vapour... It don't take much of that to
seriously FYU!

an interesting concept. When BBC RD were experimenting with video delay
lines in the late '60s, the prototype was an open mercury bath - with a
moveable dam at one end to alter the path length. I don't know of anyone
there who suffered ill effects. I'm certainly still alive - 40 years later.

charles wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:43:33 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Uranium for instance can be safely kept in a cardboard box under the
bed.
And breathing in the radon gas is not a hazard?

What radon gas?

You also forget that aside from the radioactive hazards of uranium,
it is a toxic metal.

Indeed. its as nasty as lead or mercury really.

Mercury is a good deal nastier since it is liquid at room temperature
and hence emits mercury vapour... It don't take much of that to
seriously FYU!

an interesting concept. When BBC RD were experimenting with video delay
lines in the late '60s, the prototype was an open mercury bath - with a
moveable dam at one end to alter the path length. I don't know of anyone
there who suffered ill effects. I'm certainly still alive - 40 years later.

The thing is, no one really has the data.

We know that long term mercury exposure at level X does things that
don't happen when there is no mercury exposure.

Short of subjecting people to low dosage and seeing if e.g. their hair
falls out, no one knows what happens in between.

So Elfin Safety tends to look at these things and pick some arbitrary
fraction, like 1/1000th of the level known to cause (with long term
exposure) damage, and then say that's the maximum single dose anyone
should be subjected to, ever.

Simply because, for the most part, there is no NEED to expose people to
mercury at all, so why not draw the line on the very safe side of the fence.

Its further complicated by the fact that with e.g. radioactive
materials, there is a huge element (sic!) of luck.

If a radioactive particle gets trapped inside a lung, it will over time
almost certainly breed a cancer.

The correlation between smoking (which suppresses the lung clearing
action), and radon TOGETHER, as a huge increase in cancer likelihood,
more than either of them on their own, seems well founded.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/96142.stm

and also

"In the UK, where radon levels are lower than in many European
countries, radon in ordinary homes causes about 1,000 deaths each year,
which is about 1% of all cancer deaths."

Compare and contrast with the nuclear industry.

Which would be shut down immediately if it could be shown to cause even
10 deaths a year. Probably even ONE death a year.

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:57:12 +0100, Paul Martin wrote:

If you start with a finite number of radioactive atoms you'll
halve the
number every half-life period

On average. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. It's random.

, at some point there'll be one atom left and when that decays it's
all gone.

On average. Maybe. It's random.

Quite. If the half life is say 1 year after 1 year there is a 50%
*probabilty* that the lone atom might have decayed. Even after
hundreds of years you can't say that that lone atom *will* have
decayed just that the probabilty of it happening is pretty high(*)
but you can't say when it will happen.

(*) I think, what does happen to the probabilty of an event after N
half lives? Gut feeling is that the probabilty increases but as for
any given half life period it's stuck at 50% I'm not so sure.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:24:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

"In the UK, where radon levels are lower than in many European
countries, radon in ordinary homes causes about 1,000 deaths each year,
which is about 1% of all cancer deaths."

Compare and contrast with the nuclear industry.

Which would be shut down immediately if it could be shown to cause even
10 deaths a year. Probably even ONE death a year.

Agreed, lets get a sense of perspective.

Deaths due to road "accidents" run about 10 per *day*.

I don't see people banning road based transport anytime soon.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:57:12 +0100, Paul Martin wrote:


(*) I think, what does happen to the probabilty of an event after N half
lives? Gut feeling is that the probabilty increases but as for any given
half life period it's stuck at 50% I'm not so sure.

IIRC The easiest way to understand what (probably!) happens over N
half-lives is to say that its chance of *surviving* each half-life period
is 0.5. So the chance of surviving N of them is obtained by multipling 0.5
by itself N times. i.e. 0.5 to the power N.

So for 2 half live 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25 survival - i.e. 0.75 chance of having
decayed, etc.

This also leads to the usual 'exponential' curves. From the POV of Physics
the atom obviously isn't (assumed to) be sitting there working out these
factors on a tiny subatomic hand calculator. :-) It just has a given
chance of decay during each brief period of time. That then scales as a
chance of survival according to the above rule, leading to the concepts of
'half life' and 'exponential decay' which are essentially consequences of
the chance of each atom surviving each brief time interval.

But as you pointed out, this is just the 'most likely' result in terms of
how many of a population of such atoms will survive. Actual number may well
be different to an unpredictable extent.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:24:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

"In the UK, where radon levels are lower than in many European
countries, radon in ordinary homes causes about 1,000 deaths each year,
which is about 1% of all cancer deaths."

Compare and contrast with the nuclear industry.

Which would be shut down immediately if it could be shown to cause even
10 deaths a year. Probably even ONE death a year.

Agreed, lets get a sense of perspective.

Deaths due to road "accidents" run about 10 per *day*.

I don't see people banning road based transport anytime soon.

The key is partly public perception, and partly 'need to have'

Cf the great mercury debate of CFL's, the ease with which CFC's were
banned (alternatives existed) and the difficulty in banning carbon fuels
(no sensible alternatives currently exist).

It didn't MATTER that peoples perception of nuclear power were grossly
distorted, and that the safety standards were orders of magnitude higher
than any other industry, as long as alternatives existed.


Now its increasingly clear that no cost effective scalable alternatives
really do exist, its a matter the needs urgent public education.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 06:05:48 +0000, Bambleweeny57 wrote:

But have the Chinese got any relatives that have gone on to build any
inertial mass nuclear reactors !?! No... just goes to prove my point!

The do have commercial nuclear reactors though, which they build in pairs.

http://www.eia.doe.GOV/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/china/reactors.html

And they have a Lunar Exploration Program

http://en.wikipedia.ORG/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program

which proves that they can do the mathematics to plot a course to
get there.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:35:50 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

More likely to be eaten by some other wild creature of a species that we
don't hate, like feral cats ...

Presumably, therefore, the cat that you killed was a domestic cat.

or octopusses

I did not know that there was a species native to the ditches of
North Yorkshire? Do they lie in wait for passing strangers late
at night, then extend their tentacles, and drag them down into
the ditch and strangle them?

[Seems like a potential plot for a B grade horror movie here.]

or eagles

Eagles would be feasting on the animals eating the remains of the pear.

Did you see the dustbin lorry tipped over on the A19 tonight?

Fraid not.

Was the story reported on both Look North Newcastle and Look North Leeds?

And was the incident greeted with glee by the locals, since "where there's
muck, there's brass"?

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:59:52 +0000, J G Miller wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 06:05:48 +0000, Bambleweeny57 wrote:

But have the Chinese got any relatives that have gone on to build any
inertial mass nuclear reactors !?! No... just goes to prove my point!

The do have commercial nuclear reactors though, which they build in
pairs.

http://www.eia.doe.GOV/cneaf/nuclear...eactors/china/
reactors.html

But if you read the article carefully they were built by acquaintances
not relatives so Einstein does not apply.


BW

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:44:02 +0000, Bambleweeny57 wrote:

But if you read the article carefully they were built by acquaintances
not relatives so Einstein does not apply.

But if you read the article carefully

Qinshan 1 -- although there is substantial foreign participation in China's
nuclear program, the first Chinese reactor was designed, built, and
maintained by China.

Also, the other reactors which were built with foreign participation,
would the actual construction work (the bricks, mortar, and concrete)
and the assembly as well, have been done by Chinese workers or teams
of imported foreign laborers?

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:51:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

I think most others would join with myself in going with the experts
in the WNA ...

"World Nuclear Association - Representing the people and organizations
of the global nuclear profession":

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf52.html

"The devastating effects of both kinds of bombs depended essentially
upon the energy released at the moment of the explosion, causing
immediate fires, destructive blast pressures, and extreme local
radiation exposures. Since the bombs were detonated at a height of
some 600 metres above the ground, very little of the fission products
were deposited on the ground beneath. Some deposition occurred however
in areas near to each city, owing to local rainfall occurring soon
after the explosions. This happened at positions a few kilometres to
the east of Nagasaki, and in areas to the west and north-west of
Hiroshima. For the most part, however, these fission products were
carried high into the upper atmosphere by the heat generated in the
explosion itself. The majority would have decayed by the time they
landed around the globe."

So, not really the same physical behaviour as a reactor fire at ground
level then.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/de...ation+spre ad

"The intense graphite fire was responsible for the dispersion of
radionuclides and fission fragments high into the atmosphere. The
emissions continued for about twenty days, but were much lower after
the tenth day when the graphite fire was finally extinguished."

....

"Thereafter, over nine days:

Some 8 of the 140 tonnes of fuel, which contained plutonium and other
highly radioactive materials (fission products), were ejected from the
reactor along with a portion of the graphite moderator, which was also
radioactive. These materials were scattered around the site. In
addition, caesium and iodine vapours were released both by the
explosion and during the subsequent fire."

TNP:

No, far worse spread

No, Chernobyl burned for 20 days and ejected 8t from ground level, the
bombs were to all intents and purposes instantaneous and were made
respectively from 60 & 8kg of material, and exploded at an altitude of
600m.

Look at the ten yerars after report.

That report is over 10 years out of date. The report I linked is
based on work 2003-2005.

That last sentence doesn't exactly lend confidence though, does it?

It should. No local population lives were ever at risk.

While there have been various studies reported under the headlines
such as "No effect ... ", the first two I happened to look at actually
did have significant caveats in the small print ...

"No Apparent Increase In Cancer Deaths Among Three Mile Island
Residents, Report University Of Pittsburgh Researchers"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0531071558.htm

"Likewise, elevations in mortality from cancers of the bronchus,
trachea and lung were observed in women, as well as an increase in
lymphatic and hematopoietic tissue cancers in men, even after
controlling for background radiation exposure, education and smoking.

However, neither showed a significant dose-response trend.

Investigators noted an increasing pattern of relative risk for breast
cancer in relation to increasing levels of likely exposure to gamma
radiation, suggesting a possible link between dose of radiation and
increased risk. However, they concluded that overall there was no
significant relationship between likely exposure to gamma radiation
and breast cancer mortality."

"Three-Mile Island cancer rates probed"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2385551.stm

"However, while this is overall good news for people who may have been
exposed to low levels of radioactive contamination, other analysis has
spotted an upwards trend in breast cancer related to exposure on the
day of the accident itself."

So while it would be untrue to say that definitely someone has died
from the incident, it would be equally untrue to say that definitely
noone has died from it. Thus your statement "No local population
lives were ever at risk." is simply untrue.

Generally, I think your confidence is misplaced and overly optimistic,
almost arrogant (I don't mean that to be taken personally). The
reasons you give for it are inadequate to convince me, and, I suspect,
would be so for a significant proportion of the population.

However, as we are clearly not going to convince each other, and I am
happy with the case I have made, I suggest we sign off here.

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

Next time anyone complains about my habit of throwing apple cores
out of the van window into the ditch I will be able to claim green
immunity from the litter laws.

Has anyone actually complained about that?

Yes, I was parked near the water tower that supports the York TV Tx, on the
outskirts of that city. The pear core went right into the ditch.

Ah, but now you're comparing apples and oranges. Err pears.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

If the Chinese did increase their energy use by 275% they would still
be using less than us.

Rubbish. In terms of CO2 production, which is what we care about in this
thread, Britain CO2-per-head is only about 1.55 times that of China.

So, increasing their energy use by only 100% per head would put them well
ahead of us, never mind 275%.

http://www.solcomhouse.com/toptenco2.htm

SteveT

According to Mackay's book, UK's pc emissions are more than double
China's:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w.../page_13.shtml

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:02:22 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

In terms of CO2 production, which is what we care about in this
thread, Britain CO2-per-head is only about 1.55 times that of China.

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
charles wrote:

an interesting concept. When BBC RD were experimenting with video delay
lines in the late '60s, the prototype was an open mercury bath - with a
moveable dam at one end to alter the path length. I don't know of anyone
there who suffered ill effects. I'm certainly still alive - 40 years
later.

The thing is, no one really has the data.

We know that long term mercury exposure at level X does things that
don't happen when there is no mercury exposure.

Short of subjecting people to low dosage and seeing if e.g. their hair
falls out, no one knows what happens in between.

snip

Actually we have pretty good data on mercury exposure. Neurological
damage appears pretty high up the list.

"Twinkle Twinkle little bat, how I wonder what you're at".

Andy

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:23:48 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Actually, lending to people who can't pay back is not as financially
daft as it sounds - AS LONG AS you are fairly certain that the price of
what they're borrowing to buy (in this case property) is going to
continue to rise, or at least not fall. Because: when they default, you
get what they _have_ managed to pay, plus the property back to sell.
Cruel and cynical, but lending to those who can't pay is not of itself
financially unsound: it's only lending on something that suddenly
_falls_ in value that is.

Or as happened in the sub-prime mortgage market in the US lending
more than the asset was ever going to be worth. That was the root
cause of the problem and the house of cards has collapsed when these,
effectively unsecured, loans became bad what 2, 3 years ago.

More than it was ever going to be worth - in how long?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

PRIME DIRECTIVE, MY A**! Phasers on maximum!

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:27:49 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Or as happened in the sub-prime mortgage market in the US lending
more than the asset was ever going to be worth. That was the root
cause of the problem and the house of cards has collapsed when
these,
effectively unsecured, loans became bad what 2, 3 years ago.

More than it was ever going to be worth - in how long?

The time period isn't particularly relevant, the fact the loan is for
more than the asset value is bad and nothing more than a gamble. You
can't know if some one is going to default in 1 month, 1 year, 10
years or never.

And remember this was the sub-prime market, loaning money to people
who didn't have much income and/or poor credit histories. A much
higher risk of default from the outset.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:35:50 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

More likely to be eaten by some other wild creature of a species that we
don't hate, like feral cats ...

Presumably, therefore, the cat that you killed was a domestic cat.
Yes it was. We have a long tradition of killing cats. Hence my dad's
expression, 'There's more ways to kill a cat than choking it with lard."


or octopusses

I did not know that there was a species native to the ditches of
North Yorkshire? Do they lie in wait for passing strangers late
at night, then extend their tentacles, and drag them down into
the ditch and strangle them?
Yes they do. This is why so many people who are walking home from the pub or
a party end up in the ditch, with sucker marks all over their face.

Bill

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:54:25 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:


Yes they do. This is why so many people who are walking home from the pub or
a party end up in the ditch, with sucker marks all over their face.


And I blamed the barmaid.

Derek

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:54:25 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

This is why so many people who are walking home from the pub or a party end
up in the ditch, with sucker marks all over their face.

This story has got definite potential as a movie.

What is needed is a hero who will go out and fight to the death with the
mother of all North Yorkshire ditch octopuses in the final climactic scene.

The question is though, what caused the octopuses to mutate?

Was it the radiation from the US listening base or the leak from a nearby
nuclear power station?

"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:54:25 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

This is why so many people who are walking home from the pub or a party
end
up in the ditch, with sucker marks all over their face.

This story has got definite potential as a movie.

What is needed is a hero who will go out and fight to the death with the
mother of all North Yorkshire ditch octopuses in the final climactic
scene.

The question is though, what caused the octopuses to mutate?

Was it the radiation from the US listening base or the leak from a nearby
nuclear power station?

It was the waste from York Brewery.

Bill

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w.../page_13.shtml

Isn't that interesting! Two authoritative sources, which differ. No wonder
it's so bloody difficult to have a fully informed discussion around these
important issues.

SteveT

Bill Wright wrote:

It was the waste from York Brewery.


"Established in 1996 within the city walls, York Brewery is both a
working brewery and a tourist attraction".

That can't be it, they've been around much longer than that!

Andy

In message , Paul
Murray writes:
On 2009-09-22, Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:20:53 +0000, Paul Murray wrote:
One often-misinterpreted aspect of the energy-mass unification is that a
system's mass increases as the system approaches the speed of light.
This is not correct.
How does this fit with the relationship

m = m0 / sqrt [ 1 - (v/c)^2 ]

To an outside observer, the mass increases. To the object, in its own
frame of reference, there is no change in mass. In fact, from its point
of view the outside observer has gained mass.

Which makes sense to anyone who has ever attended a school reunion.
Everybody except you always looks much fatter.

But many of them seem just as dense as they always did ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

In message , "dennis@home"
writes:
[]
ROI is not critical if its to fight GW.
What is critical is that it saves CO2.
Wind power saves little, if any, CO2 over its expected life.
There is no issue with wind power, it just doesn't do what is required
as a solution to GW.

By CO2, you can only - in this context - mean energy.

Are you seriously saying that a windmill generates less energy in its
working life than is used in total to create, maintain, and (arguably)
decommission it?

If so (and it is possible), then the fact needs wider circulation.
(Though I'd want to see pretty foolproof proof.)

It also makes me wonder why people are building them; OK, subsidies and
so on, but it suggests there would never be sufficient ROI - and
business just doesn't work like that.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

In message , Paul
Martin writes:
In article ,
Steve Thackery wrote:

TNP, I'd like to read more about this. Do you have any sources that explain
more about why wind power is expensive in terms of money and CO2?

Wind power is intermittent. You can't call on it when demand needs it.

I continue to fail to see why that keeps being presented as a reason not
to use it when it _is_ there. Yes, you need 100% (or almost 100%)
alternative capacity for when the wind isn't blowing, so anyone who
_relies_ on wind is just plain daft; however, it seems just as daft to
run the alternatives at 100% all the time when the wind _is_ blowing.
(And if you're going to say you were never suggesting that, I'd come
back by saying that the majority of wind advocates never suggested it as
a sole source, either.)

Wind provides power only when the wind blows, and when the wind is too
strong the windmill has to protect itself, which involves turning the
vanes to reduce the cross-sectional area facing the wind (ie. little or
no power extracted).

The energy required to turn the vanes is sufficiently small as not to
enter into the matter. If you were just saying that there are wind
speeds above which they don't work, then fine - that is obvious, and is
the same as saying it sometimes isn't windy. (Though some new
vertical-axis designs - someone posted a link a bit earlier in this
branch of the thread - do work over a wider range [lower _and_ higher]
than the traditional style, apparently.) Still not a reason to never
build a windmill, though.

The coldest periods of UK winter weather tend to be when we have a
static high pressure system, with little wind.

We do indeed have cold, crisp, windless winter days. We also have windy
ones.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

In message , J G Miller
writes:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:43:33 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Uranium for instance can be safely kept in a cardboard box under the bed.

And breathing in the radon gas is not a hazard?

You also forget that aside from the radioactive hazards of uranium,
it is a toxic metal.

Only in the same way lead is - i. e. if you eat it. I don't think many
people will be doing so. (For a start, it's a lot harder than lead.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

In message , Richard Tobin
writes:
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:

Of course, in practice, many dangerous radioactive substances have
sufficiently long half-lives that they will continue to be a danger for
far longer than we can foresee the future.

So a very long half life can be a sign of *less* 'danger'. The situation
isn't as simple as the above assertion.

I didn't say all substances with long half lives are dangerous.
I said there are many dangerous substances with long half lives.

Thus there is an inherent problem with those who worry about radiation
describing *both* long half lives *and* high levels of activity as
'dangerous' without understanding the distinctions.

I'm sure there is, but I'm not one of them.

-- Richard

You are, to some extent, by saying that there are dangerous substances
with long half lives: if they have long half lives, they are a lot less
dangerous. True, they are still somewhat dangerous, but their range, for
want of a better word, is less - they don't need to be isolated as much.

(Remember, of course, that all elements are radioactive, and have a half
life. It's just that most have such long half lives that we don't
normally _consider_ them radioactive.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

In message , Derek Geldard
writes:
[]
I'd also like CFL manufacturers to be required
to specify the illumination in lumens.


Hear hear - though make that for all light sources, i. e. filament bulbs
too.

The figures for standard wattage GLS lamps are readily available.
CFL's not (they are all different).

They may be readily available, but they should be on the box. In at
least as big a font as any other number.
[]
(Another option would be to make a combined bulb, which turned on a
filament initially, backing it off as the CF [what's the L for?] one
comes up, either via a light sensor, or just a timer.)

That makes as much sense as a combined refrigerator / lawn mower.

Eh? One of the main complaints about CFLs is that they take ages to come
up to full brightness. My "hybrid" one (now there's a word! It seems to
have worked for cars ...) would counter this: when turned on, the light
would be mostly from the filament, but as the minute or two goes by, it
would be backed off and the tube come up. Thus keeping everybody happy.
OK, it would cost more - but compared to the complexity they've already
got into CFLs, which they seem to have been able to knock out for a few
pence ... (though having said that, have you noticed that now the
filament bulbs are disappearing, the CFL prices seem to be back up again
- certainly the "lots for a quid" offers have completely disappeared
....)

(Finally - for now! - why _do_ they come up so slowly, when ye olde
fluorescent striplights, apart from while they're actually striking,
come on with more or less full brightness from the start?)

The green ****pots have reduced the Mercury content to what is *the*
*bare* *minimum* light output does not reach normal levels 'till all
the mercury has evaporated in the bulb.

Derek

Ah, thanks for that. Though they don't seem yet to have attacked
ordinary striplights, which you can still get. (And IMO give a _much_
better light anyway.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

In message , Zero Tolerance
writes:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:54:00 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

All the bulbs, any type, that I've looked at on the shelves recently
have the lumens output on the packaging or the bulb itself. It's
never in the marketing hype labeling but tucked away somewhere in
small type. Sometimes on one of the flaps on the bottom of the box.

Yup. Just picked up two and the info is right there on the top of the
box.

Osram 15w (75w equiv) - 900 lumens
Philips 20w (100w equiv) - 1200 lumens

Bloggs 60W (60W equivalent - i. e. a filament bulb) - ? lumens?

And it should be the biggest figure on the side of the box. The sooner
we get people thinking about a 1000 lumen bulb, rather than a 100 watt
one, the better, but I don't see it happening soon, since we've been
used to thinking about the latter for some time (and the media, in
particular, are always slow to adopt such changes - compare for example
how they report hot weather).

Now, yes, doubtless someone will come along and start screaming that
1200 lumens is not "equivalent" to a 100 watt bulb at all, and that
it's all a brainwashing conspiracy by "The Greenies". That aside, if
it means I use a "60w equivalent" CFL instead of a 40 watt bulb,
that's fine. The CFL still lasts longer, uses one quarter of the
electricity of the bulb, and doesn't waste my money heating the
spiders on my ceiling.

I still want to have the option of buying a 2000 lumen one - 30W maybe?
- but again, I don't expect to be offered this option. (In standard
fitting, in standard shops.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

In message , John
Rumm writes:
Steve Thackery wrote:
"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
news
The whole kit and caboodle of recent house wiring, Ring Main, 13A
mains sockets, 13A fused mains plugs, and appliance leads was
introduced to save copper during the early shortages after the war.

So they say.

That was true. The design has evolved since however. As luck would have
it, it turns out that ring circuits are very well suited to modern
usage patterns.

Would you care to elaborate on that? (Not disagreeing: just curious.)
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes:
[]
The switch originates from DC supplies which were used in some areas
(long before 13A outlets) where you have to switch off before unplugging,
as unplugging alone won't stop DC current flow (you just draw a long arc
out of the socket). However, switches on socket outlets had become the

That is interesting background; thanks. (Real fault currents will
sustain an arc in a. c., too - I used to work in the switchgear industry
- but that's arcs in the kiloamps range, where there's enough residual
plasma for it to re-establish after the zero. And fault currents tend to
be inductive, too.)

expected norm. Even though no longer a regulatory requirement, absence
of them was seen as being "cheap", so they are retained solely by
consumer demand.

I just knew it (-:!

(Other designs of plug don't lie in wait for your bare feet either ...)

No, they just break instead, which you discover when you are in the
middle of plugging them in next time and suddenly have a hand full of
live metalwork. ;-) 13A plugs should normally survive being stepped
on.

I will say that throughout my time in Germany, I never had one fail in
the way you describe, though I'm sure it could happen. (Mind you, the
BS1363 can have just its live half plugged in, i. e. with the back off,
which I don't think any of the others can!) But it wasn't the survival
of the _plug_ I was talking about - it was my b* foot! You've obviously
never stepped on one lying in wait!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , J G Miller
writes:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:43:33 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Uranium for instance can be safely kept in a cardboard box under the
bed.

And breathing in the radon gas is not a hazard?

You also forget that aside from the radioactive hazards of uranium,
it is a toxic metal.

Only in the same way lead is - i. e. if you eat it. I don't think many
people will be doing so. (For a start, it's a lot harder than lead.)

You could suck it ont' gums.

Gums

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Derek Geldard
writes:
[]
I'd also like CFL manufacturers to be required
to specify the illumination in lumens.


Hear hear - though make that for all light sources, i. e. filament bulbs
too.

The figures for standard wattage GLS lamps are readily available.
CFL's not (they are all different).

They may be readily available, but they should be on the box. In at
least as big a font as any other number.
[]
(Another option would be to make a combined bulb, which turned on a
filament initially, backing it off as the CF [what's the L for?] one
comes up, either via a light sensor, or just a timer.)

That makes as much sense as a combined refrigerator / lawn mower.

Eh? One of the main complaints about CFLs is that they take ages to come
up to full brightness. My "hybrid" one (now there's a word! It seems to
have worked for cars ...) would counter this: when turned on, the light
would be mostly from the filament, but as the minute or two goes by, it
would be backed off and the tube come up. Thus keeping everybody happy.
OK, it would cost more - but compared to the complexity they've already
got into CFLs, which they seem to have been able to knock out for a few
pence ... (though having said that, have you noticed that now the
filament bulbs are disappearing, the CFL prices seem to be back up again
- certainly the "lots for a quid" offers have completely disappeared ...)

Indeed. I think organic LEDS will eventually wipe out all the other
types, with stock LEDS for spot brightness, but we are a decade away
from that.

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:27:49 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Or as happened in the sub-prime mortgage market in the US lending
more than the asset was ever going to be worth. That was the root
cause of the problem and the house of cards has collapsed when
these,
effectively unsecured, loans became bad what 2, 3 years ago.

More than it was ever going to be worth - in how long?

The time period isn't particularly relevant, the fact the loan is for
more than the asset value is bad and nothing more than a gamble. You
can't know if some one is going to default in 1 month, 1 year, 10
years or never.

And remember this was the sub-prime market, loaning money to people
who didn't have much income and/or poor credit histories. A much
higher risk of default from the outset.

The time period _is_ relevant: if the lender thinks the value of the
asset will have increased by enough to cover the admin. costs (less what
the poor schmuck has actually managed to pay) by the time they sell the
repossessed asset, then they think they were covered. So lending more
than it's worth _now_ isn't as mad as it sounds - _if_ you think it's on
a steady upward rise in value.

Not that I condone such activity! IMO, falling property prices are, of
themselves, a good thing, even though I own one and would thus lose
(out) [but then I favoured the poll tax as fairer, though I'd have been
far worse off under it]; it's just the effect on the general economy
that makes them (falling property prices) less desirable. And that's
(endlessly) debatable, too.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

In article ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

(Remember, of course, that all elements are radioactive, and have a half
life. It's just that most have such long half lives that we don't
normally _consider_ them radioactive.)

Really? Do you have a reference for that?

That is, for there being no completely stable isotopes?

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

In message , Richard Tobin
writes:
In article ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

(Remember, of course, that all elements are radioactive, and have a half
life. It's just that most have such long half lives that we don't
normally _consider_ them radioactive.)

Really? Do you have a reference for that?

That is, for there being no completely stable isotopes?

-- Richard

Hmm, I thought I had, but on further investigation, it seems I'm
probably wrong - though I would argue that "stable" is not the same as
"has never been seen to decay".

A couple of interesting sites - where I find iron has either 8 or 28
isotopes, 4 declared "stable" and the 4 having half-lives ranging from
8.2h to 3x10^5 yrs - a

http://www.periodictable.com/
(http://www.periodictable.com/Elements/026/data.html)

and

http://www.rsc.org/chemsoc/visualele...rtable_fla.htm
(http://www.rsc.org/chemsoc/visualele...iron_data.html)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno