http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/494793.html

We ain't seen nuthin' yet?

Russian sniffing round UK nuclear programme
Rosatom the Russian state backed outfit displays interest in UK
future reactor programme.
So the people that ran Chernobyl want to build a reactor in the UKs
most likely Tsunami zone. (Severn Estuary)

When Chernobyl exlpoded, 400 times more radioactivity than the
Hiroshima bmb was released into the atmosphere.
Nearly a million people have died soon due to cancer according to
some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...he_Environment

harry wrote:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/494793.html
We ain't seen nuthin' yet?

Great, Harry is turning to the same 'news sources' as Dugh.

On 13/04/2012 08:15, harry wrote:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/494793.html

indymedia is a collection of nutters who cannot get published by any
reputable organisation.

We ain't seen nuthin' yet?

Russian sniffing round UK nuclear programme
Rosatom the Russian state backed outfit displays interest in UK
future reactor programme.
So the people that ran Chernobyl want to build a reactor in the UKs
most likely Tsunami zone. (Severn Estuary)

Even when it was built, the RBMK reactor was known to be a poor design
with serious safety flaws, particularly being the only design built
without a containment vessel. Three Mile Island was essentially the same
type of accident and the containment vessel there prevented anyone
getting more than a minimal exposure to radiation. Neither design, or
indeed Fukushima, has much in common with the generation III reactors
that Britain would be building today.

When Chernobyl exlpoded, 400 times more radioactivity than the
Hiroshima bmb was released into the atmosphere.

However, the victims of Hiroshima received high radiation doses in a
very short time, while exposure to radiation from Chernobyl has, for the
most part, been long term exposure to low doses. The effects of that are
much less well understood, but evidence from areas where people live
with very high natural background radiation (up to 250mSv p.a.) suggests
that the linear no-threshold (LNT) model, which is used in all
predictions about the effects radiation exposure, is significantly over
pessimistic when dealing with long term exposure to low levels of radiation.


Nearly a million people have died soon due to cancer according to
some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...he_Environment

Wikipedia is only slightly better than indymedia as a source, as it
relies upon collective opinion, rather than provable fact. ISTR a
well-known personality who tried to correct their own date of birth
several times, before giving up, as so many other people 'knew' better
and kept changing it back to the wrong date.

According to the World Health Organisation:

'The Expert Group concluded that there may be up to 4,000 additional
cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime
(240,000 liquidators; 116,000 evacuees and the 270,000 residents of the
SCZs). Since more than 120,000 people in these three groups may
eventually die of cancer, the additional cancer deaths from radiation
exposure correspond to 3-4% above the normal incidence of cancers from
all causes.'

Note: This prediction is based upon the LNT model, so may be over
pessimistic.

The actual number of deaths that can definitely be attributed to
radiation is, however, very much lower:

'According to UNSCEAR (2000), 134 liquidators received radiation doses
high enough to be diagnosed with acute radiation sickness (ARS). Among
them, 28 persons died in 1986 due to ARS. Other liquidators have since
died but their deaths could not necessarily be attributed to radiation
exposure.'

Colin Bignell

On 13/04/2012 09:42, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/04/2012 08:15, harry wrote:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/494793.html

indymedia is a collection of nutters who cannot get published by any
reputable organisation.

[...]

Nearly a million people have died soon due to cancer according to
some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...he_Environment


Wikipedia is only slightly better than indymedia as a source, as it
relies upon collective opinion, rather than provable fact. ISTR a
well-known personality who tried to correct their own date of birth
several times, before giving up, as so many other people 'knew' better
and kept changing it back to the wrong date.

According to the World Health Organisation:

[...]

Well, leaving on one side the trolls and malign sociopaths that infest
"the internet", I appreciate your efforts to correct some of the myths
and misinformation that are propagated nowadays masquerading as "facts".
Thank you.

--
Dave N

On Friday, April 13, 2012 9:42:23 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/04/2012 08:15, harry wrote:
snip

Nearly a million people have died soon due to cancer according to
some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...he_Environment

Wikipedia is only slightly better than indymedia as a source, as it
relies upon collective opinion, rather than provable fact. ISTR a
well-known personality who tried to correct their own date of birth
several times, before giving up, as so many other people 'knew' better
and kept changing it back to the wrong date.

In fact it looks as if harry is shooting himself in the foot with this one - reading the wikipedia article I get the impression that the book it describes (which is the one where the statistic comes from) has been positively reviewed by those with an anti-nuclear axe to grind, and highly critically by everyone else...
For example, the quote from one reviewer "The value of this review is not zero, but negative, as its bias is obvious only to specialists, while inexperienced readers may well be put into deep error. ... Yablokov's assessment for the mortality from Chernobyl fallout of about one million ... puts this book in a range of rather science fiction than science"

harry wrote:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/494793.html

We ain't seen nuthin' yet?

Russian sniffing round UK nuclear programme
Rosatom the Russian state backed outfit displays interest in UK
future reactor programme.
So the people that ran Chernobyl want to build a reactor in the UKs
most likely Tsunami zone. (Severn Estuary)

When Chernobyl exlpoded, 400 times more radioactivity than the
Hiroshima bmb was released into the atmosphere.
Nearly a million people have died soon due to cancer according to
some.

Golly. a million people died and no one noticed!

Russians must be a million times clevere at cobering up thn building
reactors then.

I think the final internationally accepted death toll was 75 people.
From reputable international monitors who have no axe to grind.

When did you first start being abducted by aliens, harry?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...he_Environment


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Nightjar wrote:

According to the World Health Organisation:

'The Expert Group concluded that there may be up to 4,000 additional
cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime
(240,000 liquidators; 116,000 evacuees and the 270,000 residents of the
SCZs). Since more than 120,000 people in these three groups may
eventually die of cancer, the additional cancer deaths from radiation
exposure correspond to 3-4% above the normal incidence of cancers from
all causes.'

Note: This prediction is based upon the LNT model, so may be over
pessimistic.


which the latest evidence shows is completely wrong as a model
describing the real effects of radiations by about 1000 so the final
excess cancer deaths may be 3 or 4.


what IS a fact is that several thousand people did get thyroid cancer
from that town because the ****ing russkies never gave them iodine
pills. But they are all alive and well and taking thyroxin after
thyroidectomies.



The actual number of deaths that can definitely be attributed to
radiation is, however, very much lower:

'According to UNSCEAR (2000), 134 liquidators received radiation doses
high enough to be diagnosed with acute radiation sickness (ARS). Among
them, 28 persons died in 1986 due to ARS. Other liquidators have since
died but their deaths could not necessarily be attributed to radiation
exposure.'


There is some evidence that radiation threpay for cancers leads to a
higher incidence of secondary cancers 15-20 years later. Radiation
therapy is short high intensity bursts rather then steady radiation.

You are more likley to get cancer from a CAT scan than from living in
the FUKU exclusions zone.

Ramsar has around 50 times average background radiation levels. The
people who live there have a slightly lower incidence of cancer than
world averages.

International Journal of Low Radiation 2006 - Vol. 2, No.1/2 pp. 20 - 27

"Abstract:

It has been reported that on reaching a certain level of cell damage the
production of repair enzymes is triggered which decreases the chromosome
aberrations. If this happens, prolonged exposure to high levels of
natural radiation in areas with elevated levels of background radiation
could decrease the frequency of chromosome aberrations. Recent
epidemiological studies indicated that there is an increased risk of
cancer in healthy individuals with high levels of chromosomal aberrations.

Studies performed in Nordic countries as well as Italy, showed that
increased levels of chromosome aberrations in lymphocytes can be used to
predict cancer risk in humans. One may conclude that a dose of ionising
radiation sufficient to produce a certain level of cell damage increases
production of antioxidants and repair enzymes that decrease either the
frequency of chromosome aberrations or the cancer risk.

People in some areas of Ramsar, a city in northern Iran, receive an
annual radiation dose from background radiation that is more than five
times higher than the 20 mSv. Yr-1 that is permitted for radiation
workers. Inhabitants of Ramsar have lived for many generations in these
high background areas.

If an annual radiation dose of a few hundred mSv is detrimental to
health, causing genetic abnormalities or an increased risk of cancer, it
should be evident in these people. The absorbed dose rate in some high
background radiation areas of Ramsar is approximately 55-200 times
higher than that of the average global dose rate. It has been reported
that 3€“8% of all cancers are caused by current levels of ionising
radiation.

If this estimation were true, *all the inhabitants of such an area with
extraordinary elevated levels of natural radiation would have died of
cancer*. Our cytogenetic studies show no significant differences between
people in the high background area compared to people in normal
background areas.

As there was no increased level of chromosome aberrations, it may be
predicted that the cancer incidence is not higher than in the
neighbouring areas with a normal background radiation level. Although
there is not yet solid epidemiological information, most local
physicians in Ramsar report anecdotally that there is no increase in the
incidence rates of cancer or leukemia in their area.

There are no data to indicate a significant increase of cancer incidence
in other high background radiation areas (HBRAs). Furthermore, several
studies show a significant decrease of cancer death rates in areas with
high backgrounds. It can be concluded that prolonged exposure to high
levels of natural radiation possibly triggers processes such as the
production of antioxidants and repair enzymes, which decreases the
frequency of chromosome aberrations and the cancer incidence rate."

Colin Bignell


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Apr 13, 12:20*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
According to the World Health Organisation:

'The Expert Group concluded that there may be up to 4,000 additional
cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime
(240,000 liquidators; 116,000 evacuees and the 270,000 residents of the
SCZs). Since more than 120,000 people in these three groups may
eventually die of cancer, the additional cancer deaths from radiation
exposure correspond to 3-4% above the normal incidence of cancers from
all causes.'

Note: This prediction is based upon the LNT model, so may be over
pessimistic.

which the latest evidence shows is completely wrong as a model
describing the real effects of radiations *by about 1000 so the final
excess cancer deaths may be 3 or 4.

what IS *a fact is that several thousand people did get thyroid cancer
from that town because the ****ing russkies never gave them iodine
pills. But they are all alive and well and taking thyroxin after
thyroidectomies.

The actual number of deaths that can definitely be attributed to
radiation is, however, very much lower:

'According to UNSCEAR (2000), 134 liquidators received radiation doses
high enough to be diagnosed with acute radiation sickness (ARS). Among
them, 28 persons died in 1986 due to ARS. Other liquidators have since
died but their deaths could not necessarily be attributed to radiation
exposure.'

There is some evidence that radiation threpay for cancers leads to a
higher incidence of secondary cancers 15-20 years later. *Radiation
therapy is short high intensity bursts rather then steady radiation.

You are more likley to get cancer from a CAT scan than from living in
the FUKU exclusions zone.

Ramsar has around 50 times average background radiation levels. The
people who live there have a slightly lower incidence of cancer than
world averages.

International Journal of Low Radiation 2006 - Vol. 2, No.1/2 *pp. 20 - 27

"Abstract:

It has been reported that on reaching a certain level of cell damage the
production of repair enzymes is triggered which decreases the chromosome
aberrations. If this happens, prolonged exposure to high levels of
natural radiation in areas with elevated levels of background radiation
could decrease the frequency of chromosome aberrations. Recent
epidemiological studies indicated that there is an increased risk of
cancer in healthy individuals with high levels of chromosomal aberrations..

Studies performed in Nordic countries as well as Italy, showed that
increased levels of chromosome aberrations in lymphocytes can be used to
predict cancer risk in humans. One may conclude that a dose of ionising
radiation sufficient to produce a certain level of cell damage increases
production of antioxidants and repair enzymes that decrease either the
frequency of chromosome aberrations or the cancer risk.

People in some areas of Ramsar, a city in northern Iran, receive an
annual radiation dose from background radiation that is more than five
times higher than the 20 mSv. Yr-1 that is permitted for radiation
workers. Inhabitants of Ramsar have lived for many generations in these
high background areas.

If an annual radiation dose of a few hundred mSv is detrimental to
health, causing genetic abnormalities or an increased risk of cancer, it
should be evident in these people. The absorbed dose rate in some high
background radiation areas of Ramsar is approximately 55-200 times
higher than that of the average global dose rate. It has been reported
that 3–8% of all cancers are caused by current levels of ionising
radiation.

If this estimation were true, *all the inhabitants of such an area with
extraordinary elevated levels of natural radiation would have died of
cancer*. Our cytogenetic studies show no significant differences between
people in the high background area compared to people in normal
background areas.

* As there was no increased level of chromosome aberrations, it may be
predicted that the cancer incidence is not higher than in the
neighbouring areas with a normal background radiation level. Although
there is not yet solid epidemiological information, most local
physicians in Ramsar report anecdotally that there is no increase in the
incidence rates of cancer or leukemia in their area.

There are no data to indicate a significant increase of cancer incidence
in other high background radiation areas (HBRAs). Furthermore, several
studies show a significant decrease of cancer death rates in areas with
high backgrounds. It can be concluded that prolonged exposure to high
levels of natural radiation possibly triggers processes such as the
production of antioxidants and repair enzymes, which decreases the
frequency of chromosome aberrations and the cancer incidence rate."

Colin Bignell

I once saw 2 maps of the US, one of background radiation levels, and
one of cancer incidence. The correlation was very strong, but it was
the exact opposite of what LNT suggests, ie the higher background
areas had the lowest cancer rates. Unfortunately I can't remember the
source of the maps.


NT

On 13/04/2012 08:15, harry wrote:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/494793.html

Since when did "truth" and "media" belong in the same post?

I once saw 2 maps of the US, one of background radiation levels, and
one of cancer incidence. The correlation was very strong, but it was
the exact opposite of what LNT suggests, ie the higher background
areas had the lowest cancer rates. Unfortunately I can't remember the
source of the maps.


NT

Confirmed, but can't provide a link. The cancer deaths also correlate
pretty well with population density, suggesting it could well be urban
pollution.

We of course are completely blameless. What about that fire in the fifties
that sent radioactive smoke all over the place, or leaks from winscale so
big they had to rename it. Now we have loads of mothballed end of life
reactors all waiting forsome way to decommission them.
The Russians now design better reactor buildings. One of the main problems.
However trying to make old plant carry on for too long is a recipe for
disaster.
The French have a a heck of a lot of reactors soon to come to supposed end
of life, I wonder what they will do?

I actually think we need Nuclear as a bridge between fosil and other fuels.
However someone needs to sit down and think about end of life when they
make them in the first place.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/494793.html

We ain't seen nuthin' yet?

Russian sniffing round UK nuclear programme
Rosatom the Russian state backed outfit displays interest in UK
future reactor programme.
So the people that ran Chernobyl want to build a reactor in the UKs
most likely Tsunami zone. (Severn Estuary)

When Chernobyl exlpoded, 400 times more radioactivity than the
Hiroshima bmb was released into the atmosphere.
Nearly a million people have died soon due to cancer according to
some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...he_Environment

On 13/04/2012 09:42, Nightjar wrote:

Even when it was built, the RBMK reactor was known to be a poor design
with serious safety flaws, particularly being the only design built
without a containment vessel. Three Mile Island was essentially the same
type of accident and the containment vessel there prevented anyone
getting more than a minimal exposure to radiation.

Not quite fair. In PWRs, the primary circuit pressure relief valve on
top of the pressuriser is expected to lift routinely under various
conditions, and the "containment" is then the last barrier.

The point about the RBMK was that it was scalable, and could be
assembled on site with only "shipbuilding" type welding, the pressure
tubes being factory-built. When you've got Ukranian weather and your
standard of living is constrained by energy supply it didn't seem such a
bad compromise. The people who designed it knew exactly where the
operational limits were, they just made the mistake of assuming that
people in a Socialist Republic, where they were not under pressure from
the profit motive, would never do something silly.

It would never have got licensed for the UK of course, indeed it was
reviewed and rejected in the mid 70's (in one of our many "nuclear
reviews").

newshound wrote:


I once saw 2 maps of the US, one of background radiation levels, and
one of cancer incidence. The correlation was very strong, but it was
the exact opposite of what LNT suggests, ie the higher background
areas had the lowest cancer rates. Unfortunately I can't remember the
source of the maps.


NT

Confirmed, but can't provide a link. The cancer deaths also correlate
pretty well with population density, suggesting it could well be urban
pollution.

There have also been studies that suggest the apparent cancer clusters
round nuclear and oil installations are due to the number of incomers,
which could also apply in cities, though no mechanism for the
correlation was suggested. It may, of course, just be better reporting
as people are checked by doctors when they move into an area.

Low rates in areas of high natural radioactivity could be linked to a
lack of population movement, as most of them (in the UK, at least) are
pretty isolated with stable populations.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Apr 13, 2:23*pm, newshound wrote:
Confirmed, but can't provide a link. The cancer deaths also correlate
pretty well with population density, suggesting it could well be urban
pollution.

Whilst a relative worked with the EPA in the USA on cat converter, it
was well known that particulates were a major carrier of carcinogens,
dust a key carrier for viruses (many in turn triggering cancers) and
effect of radioactivity on the body was extremely non-linear. People
at NASA at the time simply pointed out that radioactivity had been
substantially higher in the past, and life seems to have made it
pretty well to this point in time. There is even research that
indicates elevated background radiation might actually prime the
immune system against cancers, however environmental pollution does
not have the same effect.

With USA having MTBE in fuel, Benzene in fracking, the actual
"environment" is changing - so as always correlation may not
necessarily be causation.

The USA motor industry did oppose particulate scrubbers being fitted
to cars, a push for that was probably lead (making fuel lead free had
lower per vehicle cost). I think the EPA does indicate pollution
within a home can be significantly higher than outside, HEPA filters
being useful. The problem is the cleaner you make somewhere, the lower
the low dosing of bugs which can itself be beneficial in priming the
immune system.

Impact of radioactivity is, without any doubt, non-linear.
Unfortunately regulations assume otherwise - perhaps useful when one
considers the ridiculous handling of blue & brown asbestos in the past.

On Apr 13, 10:52*am, Dave N wrote:
On 13/04/2012 09:42, Nightjar wrote:

On 13/04/2012 08:15, harry wrote:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/494793.html

indymedia is a collection of nutters who cannot get published by any
reputable organisation.

[...]

Nearly a million people have died soon due to cancer according to
some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob..._the_Catastrop....

Wikipedia is only slightly better than indymedia as a source, as it
relies upon collective opinion, rather than provable fact. ISTR a
well-known personality who tried to correct their own date of birth
several times, before giving up, as so many other people 'knew' better
and kept changing it back to the wrong date.

According to the World Health Organisation:

[...]

Well, leaving on one side the trolls and malign sociopaths that infest
"the internet", I appreciate your efforts to correct some of the myths
and misinformation that are propagated nowadays masquerading as "facts".
* Thank you.

--
Dave N

'S OK :-)

On Apr 13, 11:04*am, wrote:
On Friday, April 13, 2012 9:42:23 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/04/2012 08:15, harry wrote:
snip

Nearly a million people have died soon due to cancer according to
some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob..._the_Catastrop....

Wikipedia is only slightly better than indymedia as a source, as it
relies upon collective opinion, rather than provable fact. ISTR a
well-known personality who tried to correct their own date of birth
several times, before giving up, as so many other people 'knew' better
and kept changing it back to the wrong date.

In fact it looks as if harry is shooting himself in the foot with this one - reading the wikipedia article I get the impression that the book it describes (which is the one where the statistic comes from) has been positively reviewed by those with an anti-nuclear axe to grind, and highly critically by everyone else...
For example, the quote from one reviewer "The value of this review is not zero, but negative, as its bias is obvious only to specialists, while inexperienced readers may well be put into deep error. ... Yablokov's assessment for the mortality from Chernobyl fallout of about one million ... puts this book in a range of rather science fiction than science"

Ah. They would say that wouldn't they? Some one is lying.
But the Germans and the Japs have packed the idea in. Now they must
have a reason, it might cost them billions.

On 13/04/2012 18:53, harry wrote:
On Apr 13, 11:04 am, wrote:
On Friday, April 13, 2012 9:42:23 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/04/2012 08:15, harry wrote:
snip

Nearly a million people have died soon due to cancer according to
some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob..._the_Catastrop...

Wikipedia is only slightly better than indymedia as a source, as it
relies upon collective opinion, rather than provable fact. ISTR a
well-known personality who tried to correct their own date of birth
several times, before giving up, as so many other people 'knew' better
and kept changing it back to the wrong date.

In fact it looks as if harry is shooting himself in the foot with this one - reading the wikipedia article I get the impression that the book it describes (which is the one where the statistic comes from) has been positively reviewed by those with an anti-nuclear axe to grind, and highly critically by everyone else...
For example, the quote from one reviewer "The value of this review is not zero, but negative, as its bias is obvious only to specialists, while inexperienced readers may well be put into deep error. ... Yablokov's assessment for the mortality from Chernobyl fallout of about one million ... puts this book in a range of rather science fiction than science"

Ah. They would say that wouldn't they? Some one is lying.
But the Germans and the Japs have packed the idea in. Now they must
have a reason,

They do - unjustified fear.

Colin Bignell

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
We of course are completely blameless. What about that fire in the
fifties that sent radioactive smoke all over the place, or leaks from
winscale so big they had to rename it. Now we have loads of mothballed end
of life reactors all waiting forsome way to decommission them.
The Russians now design better reactor buildings. One of the main
problems. However trying to make old plant carry on for too long is a
recipe for disaster.
The French have a a heck of a lot of reactors soon to come to supposed end
of life, I wonder what they will do?

I actually think we need Nuclear as a bridge between fosil and other
fuels.

There are no other viable fuels.

However someone needs to sit down and think about end of life when they
make them in the first place.

Or just design them so its easy to fill them with concrete when
they are no longer useful and don't try to decommission them.


"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/494793.html

We ain't seen nuthin' yet?

Russian sniffing round UK nuclear programme
Rosatom the Russian state backed outfit displays interest in UK
future reactor programme.
So the people that ran Chernobyl want to build a reactor in the UKs
most likely Tsunami zone. (Severn Estuary)

When Chernobyl exlpoded, 400 times more radioactivity than the
Hiroshima bmb was released into the atmosphere.
Nearly a million people have died soon due to cancer according to
some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...he_Environment

newshound wrote:


I once saw 2 maps of the US, one of background radiation levels, and
one of cancer incidence. The correlation was very strong, but it was
the exact opposite of what LNT suggests, ie the higher background
areas had the lowest cancer rates. Unfortunately I can't remember the
source of the maps.


NT

Confirmed, but can't provide a link. The cancer deaths also correlate
pretty well with population density, suggesting it could well be urban
pollution.


or the number of McDonalds in a lifetime



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

harry wrote:
On Apr 13, 11:04 am, wrote:
On Friday, April 13, 2012 9:42:23 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/04/2012 08:15, harry wrote:
snip

Nearly a million people have died soon due to cancer according to
some.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob..._the_Catastrop...
Wikipedia is only slightly better than indymedia as a source, as it
relies upon collective opinion, rather than provable fact. ISTR a
well-known personality who tried to correct their own date of birth
several times, before giving up, as so many other people 'knew' better
and kept changing it back to the wrong date.
In fact it looks as if harry is shooting himself in the foot with this one - reading the wikipedia article I get the impression that the book it describes (which is the one where the statistic comes from) has been positively reviewed by those with an anti-nuclear axe to grind, and highly critically by everyone else...
For example, the quote from one reviewer "The value of this review is not zero, but negative, as its bias is obvious only to specialists, while inexperienced readers may well be put into deep error. ... Yablokov's assessment for the mortality from Chernobyl fallout of about one million ... puts this book in a range of rather science fiction than science"

Ah. They would say that wouldn't they? Some one is lying.
But the Germans and the Japs have packed the idea in.
Where did you get that idea?

Bot countries are still running reactors and Japan may well go back to
'nearly all nuclear'

Japan will be destroyed economically if it doesn't.

As a mind **** Fuku was big. As an actual danger to anyone it was almost
irrelevant.


Now they must
have a reason, it might cost them billions.

It will cost the billions which is why Germany is looking more stupid
than even you these days.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Friday, April 13, 2012 1:09:16 PM UTC+1, NT wrote:

I once saw 2 maps of the US, one of background radiation levels, and
one of cancer incidence. The correlation was very strong, but it was
the exact opposite of what LNT suggests, ie the higher background
areas had the lowest cancer rates. Unfortunately I can't remember the
source of the maps.

I have seen this too, and I can't find it either! I also once saw something regarding the spate of alien cattle mutilation cases in the southern states. Someone plotted the locations of alien abductions and cattle mutilations, and they formed a very neat triangle downwind of the areas used for nuclear bomb tests in the 50s. I can't bloody find that source, either!

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Apr 13, 11:04 am, wrote:
On Friday, April 13, 2012 9:42:23 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/04/2012 08:15, harry wrote:
snip

Nearly a million people have died soon due to cancer according to
some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob..._the_Catastrop...

Wikipedia is only slightly better than indymedia as a source, as it
relies upon collective opinion, rather than provable fact. ISTR a
well-known personality who tried to correct their own date of birth
several times, before giving up, as so many other people 'knew' better
and kept changing it back to the wrong date.

In fact it looks as if harry is shooting himself in the foot with this
one - reading the wikipedia article I get the impression that the book it
describes (which is the one where the statistic comes from) has been
positively reviewed by those with an anti-nuclear axe to grind, and
highly critically by everyone else...
For example, the quote from one reviewer "The value of this review is not
zero, but negative, as its bias is obvious only to specialists, while
inexperienced readers may well be put into deep error. ... Yablokov's
assessment for the mortality from Chernobyl fallout of about one million
... puts this book in a range of rather science fiction than science"

Ah. They would say that wouldn't they? Some one is lying.
But the Germans and the Japs have packed the idea in.
Now they must have a reason, it might cost them billions.

In the case of the krauts, its essentially because with a proportional
voting system, the merkel depends on green votes to stay in power.

In the case of the Japs, Fukushima is a tad of a problem with the voters.
Understandably given the massive number who cant go back to their
houses, even tho that much less than the tsunami ****ed over.

On 13/04/2012 20:22, Rod Speed wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
We of course are completely blameless. What about that fire in the
fifties that sent radioactive smoke all over the place, or leaks from
winscale so big they had to rename it. Now we have loads of mothballed
end of life reactors all waiting forsome way to decommission them.
The Russians now design better reactor buildings. One of the main
problems. However trying to make old plant carry on for too long is a
recipe for disaster.
The French have a a heck of a lot of reactors soon to come to supposed
end of life, I wonder what they will do?

I actually think we need Nuclear as a bridge between fosil and other
fuels.

There are no other viable fuels.

Apparently, fusion is now only 20 years away - a big advance on the 50
years away it was, umm ... 50 years ago.

Colin Bignell

On 14/04/2012 11:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/04/2012 20:22, Rod Speed wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
[...]
I actually think we need Nuclear as a bridge between fosil and other
fuels.

There are no other viable fuels.

Apparently, fusion is now only 20 years away - a big advance on the 50
years away it was, umm ... 50 years ago.

Pure speculation on my part, but would it be possible to "fix" the CO2
captured and stored from gas/coal power stations, into methane or even
alcohols using spare electrical power from wind turbines?

--
Dave N

Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 11:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/04/2012 20:22, Rod Speed wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
[...]
I actually think we need Nuclear as a bridge between fosil and other
fuels.

There are no other viable fuels.

Apparently, fusion is now only 20 years away - a big advance on the 50
years away it was, umm ... 50 years ago.

Pure speculation on my part, but would it be possible to "fix" the CO2
captured and stored from gas/coal power stations, into methane or even
alcohols using spare electrical power from wind turbines?

bwahaha.

Yes. you would need about 10-15 times the number of turbines as the coal
power stations and the overall effect would be that you had less than no
energy to run the grid.

In short its even worse than just having wind turbines...


So probably the idea will gain great traction in the Limp Dims and
Greens minds.

Along with homeopathy, aromatherapy, crystal gazing and perpetual motion
machines.

The key is the actual energy equations....

wind-electricity-hydrocarbons is less efficient than growing rape seed.

however nuclear-electricity-hydrocarbons is good, because you could in
theory use spare overnight electricity.

And you wouldn't need to burn coal in the first place.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On 14/04/2012 13:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 11:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/04/2012 20:22, Rod Speed wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
[...]
I actually think we need Nuclear as a bridge between fosil and other
fuels.

There are no other viable fuels.

Apparently, fusion is now only 20 years away - a big advance on the 50
years away it was, umm ... 50 years ago.

Pure speculation on my part, but would it be possible to "fix" the CO2
captured and stored from gas/coal power stations, into methane or even
alcohols using spare electrical power from wind turbines?

bwahaha.

Yes. you would need about 10-15 times the number of turbines as the coal
power stations and the overall effect would be that you had less than no
energy to run the grid.

In short its even worse than just having wind turbines...


So probably the idea will gain great traction in the Limp Dims and
Greens minds.

[...]

Really? Your condescension notwithstanding, I suspect that Professor
James Liao of UCLA wouldn't necessarily agree with you. His background
and credentials are he-

http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~liaoj/

His paper dated 30 March 2012 on the "Integrated Electromicrobial
Conversion of CO2 to Higher Alcohols " can be found, and read in full if
you have an account with "Science", he-

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6076/1596.short

Otherwise a summary of his paper can be found in "Science Daily" he-

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329171607.htm

--
Dave N

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:51:38 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

Apparently, fusion is now only 20 years away - a big advance on the 50
years away it was, umm ... 50 years ago.

It was only 20 years away, 30 years ago.

On Apr 14, 1:11*pm, Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 11:51, Nightjar wrote:

On 13/04/2012 20:22, Rod Speed wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
[...]
I actually think we need Nuclear as a bridge between fosil and other
fuels.

There are no other viable fuels.

Apparently, fusion is now only 20 years away - a big advance on the 50
years away it was, umm ... 50 years ago.

Pure speculation on my part, but would it be possible to "fix" the CO2
captured and stored from gas/coal power stations, into methane or even
alcohols using spare electrical power from wind turbines?

--
Dave N


Eminentlyf easible. It takes exactly the sameamount of energy to
"fix" the the CO2 as was liberated whenit was produced......In theory.
In practice maybe ten times more.

On Apr 14, 2:04*pm, Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 13:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:





Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 11:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/04/2012 20:22, Rod Speed wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
[...]
I actually think we need Nuclear as a bridge between fosil and other
fuels.

There are no other viable fuels.

Apparently, fusion is now only 20 years away - a big advance on the 50
years away it was, umm ... 50 years ago.

Pure speculation on my part, but would it be possible to "fix" the CO2
captured and stored from gas/coal power stations, into methane or even
alcohols using spare electrical power from wind turbines?

bwahaha.

Yes. you would need about 10-15 times the number of turbines as the coal
power stations and the overall effect would be that you had less than no
energy to run the grid.

In short its even worse than just having wind turbines...

So probably the idea will gain great traction in the Limp Dims and
Greens minds.

[...]

Really? *Your condescension notwithstanding, I suspect that Professor
James Liao of UCLA wouldn't necessarily agree with you. *His background
and credentials are he-

http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~liaoj/

His paper dated 30 March 2012 on the "Integrated Electromicrobial
Conversion of CO2 to Higher Alcohols " can be found, and read in full if
you have an account with "Science", he-

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6076/1596.short

Otherwise a summary of his paper can be found in "Science Daily" he-

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329171607.htm

--
Dave N- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He's right. Called the law of conservation of energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_...tion_of_energy

Schoolboy physics. Where were you educated?

On Apr 14, 3:29*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:51:38 +0100, Nightjar

wrote:
Apparently, fusion is now only 20 years away - a big advance on the 50
years away it was, umm ... 50 years ago.

It was only 20 years away, 30 years ago.

It is on the horizon......Maybe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus

Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 13:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 11:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/04/2012 20:22, Rod Speed wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
[...]
I actually think we need Nuclear as a bridge between fosil and other
fuels.

There are no other viable fuels.

Apparently, fusion is now only 20 years away - a big advance on the 50
years away it was, umm ... 50 years ago.

Pure speculation on my part, but would it be possible to "fix" the CO2
captured and stored from gas/coal power stations, into methane or even
alcohols using spare electrical power from wind turbines?

bwahaha.

Yes. you would need about 10-15 times the number of turbines as the coal
power stations and the overall effect would be that you had less than no
energy to run the grid.

In short its even worse than just having wind turbines...


So probably the idea will gain great traction in the Limp Dims and
Greens minds.

[...]

Really? Your condescension notwithstanding, I suspect that Professor
James Liao of UCLA wouldn't necessarily agree with you. His background
and credentials are he-

If he does not then he is a bigger fool than you.

IF one could not OONLY use wind to generate electricity but ALSO to fix
the carbon into fossil fuels to burn and get even MORE energy

...you would have a perpetual motion machine.

Why bother with the windmills? use the coal power stations to generate
electricity to turn their own CO2 back into more coal and oil!

Run that for a century and replace all the fossil fuel in the world with
new stocks!


Simples!


Its so easy to pronounce on scientific matters when you haven't a clue
about science isn't it?



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

harry wrote:
On Apr 14, 2:04 pm, Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 13:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:





Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 11:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/04/2012 20:22, Rod Speed wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
[...]
I actually think we need Nuclear as a bridge between fosil and other
fuels.
There are no other viable fuels.
Apparently, fusion is now only 20 years away - a big advance on the 50
years away it was, umm ... 50 years ago.
Pure speculation on my part, but would it be possible to "fix" the CO2
captured and stored from gas/coal power stations, into methane or even
alcohols using spare electrical power from wind turbines?
bwahaha.
Yes. you would need about 10-15 times the number of turbines as the coal
power stations and the overall effect would be that you had less than no
energy to run the grid.
In short its even worse than just having wind turbines...
So probably the idea will gain great traction in the Limp Dims and
Greens minds.
[...]

Really? Your condescension notwithstanding, I suspect that Professor
James Liao of UCLA wouldn't necessarily agree with you. His background
and credentials are he-

http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~liaoj/

His paper dated 30 March 2012 on the "Integrated Electromicrobial
Conversion of CO2 to Higher Alcohols " can be found, and read in full if
you have an account with "Science", he-

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6076/1596.short

Otherwise a summary of his paper can be found in "Science Daily" he-

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329171607.htm

--
Dave N- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He's right. Called the law of conservation of energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_...tion_of_energy

Schoolboy physics. Where were you educated?

Or was he educated at all?


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

harry wrote:
On Apr 14, 1:11 pm, Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 11:51, Nightjar wrote:

On 13/04/2012 20:22, Rod Speed wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
[...]
I actually think we need Nuclear as a bridge between fosil and other
fuels.
There are no other viable fuels.
Apparently, fusion is now only 20 years away - a big advance on the 50
years away it was, umm ... 50 years ago.
Pure speculation on my part, but would it be possible to "fix" the CO2
captured and stored from gas/coal power stations, into methane or even
alcohols using spare electrical power from wind turbines?

--
Dave N


Eminentlyf easible. It takes exactly the sameamount of energy to
"fix" the the CO2 as was liberated whenit was produced......In theory.
In practice maybe ten times more.

ten times about right,.
30% coalpower station efficency and probaby 30% hydrocarbon synthesis
efficiency. Rest is waste heat,.

BUT that makes nuclear synthesised diesel represent something like
150p-200p a liter in terms of cost of electricity.

Compared with about 50p out of the ground.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On 14/04/2012 17:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 13:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 11:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/04/2012 20:22, Rod Speed wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
[...]
I actually think we need Nuclear as a bridge between fosil and other
fuels.

There are no other viable fuels.

Apparently, fusion is now only 20 years away - a big advance on the 50
years away it was, umm ... 50 years ago.

Pure speculation on my part, but would it be possible to "fix" the CO2
captured and stored from gas/coal power stations, into methane or even
alcohols using spare electrical power from wind turbines?

bwahaha.

Yes. you would need about 10-15 times the number of turbines as the coal
power stations and the overall effect would be that you had less than no
energy to run the grid.

In short its even worse than just having wind turbines...


So probably the idea will gain great traction in the Limp Dims and
Greens minds.

[...]

Really? Your condescension notwithstanding, I suspect that Professor
James Liao of UCLA wouldn't necessarily agree with you. His background
and credentials are he-

If he does not then he is a bigger fool than you.

IF one could not OONLY use wind to generate electricity but ALSO to fix
the carbon into fossil fuels to burn and get even MORE energy

..you would have a perpetual motion machine.

Why bother with the windmills? use the coal power stations to generate
electricity to turn their own CO2 back into more coal and oil!

Run that for a century and replace all the fossil fuel in the world with
new stocks!


Simples!


Its so easy to pronounce on scientific matters when you haven't a clue
about science isn't it?

Oh dear, it is startlingly clear that you haven't read Prof. Liao's
paper and that you are determinedly refusing even to consider his ideas.
The hubris demonstrated by your response is awe-inspiring.

Prof. Liao is only holding out an idea for the potential for energy
storage, based upon his research into electro-biological mechanisms.
This is leading edge and very recent research. Nobody is suggesting
that conversion efficiency will even be significant, let alone anything
approaching 100%. Nobody is suggesting that all CO2 captured from power
stations can be converted into alcohol. I would have thought that was
obvious to most, but apparently it passed by you.

If you would only pause for one moment to consider his paper on its
merits for its potential for converting *some* CO2 into alcohol using an
electromicrobial mechanism (his description), as a means both of
disposal of *some* CO2 and at the same time storage of *some* electrical
energy in a chemical form, then I might have more respect for your
opinions. Even a small conversion of CO2, if there is temporary excess
energy available on the grid, might be more useful than pumping it down
wells? Who knows if further development down the years can help Prof.
Liao's ideas evolve with significant efficiencies, perhaps even
approaching those of pumped storage schemes, but isn't it worth asking
the questions? Simply to dismiss his ideas out of hand is unworthy,
especially of someone who implies having undertaken academic research
for himself in the past.

Hopefully, somebody with an open and enquiring mind will be along
shortly. With luck, it will be somebody who is able to contemplate and
respond to unfamiliar ideas without being unnecessarily offensive.

--
Dave N

Run that for a century and replace all the fossil fuel in the world with
new stocks!


Simples!


Its so easy to pronounce on scientific matters when you haven't a clue
about science isn't it?

Oh dear, it is startlingly clear that you haven't read Prof. Liao's
paper and that you are determinedly refusing even to consider his ideas.
The hubris demonstrated by your response is awe-inspiring.

Prof. Liao is only holding out an idea for the potential for energy
storage, based upon his research into electro-biological mechanisms.
This is leading edge and very recent research. Nobody is suggesting
that conversion efficiency will even be significant, let alone anything
approaching 100%. Nobody is suggesting that all CO2 captured from power
stations can be converted into alcohol. I would have thought that was
obvious to most, but apparently it passed by you.

If you would only pause for one moment to consider his paper on its
merits for its potential for converting *some* CO2 into alcohol using an
electromicrobial mechanism (his description), as a means both of
disposal of *some* CO2 and at the same time storage of *some* electrical
energy in a chemical form, then I might have more respect for your
opinions. Even a small conversion of CO2, if there is temporary excess
energy available on the grid, might be more useful than pumping it down
wells? Who knows if further development down the years can help Prof.
Liao's ideas evolve with significant efficiencies, perhaps even
approaching those of pumped storage schemes, but isn't it worth asking
the questions? Simply to dismiss his ideas out of hand is unworthy,
especially of someone who implies having undertaken academic research
for himself in the past.

Hopefully, somebody with an open and enquiring mind will be along
shortly. With luck, it will be somebody who is able to contemplate and
respond to unfamiliar ideas without being unnecessarily offensive.


Well lets hope that Greene King don't get wind of it else it really
will be wind and **** they sell;!...
--
Tony Sayer

Nightjar wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

We of course are completely blameless. What about that fire in the
fifties that sent radioactive smoke all over the place, or leaks from
winscale so big they had to rename it. Now we have loads of mothballed
end of life reactors all waiting forsome way to decommission them.
The Russians now design better reactor buildings. One of the main
problems. However trying to make old plant carry on for too long is a
recipe for disaster.

The French have a a heck of a lot of reactors soon to come to supposed
end of life, I wonder what they will do?

I actually think we need Nuclear as a bridge between fosil and other
fuels.

There are no other viable fuels.

Apparently, fusion is now only 20 years away - a big advance
on the 50 years away it was, umm ... 50 years ago.

Its still nuclear, if it ever does become viable here on earth.

Dave N wrote
Nightjar wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

I actually think we need Nuclear as a bridge between fosil and other
fuels.

There are no other viable fuels.

Apparently, fusion is now only 20 years away - a big advance on the 50
years away it was, umm ... 50 years ago.

Pure speculation on my part, but would it be possible to "fix" the CO2
captured and stored from gas/coal power stations, into methane or even
alcohols using spare electrical power from wind turbines?

Yes, but you wouldn't be able to deal with enough of the CO2 to matter.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:47:29 +0100, Dave N
wrote:

Simply to dismiss his ideas out of hand is unworthy,
especially of someone who implies having undertaken academic research
for himself in the past.

TNP attended the University of Arse.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:47:29 +0100, Dave N wrote:

If you would only pause for one moment to consider his paper on its
merits for its potential for converting *some* CO2 into alcohol using an
electromicrobial mechanism (his description), as a means both of
disposal of *some* CO2 ...

Er I assumed that the idea of this conversion was to produce a liquid
fuel that would then be burnt. How does that "dispose" of the orginal
C02? The carbon is still fossil in orgin.

... and at the same time storage of *some* electrical energy in a
chemical form,

Seems my assumption is correct.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave N wrote:
Nobody is suggesting
that conversion efficiency will even be significant, let alone anything
approaching 100%. Nobody is suggesting that all CO2 captured from power
stations can be converted into alcohol. I would have thought that was
obvious to most, but apparently it passed by you.

Well since the only reason you COULD have had for mentioning it was that
in fact that was EXACTLY what you thought it would do....yes it did
pass me by that you would have pointed to someth8ng totally irrelevant
in order not to prove a point you were not after all trying to make when
every indication was that in fact you were.

So you agree that the energy balance of synthetic hyrdocarbions makes
them uselsss for either making fuel or indeed fixing CO2 unless you have
a source of such unlimited energy at sucjh a low cost that you no longer
need to burn coal to make te lecetricity at all anyway?

If you would only pause for one moment to consider his paper on its
merits for its potential for converting *some* CO2 into alcohol using an
electromicrobial mechanism (his description), as a means both of
disposal of *some* CO2 and at the same time storage of *some* electrical
energy in a chemical form, then I might have more respect for your
opinions.


Golly. I can convert a teaspoon of CO2 to a teaspoon of petrol by
burning a liter of petrol. Top build a windmill that doesn't work./

Wow.

Perhaps the idea he is simply fishing for a grant, and mentioning the
most popular problem of our time and how his work might just conceivably
be as remotely connected to it as we are to Betelgeuse, was felt to
assist in this matter, did not cross what pasees for your mind?





Even a small conversion of CO2, if there is temporary excess
energy available on the grid, might be more useful than pumping it down
wells? Who knows if further development down the years can help Prof.
Liao's ideas evolve with significant efficiencies, perhaps even
approaching those of pumped storage schemes, but isn't it worth asking
the questions? Simply to dismiss his ideas out of hand is unworthy,
especially of someone who implies having undertaken academic research
for himself in the past.


better is to not build wind farms and generate excess electricity on the
grid.

All these renewabletard arguments are circular: They START with the
assumption that renewable energy is the answer and want to spend even
more money on trying to make it work, thus proving not that it is the
answer, but that it never ever WAS the ****ing answer.


To people who have teh power of critical thinking. But sometimes I think
thats only 4 people in te entire country.



Hopefully, somebody with an open and enquiring mind will be along
shortly.


The more open the mind is, the easier it is to full it with bull****, I
find.


With luck, it will be somebody who is able to contemplate and
respond to unfamiliar ideas without being unnecessarily offensive.


Oh that they were unfamiliar. Burt perpetual motion machines and fairies
have been around longer than I have been alive.

Would you consider your mind closed if, perchance, your daughter told
you to drive towards a rainbow, because where it touched the ground
there would be a pot of fairy gold?

Or perhaps you are in deepest Africa, and you notice a man reading a
book to a bunch of tribesmen, and when you get closer, you see the book
is upside down: When challenged he merely replies that you must have a
closed mind, because anyone who can read, can tread a book no matter
which way up it is.


If you are going to place your faith in a particular metaphysic, like
rationalism and science, to solve a given problem, it behooves you to
adhere to its precepts. In short you cannot have your metaphysical cake
and eat it too.

If you are doing science technology and physics the rules of science
technology and physics apply. Not the rules of fantasy and wish
fulfilment and miraculous Divine intervention.

Power generation is ruled by conversion efficiency and storage issues.
The reason we have a problem - that we cant simply take a 1.5v battery
and create infinite amounts of diesel - is the reason why we have a
fossil fuel crisis and a rising CO2 atmospheric component,.expecting it
to SOLVE the problem which is there BECAUSE IT CANT solve the problem,
is - something only a clueless ****** could actually believe was
possible. Even if some green press release hints that it MIGHT be
possible. Its not possible. Period.

Try NOT reading things you DON'T understand and NOT reading dumbed down
marketing spin that you THINK you understand and start actually learning
some SCIENCE.


I am SURE your mummy respects you and your daddy respects you and your
meeja studdies teecha respects you and you think you deserve some
respect. And I am sure I have trampled completely over your HuMan Right
To Be Respected For Being a Total Luser, but there you go.

I'm not a human rights lawyer. I am not trying to get a research grant
so I can pratt about with test tubes and bits of wire for another 5
years. I am not trying to rob you blind and sell you a domestic PV
panel, a wind turbine or a spurious government manifesto. I am an
engineer. And no machine I ever built that attempted to break the laws
of nature ever worked.

I am telling you the truth because I don't actually give a flying ****
what you think of me, or even if you believe me or not. If there are
enough people like you who believe that standing on the poop deck of the
titanic praying very hard is a better strategy than getting in a
lifeboat - and preferably one with a diesel engine - then you go your
way and I go mine.

But don't you dare get in my way.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.