Any doubt that the 'move to renewable energy' has nothing whatsoever to
do with emissions climate change or indeed anything at all beyond a
naked bid to gain central control of energy by the gvernments involved
is compteley dispelled.

France, with the lowest emissions in NW Europe, is going to use its
nuclear industry to pay for - windmills!

Sheesh you couldn't make it up.

No wonder EDF need 15p a unit...

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP...n-2309137.html

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence it to build
new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Any doubt that the 'move to renewable energy' has nothing whatsoever to do
with emissions climate change or indeed anything at all beyond a naked bid
to gain central control of energy by the gvernments involved is compteley
dispelled.

France, with the lowest emissions in NW Europe, is going to use its
nuclear industry to pay for - windmills!

Sheesh you couldn't make it up.

No wonder EDF need 15p a unit...

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP...n-2309137.html

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members
of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded
with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 25/09/13 12:34, Brian Gaff wrote:
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence it to build
new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.
Brian

Totally agree.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Any doubt that the 'move to renewable energy' has nothing whatsoever to do
with emissions climate change or indeed anything at all beyond a naked bid
to gain central control of energy by the gvernments involved is compteley
dispelled.

France, with the lowest emissions in NW Europe, is going to use its
nuclear industry to pay for - windmills!

Sheesh you couldn't make it up.

Even the Frogs have realised something you're too thick to grasp.

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence it to
build new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.
Brian

You still haven't explained what we do with the nuclearwaste.

On 25/09/13 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence it to
build new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.
Brian

You still haven't explained what we do with the nuclearwaste.


you put it in solar paneles and sell it to gullible idiots harry.

why do you think your pamenels are so cheap?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/13 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence it to
build new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.
Brian

You still haven't explained what we do with the nuclearwaste.


you put it in solar paneles and sell it to gullible idiots harry.

why do you think your pamenels are so cheap?


Yep, I thought you didn't know.
Still full of **** as ever.

On 25/09/2013 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence it to
build new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.
Brian

You still haven't explained what we do with the nuclearwaste.



Windmills need a huge heavy base. It's a lot of concrete, much CO2.

Suggest they could help the nuclear industry by using depleted uranium
there as ballast.

No one wants to live next door to a moaning windmill, so good fit.

--
Adrian C

On 26/09/2013 09:39, Adrian C wrote:
On 25/09/2013 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence it to
build new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.
Brian

You still haven't explained what we do with the nuclearwaste.



Windmills need a huge heavy base. It's a lot of concrete, much CO2.

Suggest they could help the nuclear industry by using depleted uranium
there as ballast.

No one wants to live next door to a moaning windmill, so good fit.


There are better uses for depleted uranium, like ballast in aircraft.
Its not exactly dangerous.

On 26/09/2013 14:37, Tim Streater wrote:
In article om,
"dennis@home" wrote:

On 26/09/2013 09:39, Adrian C wrote:
On 25/09/2013 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence
it to
build new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.
Brian

You still haven't explained what we do with the nuclearwaste.

Windmills need a huge heavy base. It's a lot of concrete, much CO2.

Suggest they could help the nuclear industry by using depleted uranium
there as ballast.

No one wants to live next door to a moaning windmill, so good fit.

There are better uses for depleted uranium, like ballast in aircraft.
Its not exactly dangerous.

It's not even that radioactive.


That's because its depleted.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 26/09/2013 09:39, Adrian C wrote:
On 25/09/2013 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence it to
build new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.
Brian

You still haven't explained what we do with the nuclearwaste.



Windmills need a huge heavy base. It's a lot of concrete, much CO2.

Suggest they could help the nuclear industry by using depleted uranium
there as ballast.

No one wants to live next door to a moaning windmill, so good fit.


There are better uses for depleted uranium, like ballast in aircraft.
Its not exactly dangerous.

Oh yes it is. It is one of the most poisonous/carcinogenic materials on the
planet and not all the radioactive material is removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplete...aqi_population
You are full of **** as always

On 27/09/2013 18:53, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 26/09/2013 09:39, Adrian C wrote:
On 25/09/2013 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence it to
build new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.
Brian

You still haven't explained what we do with the nuclearwaste.



Windmills need a huge heavy base. It's a lot of concrete, much CO2.

Suggest they could help the nuclear industry by using depleted uranium
there as ballast.

No one wants to live next door to a moaning windmill, so good fit.


There are better uses for depleted uranium, like ballast in aircraft.
Its not exactly dangerous.

Oh yes it is. It is one of the most poisonous/carcinogenic materials on the
planet and not all the radioactive material is removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplete...aqi_population
You are full of **** as always



So you don't know that its used for trim weights in 747s then?
That's something else you didn't know and will have forgotten by tomorrow.
Do you actually know anything other than what greenpeace, etc. tell you?

On 27/09/13 19:56, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/09/2013 18:53, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 26/09/2013 09:39, Adrian C wrote:
On 25/09/2013 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence
it to
build new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.
Brian

You still haven't explained what we do with the nuclearwaste.



Windmills need a huge heavy base. It's a lot of concrete, much CO2.

Suggest they could help the nuclear industry by using depleted uranium
there as ballast.

No one wants to live next door to a moaning windmill, so good fit.


There are better uses for depleted uranium, like ballast in aircraft.
Its not exactly dangerous.

Oh yes it is. It is one of the most poisonous/carcinogenic materials
on the
planet and not all the radioactive material is removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplete...aqi_population
You are full of **** as always



So you don't know that its used for trim weights in 747s then?
That's something else you didn't know and will have forgotten by tomorrow.
Do you actually know anything other than what greenpeace, etc. tell you?

Harry doesn't even know that.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 27/09/2013 18:53, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 26/09/2013 09:39, Adrian C wrote:
On 25/09/2013 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence it to
build new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.
Brian

You still haven't explained what we do with the nuclearwaste.



Windmills need a huge heavy base. It's a lot of concrete, much CO2.

Suggest they could help the nuclear industry by using depleted uranium
there as ballast.

No one wants to live next door to a moaning windmill, so good fit.


There are better uses for depleted uranium, like ballast in aircraft.
Its not exactly dangerous.

Oh yes it is. It is one of the most poisonous/carcinogenic materials on the
planet and not all the radioactive material is removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplete...aqi_population
You are full of **** as always


FFS I am slightly surprised there is no cautionary note on the article
link, but it is certainly a loaded article, and there is plenty of
evidence of dispute in the Talk and the History. All the uranium
isotopes are radioactive. U238 has a very long half life, so is not
*very* radioactive. There is no "removal of radioactive material".

But to quote selectively from the article, it is less toxic than arsenic
or mercury, and the radiological hazard is a million times less than the
chemical one.

In article om,
dennis@home scribeth thus
On 27/09/2013 18:53, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 26/09/2013 09:39, Adrian C wrote:
On 25/09/2013 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence it to
build new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.
Brian

You still haven't explained what we do with the nuclearwaste.



Windmills need a huge heavy base. It's a lot of concrete, much CO2.

Suggest they could help the nuclear industry by using depleted uranium
there as ballast.

No one wants to live next door to a moaning windmill, so good fit.


There are better uses for depleted uranium, like ballast in aircraft.
Its not exactly dangerous.

Oh yes it is. It is one of the most poisonous/carcinogenic materials on the
planet and not all the radioactive material is removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplete...aqi_population
You are full of **** as always



So you don't know that its used for trim weights in 747s then?
That's something else you didn't know and will have forgotten by tomorrow.
Do you actually know anything other than what greenpeace, etc. tell you?

One fell of a crashed Jumbo cargo ship at Stansted once and thus far no
one has developed anything untoward from it...

--
Tony Sayer

On 27/09/2013 20:34, newshound wrote:
On 27/09/2013 18:53, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 26/09/2013 09:39, Adrian C wrote:
On 25/09/2013 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence
it to
build new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.
Brian

You still haven't explained what we do with the nuclearwaste.



Windmills need a huge heavy base. It's a lot of concrete, much CO2.

Suggest they could help the nuclear industry by using depleted uranium
there as ballast.

No one wants to live next door to a moaning windmill, so good fit.


There are better uses for depleted uranium, like ballast in aircraft.
Its not exactly dangerous.

Oh yes it is. It is one of the most poisonous/carcinogenic materials
on the
planet and not all the radioactive material is removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplete...aqi_population
You are full of **** as always


FFS I am slightly surprised there is no cautionary note on the article
link, but it is certainly a loaded article, and there is plenty of
evidence of dispute in the Talk and the History. All the uranium
isotopes are radioactive. U238 has a very long half life, so is not
*very* radioactive. There is no "removal of radioactive material".

But to quote selectively from the article, it is less toxic than arsenic
or mercury, and the radiological hazard is a million times less than the
chemical one.

Did you notice that some of the people "affected" by DU lived in areas
where no DU was detectable.

On Saturday, September 28, 2013 10:20:57 AM UTC+12, dennis@home wrote:


Did you notice that some of the people "affected" by DU lived in areas

where no DU was detectable.

Ah but do you trust the people with the Geiger counters?
One day I'll make my own Geiger counter. How hard can that be? I have better tools than Mr Geiger (and Mr Rutherford). I'll start a new thread!

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 27/09/2013 18:53, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 26/09/2013 09:39, Adrian C wrote:
On 25/09/2013 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence it
to
build new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.
Brian

You still haven't explained what we do with the nuclearwaste.



Windmills need a huge heavy base. It's a lot of concrete, much CO2.

Suggest they could help the nuclear industry by using depleted uranium
there as ballast.

No one wants to live next door to a moaning windmill, so good fit.


There are better uses for depleted uranium, like ballast in aircraft.
Its not exactly dangerous.

Oh yes it is. It is one of the most poisonous/carcinogenic materials on
the
planet and not all the radioactive material is removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplete...aqi_population
You are full of **** as always



So you don't know that its used for trim weights in 747s then?
That's something else you didn't know and will have forgotten by tomorrow.
Do you actually know anything other than what greenpeace, etc. tell you?

All in the same link if you bothered to look.
One reason it is used is because the stuff is cheap as there is little use
for it.
As it has to be rigorously protected it cost far more than traditional lead.
It's more of a politcal issue. (Trying to convince the sheeple (ie you)
what a useful and harmless substance it is.)
So evading responsibility for what they did in Iraq. But the pigeons will
come home to roost on that one.
But read this anyway half wit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplete...ts_in_aircraft

In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 27/09/2013 18:53, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 26/09/2013 09:39, Adrian C wrote:
On 25/09/2013 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence it
to
build new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.
Brian

You still haven't explained what we do with the nuclearwaste.



Windmills need a huge heavy base. It's a lot of concrete, much CO2.

Suggest they could help the nuclear industry by using depleted uranium
there as ballast.

No one wants to live next door to a moaning windmill, so good fit.


There are better uses for depleted uranium, like ballast in aircraft.
Its not exactly dangerous.

Oh yes it is. It is one of the most poisonous/carcinogenic materials on
the
planet and not all the radioactive material is removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplete...aqi_population
You are full of **** as always



So you don't know that its used for trim weights in 747s then?
That's something else you didn't know and will have forgotten by tomorrow.
Do you actually know anything other than what greenpeace, etc. tell you?

All in the same link if you bothered to look.
One reason it is used is because the stuff is cheap as there is little use
for it.
As it has to be rigorously protected it cost far more than traditional lead.
It's more of a politcal issue. (Trying to convince the sheeple (ie you)
what a useful and harmless substance it is.)
So evading responsibility for what they did in Iraq. But the pigeons will
come home to roost on that one.
But read this anyway half wit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplete...ts_in_aircraft



Yes indeed .. what's the "real" problem then?.


Aircraft that contain depleted uranium trim weights (such as the Boeing
747€“100) may contain between 400 to 1,500 kg of DU. This application is
controversial because the DU may enter the environment if the aircraft
were to crash. The metal can also oxidize to a fine powder in a fire.
Its use has been phased out in many newer aircraft. Boeing and
McDonnell-Douglas discontinued using DU counterweights in the 1980s.

Depleted uranium was released during the crash of El Al Flight 1862 on 4
October 1992, in which 152 kg was lost, but an extensive study concluded
that there was no evidence to link depleted uranium from the plane to
any health problems.[63]

Counterweights manufactured with cadmium plating are considered non-
hazardous while the plating is intact.[64]
--
Tony Sayer

On 27/09/2013 23:40, Matty F wrote:
On Saturday, September 28, 2013 10:20:57 AM UTC+12, dennis@home
wrote:


Did you notice that some of the people "affected" by DU lived in
areas

where no DU was detectable.

Ah but do you trust the people with the Geiger counters? One day I'll
make my own Geiger counter. How hard can that be? I have better tools
than Mr Geiger (and Mr Rutherford). I'll start a new thread!


Scintillation counter is what you want.
Geigers are such old hat.

On 28/09/2013 06:29, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 27/09/2013 18:53, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 26/09/2013 09:39, Adrian C wrote:
On 25/09/2013 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence it
to
build new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.
Brian

You still haven't explained what we do with the nuclearwaste.



Windmills need a huge heavy base. It's a lot of concrete, much CO2.

Suggest they could help the nuclear industry by using depleted uranium
there as ballast.

No one wants to live next door to a moaning windmill, so good fit.


There are better uses for depleted uranium, like ballast in aircraft.
Its not exactly dangerous.

Oh yes it is. It is one of the most poisonous/carcinogenic materials on
the
planet and not all the radioactive material is removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplete...aqi_population
You are full of **** as always



So you don't know that its used for trim weights in 747s then?
That's something else you didn't know and will have forgotten by tomorrow.
Do you actually know anything other than what greenpeace, etc. tell you?

All in the same link if you bothered to look.
One reason it is used is because the stuff is cheap as there is little use
for it.
As it has to be rigorously protected it cost far more than traditional lead.
It's more of a politcal issue. (Trying to convince the sheeple (ie you)
what a useful and harmless substance it is.)
So evading responsibility for what they did in Iraq. But the pigeons will
come home to roost on that one.
But read this anyway half wit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplete...ts_in_aircraft




You must have been exposed to lead at some time.
Lead is far more dangerous.

tony sayer writes:

Counterweights manufactured with cadmium plating are considered non-
hazardous while the plating is intact.[64]

ISTR that cadmium itself is hazardous (maybe only when heated?).

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ S c o t s h o m e . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

Brian Gaff wrote:
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence it to build
new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.

Fully agree, but then I'm an engineer and was deselected as a councillor.

I still stand by what I wrote about eight years ago:

I'm a lower-case greenie, and my answer is: more coal!

When I was at school in the 1980s we were told there was enough
coal in the ground to last another 300 years. In a chemistry
lesson we did an energy planning exercise to decide how the
future eneergy mix should be planned.

For electricity, we should have about 25%-33% nuclear for
continuous base load, 70-odd% coal for the heavy lifting,
a scattering of gas for instant-startup load spikes. Where
it is economical, site-specific solar for site-specific
usages, eg powering parking ticket machines.

Town and cities should be converting waste to energy,
electricity and local heating. It's madness to dump
useful compact energy sources (rubbish) in the ground
instead of using it.

Other than a few for load spikes, using gas for electrity
generation is madness. Converting gas to heat to convert
to motion to convert to electricity to then send along a
lossy transmission network, to then convert back to heat
again. Madness! Gas should be used exclusively for end-user
heating, only one energy conversion point.

(I suppose with appropriate technology gas-powered transport
would be a suitable use, but I prefer vehicles that don't
need pressure vessels to contain their fuel.)

People complain about dirty coal. Ok then, use clean coal.
Highly pulverised high pressure particulate coal gas, and
don't just throw away the "waste", that's by-products.
Use the heat by-products for local heating. Scrub the
vapour output and collect the by-products. To use the
heat byproducts for local heating the power plant will
have to be near enough to habitations to transport the
heat effectively, but so what, locals can either have
cheap heat from the local power station, or go cold.

But of course, it won't happen because it's sensible,
and "politics" directs energy policy, not engineering.
I'm sure than if this was the 1930s we'd never get
the National Grid built, and there'd be more than a
dozen socket outlet, power and frequency standards
across the country.

JGH

Tim Streater wrote:
Depleted uranium *metal* is probably not particularly dangerous, it'll
be the soluble compounds that are. Otherwise why do the winkypedia
articles show photos of some klod holding some.

We had a tiny ingot of Uranium in a little wooden display case
at school. It was bloody heavy.

JGH

On 03/10/13 00:45, wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence it to build
new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.

Fully agree, but then I'm an engineer and was deselected as a councillor.

I still stand by what I wrote about eight years ago:

I'm a lower-case greenie, and my answer is: more coal!

When I was at school in the 1980s we were told there was enough
coal in the ground to last another 300 years. In a chemistry
lesson we did an energy planning exercise to decide how the
future eneergy mix should be planned.

For electricity, we should have about 25%-33% nuclear for
continuous base load, 70-odd% coal for the heavy lifting,
a scattering of gas for instant-startup load spikes. Where
it is economical, site-specific solar for site-specific
usages, eg powering parking ticket machines.

Town and cities should be converting waste to energy,
electricity and local heating. It's madness to dump
useful compact energy sources (rubbish) in the ground
instead of using it.

Other than a few for load spikes, using gas for electrity
generation is madness. Converting gas to heat to convert
to motion to convert to electricity to then send along a
lossy transmission network, to then convert back to heat
again. Madness! Gas should be used exclusively for end-user
heating, only one energy conversion point.

(I suppose with appropriate technology gas-powered transport
would be a suitable use, but I prefer vehicles that don't
need pressure vessels to contain their fuel.)

People complain about dirty coal. Ok then, use clean coal.
Highly pulverised high pressure particulate coal gas, and
don't just throw away the "waste", that's by-products.
Use the heat by-products for local heating. Scrub the
vapour output and collect the by-products. To use the
heat byproducts for local heating the power plant will
have to be near enough to habitations to transport the
heat effectively, but so what, locals can either have
cheap heat from the local power station, or go cold.

But of course, it won't happen because it's sensible,
and "politics" directs energy policy, not engineering.
I'm sure than if this was the 1930s we'd never get
the National Grid built, and there'd be more than a
dozen socket outlet, power and frequency standards
across the country.

JGH

+1

take politics out of engineering.

Howver whilst we may have 300 years of coal unmder the UK, we dont have
300 years of coal that is *cheaper than nuclear* under the ground, so I
say the actual answer is to use nuclear for baseload plus, and gas to
fill in the corners.

The answer ****fts if we dont mind being in hock to the USA which has
vast reserves of cheap coal.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Tim Streater writes:

In article ,
"harryagain" wrote:

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 26/09/2013 09:39, Adrian C wrote:
On 25/09/2013 18:19, harryagain wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
What we should do is hike up the prices of energy but ring fence it to
build new Nuclear as fast as we can. Then we should have a freeze.
Ducks behind sofa.

You still haven't explained what we do with the nuclearwaste.

Windmills need a huge heavy base. It's a lot of concrete, much CO2.

Suggest they could help the nuclear industry by using depleted uranium
there as ballast.

No one wants to live next door to a moaning windmill, so good fit.

There are better uses for depleted uranium, like ballast in aircraft.
Its not exactly dangerous.

Oh yes it is. It is one of the most poisonous/carcinogenic materials on the
planet and not all the radioactive material is removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplete...aqi_population
You are full of **** as always

You can't "remove all the radioactive material" from uranium, as all its
isotopes are radioactive.

Depleted uranium *metal* is probably not particularly dangerous, it'll
be the soluble compounds that are. Otherwise why do the winkypedia
articles show photos of some klod holding some.

In the very-long-ago you could readily buy uranium compounds to tint
black-and-white photographs. (Uranium nitrate, ISTR.)

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ S c o t s h o m e . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

Tim Streater wrote:

Depleted uranium *metal* is probably not particularly dangerous, it'll
be the soluble compounds that are. Otherwise why do the winkypedia
articles show photos of some klod holding some.

Or some klot holding a sphere of plutonium?

http://static.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/Tickling_the_Dragons_Tail.jpg

Never hurt anyone, err, well ok so technically it might have killed 7
people, but hey ...

On 04/10/13 00:46, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

Depleted uranium *metal* is probably not particularly dangerous, it'll
be the soluble compounds that are. Otherwise why do the winkypedia
articles show photos of some klod holding some.

Or some klot holding a sphere of plutonium?

http://static.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/Tickling_the_Dragons_Tail.jpg


Never hurt anyone, err, well ok so technically it might have killed 7
people, but hey ...


that was plutonium and in critcal quantities

natural uranium doesnt go critical under Gabon type conditions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...ission_reactor


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Or some klot holding a sphere of plutonium?

that was plutonium

see above!

and in critcal quantities

Well yes, but it's not the touching that killed anyone. ISTR reading in
a Feynman book that passing dignitaries were invited to touch a (silver
coated) sphere of plutonium to feel the warmth ...

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu...nLosAlamos.htm

On Saturday, September 28, 2013 11:47:48 PM UTC+12, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/09/2013 23:40, Matty F wrote:
Ah but do you trust the people with the Geiger counters? One day I'll
make my own Geiger counter. How hard can that be? I have better tools
than Mr Geiger (and Mr Rutherford). I'll start a new thread!

Scintillation counter is what you want.
Geigers are such old hat.

But I have all the parts for a Geiger counter: - a beer can, voltage multiplier, old transister radio.

Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

Depleted uranium *metal* is probably not particularly dangerous, it'll
be the soluble compounds that are. Otherwise why do the winkypedia
articles show photos of some klod holding some.

Or some klot holding a sphere of plutonium?

http://static.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/Tickling_the_Dragons_Tail.jpg


Never hurt anyone, err, well ok so technically it might have killed 7
people, but hey ...


From the WNA website:-

"In the 1950s Queen Elizabeth II was visiting Harwell and was handed a
lump of plutonium (presumably Pu-239) in a plastic bag and invited to
feel how warm it was."

I've not noticed any skin problems on her hands....

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 04/10/2013 09:55, John Williamson wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

Depleted uranium *metal* is probably not particularly dangerous, it'll
be the soluble compounds that are. Otherwise why do the winkypedia
articles show photos of some klod holding some.

DU is pretty tame provided that you wrap it in plastic sheet first.
I have held a bar of real DU once at Capenhurst. It is also used as a
very dense metal in various applications. Minor catch is that it can be
pyrophoric if provoked in a high speed collision.

Uranium is *much* more common in the environment than most people like
to think - about 2ppm in most rocks and soils and slightly more in
granite. What is rare is to find mineable high grade uranium ore.

Or some klot holding a sphere of plutonium?

http://static.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/Tickling_the_Dragons_Tail.jpg

Never hurt anyone, err, well ok so technically it might have killed 7
people, but hey ...


From the WNA website:-

"In the 1950s Queen Elizabeth II was visiting Harwell and was handed a
lump of plutonium (presumably Pu-239) in a plastic bag and invited to
feel how warm it was."

I've not noticed any skin problems on her hands....

If it was producing neutrons by fission at the time then that probably
isn't too wise. But when most of the emission is alpha particles a sheet
of paper will stop them. You really don't want to ingest any!

They were pretty cavalier about radioactivity back then.

The last time I checked no members of the UPPu club from the lax days of
WWII bomb making had died of radiation poisoning or metal toxicity. It
is a heavy metal poison though and its salts are fairly soluble they are
also rather pretty colours in different oxidation states.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 04/10/13 11:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:

On 04/10/2013 09:55, John Williamson wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

Depleted uranium *metal* is probably not particularly dangerous,
it'll
be the soluble compounds that are. Otherwise why do the winkypedia
articles show photos of some klod holding some.

DU is pretty tame provided that you wrap it in plastic sheet first.
I have held a bar of real DU once at Capenhurst. It is also used as a
very dense metal in various applications. Minor catch is that it can
be pyrophoric if provoked in a high speed collision.

Uranium is *much* more common in the environment than most people like
to think - about 2ppm in most rocks and soils and slightly more in
granite. What is rare is to find mineable high grade uranium ore.

And in coal, too, which is why coal ash is somewhat radioactive.

burning the coal leaves ALMOST economically extractable amounts of
uranium behind.

But this waste - which if it emanated from the nuclear industry would be
subject to special treatment and disposal, is in fact not so subject and
was and still is used to make cinder blocks out of, to create affordable
housing materials :-)

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 04/10/13 10:53, Martin Brown wrote:
If it was producing neutrons by fission at the time then that probably
isn't too wise. But when most of the emission is alpha particles a sheet
of paper will stop them. You really don't want to ingest any!

They were pretty cavalier about radioactivity back then.

The last time I checked no members of the UPPu club from the lax days of
WWII bomb making had died of radiation poisoning or metal toxicity. It
is a heavy metal poison though and its salts are fairly soluble they are
also rather pretty colours in different oxidation states.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/f...age_atomic.htm

Just LOOK at the casual way they are stuffing Uranium into reactors,
machining plutonium on a lathe etc etc.

Why arent they all dead?

Presumably because THEN they knew how dangerous it was(not).


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 04/10/2013 12:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/10/13 10:53, Martin Brown wrote:
If it was producing neutrons by fission at the time then that probably
isn't too wise. But when most of the emission is alpha particles a sheet
of paper will stop them. You really don't want to ingest any!

They were pretty cavalier about radioactivity back then.

The last time I checked no members of the UPPu club from the lax days of
WWII bomb making had died of radiation poisoning or metal toxicity. It
is a heavy metal poison though and its salts are fairly soluble they are
also rather pretty colours in different oxidation states.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/f...age_atomic.htm

Just LOOK at the casual way they are stuffing Uranium into reactors,

Encapsulated in fuel rods and before it has seen slow neutrons the stuff
is relatively benign. Once it has been fissioned then you have to keep
it behind a few feet of concrete or tens of feet of water.

machining plutonium on a lathe etc etc.

The guy is working in a full positive pressure suit in the clip I saw.
Anything hot is done in a glove box.

Why arent they all dead?

Most of them probably are by now. Machining enriched uranium or much
worse plutonium without suitable dust extraction protection is likely to
provide plenty of hot particles in the lungs and combined with smoking
will see them off. Back then it wasn't uncommon for metal workers in the
chemical industry to suffer from zinc fever, lead burning and worst of
all beryllium poisoning from sharpening the special spark free copper
chisels used in flame proof areas.

It isn't for nothing that they have had to rename Sellafield, formerly
Windscale, formerly Calder Hall after each major MFU. We should give
great thanks to Cockcrofts follies - but for them we would have had a
very serious level of UK contamination when its core caught fire.

Presumably because THEN they knew how dangerous it was(not).

They didn't fully understand all the risks either as a heavy metal or as
an alpha particle source back then. Ingested a hot particle can do a lot
of damage to a local area inside the lungs exacerbated by smoking.

In fact the amount of radioactivity going up a coal fired power station
exceeds the limits permitted for a well run nuclear site. ORNL did the
sums on this some while back:

http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html

Plutonium solutions will boil under their own steam so to speak and
beakers would become fragile from fast particle damage. Accidents were
really rather common in the very early days, but despite that they
didn't AFAIK actually poison anyone fatally.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

John Williamson writes:

Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

Depleted uranium *metal* is probably not particularly dangerous, it'll
be the soluble compounds that are. Otherwise why do the winkypedia
articles show photos of some klod holding some.

Or some klot holding a sphere of plutonium?

http://static.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/Tickling_the_Dragons_Tail.jpg


Never hurt anyone, err, well ok so technically it might have killed 7
people, but hey ...


From the WNA website:-

"In the 1950s Queen Elizabeth II was visiting Harwell and was handed a
lump of plutonium (presumably Pu-239) in a plastic bag and invited to
feel how warm it was."

I've not noticed any skin problems on her hands....

Wonder how many BED that was?

Somewhere I read that physicists in a whimsical mood like to measure
radiation exposure in Banana Equivalent Dosages, based on the
radioactivity of a banana (presumably caused by the naturally occurring
potassium 40 in said fruit).

Apparently sleeping next to someone exposes you to about 0.5 BED

Someone else recently claimed that there was no safe level of bananas!




--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ S c o t s h o m e . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

Tim Streater writes:

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:

On 04/10/2013 09:55, John Williamson wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

Depleted uranium *metal* is probably not particularly dangerous, it'll
be the soluble compounds that are. Otherwise why do the winkypedia
articles show photos of some klod holding some.

DU is pretty tame provided that you wrap it in plastic sheet first.
I have held a bar of real DU once at Capenhurst. It is also used as a
very dense metal in various applications. Minor catch is that it can be
pyrophoric if provoked in a high speed collision.

Uranium is *much* more common in the environment than most people like
to think - about 2ppm in most rocks and soils and slightly more in
granite. What is rare is to find mineable high grade uranium ore.

And in coal, too, which is why coal ash is somewhat radioactive.

WHich is why nuclear physicists are quick to point out that coal fired
power stations cause much more radioactive atmospheric pollution than
nuclear power stations. (Chernobyl aside. And even that must have been
trifling when compared to atmospheric bomb tests, except for those
Russians unfortunate enough to be downwind).



--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ S c o t s h o m e . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

Martin Brown writes:

They didn't fully understand all the risks either as a heavy metal or as
an alpha particle source back then. Ingested a hot particle can do a lot
of damage to a local area inside the lungs exacerbated by smoking.

I'm a little worried about GM crops for exactly the same reason -
sooner or later they're bound to have an accident due to incomplete
understanding.
As they did with morning sickness pills for pregnant women.



--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ S c o t s h o m e . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost