"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
Except, of course, the problem for those people is not the regulation
per se - nor even any of the implications or reasons for it. It's pure
and simple the _source_ of the regulation. Given that source, they'll
pick holes in ANYTHING. Black is white. Today is Wednesday.

Quite. If the EU regulated to abolish income tax they'd still complain.

Sometimes Dave, you make the silliest of comments ...

Arfa

No, he's right.

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
news


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Arfa Daily
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
Except, of course, the problem for those people is not the
regulation
per se - nor even any of the implications or reasons for it. It's
pure
and simple the _source_ of the regulation. Given that source,
they'll
pick holes in ANYTHING. Black is white. Today is Wednesday.

Quite. If the EU regulated to abolish income tax they'd still
complain.

Sometimes Dave, you make the silliest of comments ...

It's you that started it, Arfa. With the usual scare story about an EU
reg.

It's not a story, it's a fact, and as ever, you have completely
misunderstood the original point of what I was saying, going off on one
of your tangents. I say again, your comment about taxation was totally
irrelevant to the discussion, and just plain silly ...

I think Our Dave has been drinking non-unleaded today, what with his
bee in the bonnet about Dyson and now this.

Possibly. The original point that I was making was, I thought, quite
straightforward, in that the new legislation was being 'sold' to us on the
back of that catch-all of 'power saving', which is automatically
associated with global warming, or 'climate change' as it has now subtly
slid over to, and thus qualifies it as 'a good thing'. Clearly, the amount
of power saving is extremely small in the grand scale of things, as a
vacuum cleaner is not an item that is used for hours at a time, or even
all that often these days compared to in the past. So the point was that
if power saving was the *real* reason behind the legislation, and it was
honestly believed that such a small amount was necessary, then the powers
that be must be a lot more worried about our generation capacity than they
are letting on.

The other stuff like noise and exhaust dust emission that have been
attached to the legislation are additional smokescreens to make it look
more attractive overall to the public. I suppose that reducing the noise
level of any item that intrinsically produces it as a by-product of its
operation is not a bad thing, but is it *really* an issue with a vacuum
cleaner ? Many kitchen blenders make as much if not more noise than some
vacuum cleaners.

Arfa

Energy saving is about a multitude of small things.
Draughtproofing one window doesn't save much but if you do the whole
house....

On Friday, August 22, 2014 5:19:27 PM UTC+1, Arfa Daily wrote:

... if we've now got to start shaving a few watts off the motor of an
appliance that these days is probably used no more than 15 minutes a week,
in order to save power. I refer of course to the new vacuum cleaner motor
power directive from our chums at the EU ...
Eco-bollox at its most ludicrous ... :-\
Arfa

Requiring vacs to be marked with an airwatt rating would have been so much more sensible.


NT

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
Possibly. The original point that I was making was, I thought, quite
straightforward, in that the new legislation was being 'sold' to us on
the back of that catch-all of 'power saving', which is automatically
associated with global warming, or 'climate change'

That's certainly the slant you and much of the meja put on it.
Conveniently ignoring all the rest.

I'd also ask - why are you so against energy saving?

I don't know what has happened to you over the last couple of years Dave.
You seem to be becoming progressively more obtuse on your take on anything
you get your teeth into. Where have I indicated anywhere that I am against
energy saving per se ? In fact I think I have said that basically I am not,
if not in this thread, then in others that we have both been involved in.
Read what I post, and try to understand the meaning, before going off on
one. In case you still don't get it, my point was that 'energy saving' is
the vehicle that this pup is being sold to us on. I don't believe for one
moment that anyone who might be responsible for introducing this, can have
arrived at the conclusion that for the expense and disruption to the
industry that will be involved, the power saving will be worthwhile IN THE
GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS.

And if it *really* is, and EU departments honestly believe (or know) that
power saving levels such as this are going to be needed, then we really
*are* in the **** ...

And I don't "ignore the rest". They are by-products of the basic
legislation, and largely immaterial to it. If you reduce the size of the
motor, it's going to get quieter or and / or suck less. If you shift less
air through the cleaner, then it's also likely, if you keep the same level
of filtering, that dust emissions back into the air will be reduced.

Arfa

--
*A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
...
On 25/08/2014 16:12, Capitol wrote:
I've been involved in standards work and believe me, the average
standard isn't worth the hot air it's written on in terms of giving the
customer a good product. The only standards I came across which I would
use, were those connected to aviation.

I, on the other hand, have only worked on one standards committee - and
that was in aviation.

I was in agreement with you until the last sentence

So are you saying that aviation standards are poor ? Hardware ? Commercial ?
Private ? Both ? As bad as / worse than other standards ? If that is truly
the case, then that's a bit worrying ... :-\

Arfa



Andy
--
OK, so WTF did they use X.25 to connect aeroplanes instead of TCP/IP?

On 28/08/14 03:12, wrote:
On Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:06:17 AM UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Actually the building regulations are an example - with the notable
exception of the politically inspired disability **** - very good
regulations indeed.
Getting worse as politics gets involved of course.

Really. Would you like to tell us why ceiling deflection needs to be limited to 3mm?

because there has to be a limit set and that's the one that's set.


Or why 43 degree stairs are illegal?

because there has to be a limit set and that's the one that's set.

Or why 2 core 2A single insulated lighting circuits are verboten?

Probably because rats and mice have caused too many fires..

(hint: the ceiling/wall etc makes for effective 2nd insulation) Or why 3
core lighting must be RCDed?

Didnt think it did have to be. (RCD'd). Yes there is a debate to be had
with RCDs.Have that debate.


Or why appliances that work fine on 32mm waste must be on 50mm? I
could go on all day about the bs that wastes everyone's time & money.

But these are trivial things.

of course appliance A works on 32mm BUT if its exchanged for appliance B....

The point is when building you just do all this stuff and its done,
because it isn't that much more expensive.

The main pint is to set a minimum quality and a reasonably standardised
build style so that repairing it is not a march into the unknown.


Of course the limits are somewhat arbitrary, but that's in the nature of
limits.

A friend who is living in the USA visited. He replaced ALL his copper
plumbing because of pinhole leaks in pipes laid directly in the screed
floor..OK in Florida they didn't really need insulation, but there was
no allowance for movement at all. And they corroded as well..




NT



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 28/08/14 09:40, Arfa Daily wrote:
I don't believe for one moment that anyone who might be responsible for
introducing this, can have arrived at the conclusion that for the
expense and disruption to the industry that will be involved, the power
saving will be worthwhile IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS.

It is actually a psychological thing: to get people into a 'green' frame
of mind so that yet more eco taxes can be siphoned of into green pockets.

To show that 'something is being done' about (nonexistent) human induced
climate change.

Renewable energy doesn't actually materially reduce emissions. That's
pretty obvious if you dive and and really look at real world scenarios.

Its a cosmetic response, allowing politicians to claim that they take
the issue seriously, and allowing certain lobbies to grow fat on
something that is essentially useless, but to a casual glance looks as
though it isn't.

Politicians get votes. Green industry makes a mint. the people get
poorer. Its exactly the correct political and big corporate thing to do.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 28/08/14 09:47, Arfa Daily wrote:


"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
...
On 25/08/2014 16:12, Capitol wrote:
I've been involved in standards work and believe me, the average
standard isn't worth the hot air it's written on in terms of giving the
customer a good product. The only standards I came across which I would
use, were those connected to aviation.

I, on the other hand, have only worked on one standards committee -
and that was in aviation.

I was in agreement with you until the last sentence

So are you saying that aviation standards are poor ? Hardware ?
Commercial ? Private ? Both ? As bad as / worse than other standards ?
If that is truly the case, then that's a bit worrying ... :-\

I suspect he's saying its illogical and inconsistent.

That there is stuff in there which does no harm, but does no good either.

All standards have that sort of stuff in them. Years ago when I was
working on something that had to be stuck on the seabed and work for
years and years, we were told to use germanium transistors, not the
infinitely superior silicon 'because silicon hasn't been around long
enough to be sure it will last'

I think that one was relaxed eventually though.

Its a reasonable idea. Don't arbitrarily throw new fangled stuff into
kit before its taken the test of time.


In those days - and today - transistors had various specifications they
mad to meet before they could be stamped. Manufacturers would select or
take a particular lines output and if they net that spec, stamp them and
sell them.

The net result in the case of the humble BC107 was IIRC that not a one
we ever tested from any mil spec approved supplier failed at less than
70V BUT the spec only rated them at 45V. If we wre using more than that,
we couldn't use them. Because someone one day MIGHT supply a less sturdy
item.

And indeed I had exactly that problem a decade later, when a batch of
units failed because the initial design had been done with one batch of
(power transistors) , and subsequent production was dome with quite another.

The quality approach to engineering consists in looking at problems that
have happened, and making a rule up to ensure the problem doesn't happen
again.

That sometimes the problem they were designed to address simply doesn't
exist any more but the regulation does, is just the way things happen.

I am sure there is a regulation for biplane rigging wires. Not that we
build biplanes any more, but I bet somewhere the regulation applies to
ALL structural wires used in aircraft ...the money and time to get rid
of it is not worth it, so it stays.,


Arfa



Andy
--
OK, so WTF did they use X.25 to connect aeroplanes instead of TCP/IP?



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 28/08/2014 09:24, wrote:
On Friday, August 22, 2014 5:19:27 PM UTC+1, Arfa Daily wrote:

... if we've now got to start shaving a few watts off the motor of an
appliance that these days is probably used no more than 15 minutes a week,
in order to save power. I refer of course to the new vacuum cleaner motor
power directive from our chums at the EU ...
Eco-bollox at its most ludicrous ... :-\
Arfa

Requiring vacs to be marked with an airwatt rating would have been so much more sensible.

I said that 5 days ago, but only after the vacuum cleaner has picked up
a few kg of plaster or other fine powder!

It would be easy yo have an energy from A to F based on power in and
power out. I think would be extremely embarrassing.

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
In case you still don't get it, my point was that 'energy saving' is
the vehicle that this pup is being sold to us on. I don't believe for
one moment that anyone who might be responsible for introducing this,
can have arrived at the conclusion that for the expense and disruption
to the industry that will be involved, the power saving will be
worthwhile IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS.

Right. So you're making a political point. Why not just say so rather than
try and dress it up?

And if it *really* is, and EU departments honestly believe (or know)
that power saving levels such as this are going to be needed, then we
really *are* in the **** ...

That can be said about any energy saving measure.

And I don't "ignore the rest". They are by-products of the basic
legislation, and largely immaterial to it. If you reduce the size of the
motor, it's going to get quieter or and / or suck less. If you shift
less air through the cleaner, then it's also likely, if you keep the
same level of filtering, that dust emissions back into the air will be
reduced.

You seem determined not to discuss whether it is possible to make a vacuum
cleaner more efficient. Which would at least me on topic for here.

BTW, have you read the entire EU document on the subject?

--
*Middle age is when work is a lot less fun - and fun a lot more work.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 17:12:24 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:

The thing is though that there was never any direct evidence of consumer
electronics landfill causing a problem.



I believe that there was a consumer electronics landfill problem with
CRT tubes where lead was leaching out into the water supply in soft
water areas.

And mercury, and problem somem cadium from rechargleble batteries from that era.

On 22/08/14 17:19, Arfa Daily wrote:
... if we've now got to start shaving a few watts off the motor of an
appliance that these days is probably used no more than 15 minutes a
week, in order to save power. I refer of course to the new vacuum
cleaner motor power directive from our chums at the EU ...

Eco-bollox at its most ludicrous ... :-\

Arfa



And thank you EU *******s.

I need a new vacuum and Miele uprights (wot I wanted) have just taken on
the availability of unobtainium. Shops - nothing. Online - nothing.

I also notice the Miele have scaled back on the very good range of
cylinders they used to have.

A long time ago (and despite being a Miele, it did die of old age and
abuse) I had a cylinder with an electrobrush (wires in the hose) with a
light on it. Fantastic for carpet. No such thing exists now.

For some reason most modern vacuums (uprights anyway) seem to have
stopped looking like hoovers and all seem to look like a transparent
cross between a hoover from the year 2525 and something from the Science
Museum where you could see all the bits through the case.

On 28/08/2014 13:12, Fredxxx wrote:

I said that 5 days ago, but only after the vacuum cleaner has picked up
a few kg of plaster or other fine powder!

You are Mr Dyson AICMFP.

On 28/08/2014 18:44, Tim Watts wrote:

A long time ago (and despite being a Miele, it did die of old age and
abuse) I had a cylinder with an electrobrush (wires in the hose) with a
light on it. Fantastic for carpet. No such thing exists now.

For some reason most modern vacuums (uprights anyway) seem to have
stopped looking like hoovers and all seem to look like a transparent
cross between a hoover from the year 2525 and something from the Science
Museum where you could see all the bits through the case.

You did write "most", but Sebo don't seem to fall into your description.

You can buy electrobrushes on USA Amazon...

--
Rod

Interesting that Bosch are pushing an 'upright' cordless vacuum on TV.
They must have found a way of making it work without a 3 HP motor. ;-)

--
*Young at heart -- slightly older in other places

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/14 09:40, Arfa Daily wrote:
I don't believe for one moment that anyone who might be responsible for
introducing this, can have arrived at the conclusion that for the
expense and disruption to the industry that will be involved, the power
saving will be worthwhile IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS.

It is actually a psychological thing: to get people into a 'green' frame
of mind so that yet more eco taxes can be siphoned of into green pockets.

To show that 'something is being done' about (nonexistent) human induced
climate change.

Renewable energy doesn't actually materially reduce emissions. That's
pretty obvious if you dive and and really look at real world scenarios.

Its a cosmetic response, allowing politicians to claim that they take the
issue seriously, and allowing certain lobbies to grow fat on something
that is essentially useless, but to a casual glance looks as though it
isn't.

Politicians get votes. Green industry makes a mint. the people get poorer.
Its exactly the correct political and big corporate thing to do.

Very eloquently put ...

Arfa




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare
story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
In case you still don't get it, my point was that 'energy saving' is
the vehicle that this pup is being sold to us on. I don't believe for
one moment that anyone who might be responsible for introducing this,
can have arrived at the conclusion that for the expense and disruption
to the industry that will be involved, the power saving will be
worthwhile IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS.

Right. So you're making a political point. Why not just say so rather than
try and dress it up?

The only place that it's being 'dressed up' is in your silly head. Please
just wind your neck in and shut up if you don't have anything useful to add.


And if it *really* is, and EU departments honestly believe (or know)
that power saving levels such as this are going to be needed, then we
really *are* in the **** ...

That can be said about any energy saving measure.

No. It can only be said about ones that are stupidly small for the potential
disruption, such as this one. You really do come out with ever dumber crap
by the day ...


And I don't "ignore the rest". They are by-products of the basic
legislation, and largely immaterial to it. If you reduce the size of the
motor, it's going to get quieter or and / or suck less. If you shift
less air through the cleaner, then it's also likely, if you keep the
same level of filtering, that dust emissions back into the air will be
reduced.

You seem determined not to discuss whether it is possible to make a vacuum
cleaner more efficient. Which would at least me on topic for here.

Where have I refused to discuss it ? All I have said is that I don't believe
that there is much power saving to actually be had, without compromising the
performance of the machine. Most that have entered the discussion seem to be
largely of the same opinion. Vacuum cleaners *may* have been more
'efficient' in the past with their motors of lesser power than we have now.
But by the same token, the motor / fan was only sucking through a cloth or
paper bag, and typically up a fairly straightforward air path. Since the
manufacturers have introduced all the high level filtering, that is no
longer the case, and is probably why motor power had to increase.

BTW, have you read the entire EU document on the subject?

Yes

Arfa

--
*Middle age is when work is a lot less fun - and fun a lot more work.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

This is how politics and Elfin Safety and ignorance work in the real
world...culled shamelessly from, the Late Prof. Cohens excellent work.


http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter12.html

8-------------------------------------------------

WEST VALLEY €” THE ULTIMATE WASTE PROBLEM

The most flagrant waste of taxpayer dollars in the name of nuclear waste
management is going on at West Valley, New York, about 30 miles south of
Buffalo.8 Since the West Valley problem has been widely publicized, it
is worth describing in some detail. This was the site of the first
commercial fuel-reprocessing plant, completed in 1966 and operated until
1972, when it was shut down for enlargement to increase its capacity.
During the following few years, government safety requirements were
substantially escalated, making the project uneconomical: the original
cost of the plant was $32 million, and the initial estimated cost of the
enlargement was $15 million, but it would have cost $600 million to meet
the new requirements for protection against earthquakes. (All areas have
some susceptibility to earthquakes, but it is minimal in the West Valley
area.) It was therefore decided to abandon the operation, raising the
question of what to do with the high-level waste stored in an
underground tank.

The potential hazard was that the radioactive material might somehow
leak out, get into the groundwater, and be carried with it into a nearby
creek which runs into Lake Erie. Lake Erie drains into Lake Ontario and
eventually into the St. Lawrence river, and the three of these are used
as water supplies for millions of people. How dangerous would this be?

If all of the radioactive waste stored at West Valley were dissolved in
Lake Erie now, and if it passed unhindered through the filters of water
supply systems with no precautions being taken, we could expect 40,000
eventual fatalities to result. However, the radioactivity decreases with
time by about a factor of 10 per century for the first few hundred
years, so that if it were dumped into Lake Erie 400 years from now, only
six fatalities would result; and if the dumping occurred more than 1,000
years in the future, there would probably not be a single fatality.

How likely would it be for wastes to get into Lake Erie in the near
future? Let us suppose that all the containment features designed into
the system failed, releasing all of the radioactive material into the
soil. The nearest creek is several hundred feet away, and water soaking
through the soil would take 10 to 100 years to traverse this distance.
But the radioactive material would travel much more slowly; it would be
effectively filtered out as the water passed through the soil and would
consequently take 100 times longer €” a total of at least a thousand
years to reach the creek. We see that this alone gives a very high
probability that the material will not get into the creek or lakes until
its radioactivity is essentially gone.

But how likely is a release into the soil? The initial protection
against this is the tank in which the waste is contained. It is
basically one tank inside another, so that if the inner tank leaks, the
radioactive material will still be contained by the outer tank and a
warning about the situation will be given. In addition, there are three
further barriers keeping it from getting into the soil. First, the tanks
are in a concrete vault which should contain the liquid. Second, the
concrete vaults are surrounded by gravel, and there are pipes installed
to pump water out of this gravel. If the radioactivity managed to get
into this region, it could still be pumped out through these pipes;
there would be plenty of time €” many weeks, at least €” to do this.
Third, the entire cavity is in a highly impermeable clay that would take
a very long time for the liquid to penetrate before reaching the
ordinary soil. There is still one last barrier worthy of mention; the
water flow in the creek is sufficiently small that during the 10 or more
years it would take the groundwater to reach it, a system could be set
up for removing the radioactivity from the creek water.

Some perspective on the danger of leakage into the ground may be gained
from considering a Russian program in which more than twice the
radioactive content of the West Valley storage tank was pumped down a
well into the ground. This was done as an experiment to study movement
of the radioactivity through the ground with a view to using this method
for large-scale high-level waste disposal. At last report the results
were consistent with expectations and the plans were proceeding.

Up to this point we have been assuming that the radioactive materials
are in solution in the waste storage tank, but actually 95% of them are
in a solid sludge which is lying on the bottom of these tanks. This
sludge would be much less likely to get out through a leak, to penetrate
the concrete vault, and to be transported through the ground with
groundwater; even if it were dumped directly into Lake Erie, most of it
would settle to the bottom, and even if it got into city water supplies,
it would very probably be removed by the filtration system. The
consequences of release into Lake Erie that we have given earlier are
therefore probably 10 times too high.

In summary, if there should be leakage from the tank, it would very
probably be contained by the concrete vault. If it were not, it could be
pumped out with the water which permeates the surrounding gravel. If
this should fail, it would be contained for many years by the thick clay
enclosing the entire cavity. When it did eventually get through to the
surrounding soil, the movement of the radioactive materials would be
sufficiently slow that they would decay to innocuous levels before
reaching the creek. It would not be difficult to remove the radioactive
material from the creek itself if this were necessary; if, as seems
virtually certain, the material was delayed from reaching Lake Erie for
at least 400 years, less than one fatality would be expected. If all
else failed, any excess radioactivity in Lakes Erie and Ontario would be
detected by routine monitoring operations, allowing precautions to be
taken to protect public health.

But what if there were a violent earthquake? A structural analysis
indicates that even the most violent earthquake believed possible in
that area would not rupture the waste storage tanks. (Such an earthquake
is expected only once in 16,000 years.) One might consider sabotage of
the tank with explosives; but the tank is covered with an 8-foot
thickness of clay which would be extremely hazardous to dig through
unless elaborate protective measures were taken. If the tank were
successfully ruptured, all of the other protective barriers would remain
intact, so in all likelihood no harm would result. Saboteurs have many
more inviting targets available if their aim is to take human lives. As
an example, they could easily kill thousands of people by introducing a
poison gas into the ventilation system of a large building.

A very large bomb dropped from an airplane could reach the waste and
vaporize it: if this happened, several hundred fatalities would be
expected, but far more people would be killed if this bomb were dropped
on a city. These same considerations apply to a possible strike by a
large meteorite or the development of a volcano through the area. These
latter events are, of course, extremely improbable.

Up to this point we have ignored the effects of the radioactive
materials permeating the soil in the event of a leak in the tank
followed somehow by bypass of the concrete vault, the gravel pump-out
system, and the thick clay lining. While in the soil, the radioactive
materials could be picked up by plants and get into human food. How much
of a hazard would this be? If all the radioactivity in the West Valley
waste storage tank were now to become randomly distributed through the
soil from the surface down to its present depth, if its behavior in soil
is like that in average U.S. soil with the same percentage of land area
used for farming, and if no protective action were taken, we would
expect 30 fatalities. If the situation were postponed for 100 years, 3
fatalities would result, and if it were postponed for more than 180
years, we would not expect any. Our assumption here that the material
becomes randomly distributed through the soil up to the surface is
probably a very pessimistic one. Also, in the very unlikely event in
which there could be a problem, it would easily be averted by checking
food grown in the area for radiation and removing from the market any
with excessive radioactivity.

In 1978, the DOE set about deciding what to do about this waste tank.9
The simplest solution would be to pour cement mix into the tank to
convert its contents into a large block of cement. This would eliminate
any danger of leakage. The principal danger would then be that
groundwater could somehow penetrate successively through the clay
barrier, the concrete vault, and the stainless steel tank wall to
dissolve away some of this cement. Each of these steps would require a
very long time period. For example, although the sides of swimming pools
and dams are cement, we note that they aren't noticeably leached away in
many years even by the soaking in water to which they are exposed;
moreover, groundwater contact is more like a dampness than a soaking. If
the material did become dissolved in groundwater, all the barriers to
getting into Lake Erie outlined above would still be in place and would
have to be surmounted before any harm could be done. Even this remote
danger could be removed by maintaining surveillance €” periodically
checking for water in the concrete vault and pumping it out if any
should accumulate. The cost of converting to cement would be about $20
million, and a $15 million trust fund could easily provide all the
surveillance one might desire for as long as anyone would want to
maintain it.

If this were done, what would the expected health consequences be? I
have tried to do risk analyses by assigning probabilities, and I find it
difficult to obtain a credible estimate higher than 0.01 eventual
deaths. It would be very easy to support numbers hundreds or thousands
of times smaller.

However, this management option is not being taken. Instead the DOE has
decided to remove the waste from the tank, convert it to glass, and bury
it deep underground in accordance with plans for future commercial
high-level waste. This program will cost about $1 billion. Spending $1
billion to avert 0.01 deaths corresponds to $100 billion per life saved!
This is going on at a time when the same government is turning down
projects that would save a life for every $100,000 spent! That is our
real waste problem.

One last item deserves mention here €” the radiation exposure to workers
in executing the plans described above. It turns out that exposure is
greater in the billion-dollar plan that was adopted than in the plan for
conversion to cement, by an amount that would cause 0.02 deaths (i.e., a
2% chance of a single death) among the workers. Since this is more than
0.01 deaths to the public from the conversion to cement, the
billion-dollar plan is actually more dangerous.

I have met the government officials who chose the billion-dollar plan,
and have discussed these questions with them. They are intelligent
people trying to do their jobs well. But they don't view saving lives as
the relevant question. In their view, their jobs are to respond to
public concern and political pressures. A few irrational zealots in the
Buffalo area stirred up the public there with the cry "We want that
dangerous waste out of our area." Why should any local people oppose
them? Their congressional representatives took that message to
Washington €” what would they have to gain by doing otherwise? The DOE
officials responded to that pressure by asking for the billion-dollar
program. It wasn't hurting them; in fact, having a new billion-dollar
program to administer is a feather in their caps. Congress was told that
a billion dollars was needed to discharge the government's
responsibility in protecting the public from this dangerous waste €” how
could it fail to respond?

That is how a few people with little knowledge or understanding of the
problem induced the United States Government to pour a billion dollars
"down a rathole." I watched every step of the process as it went off as
smooth as glass. And the perpetrators of this mess have become local
heroes to boot.

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"harryagain" wrote in message ...


"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
Except, of course, the problem for those people is not the regulation
per se - nor even any of the implications or reasons for it. It's pure
and simple the _source_ of the regulation. Given that source, they'll
pick holes in ANYTHING. Black is white. Today is Wednesday.

Quite. If the EU regulated to abolish income tax they'd still complain.

Sometimes Dave, you make the silliest of comments ...

Arfa

No, he's right.

Arfa! Stand in the corner! You know harry holds that title.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
This is how politics and Elfin Safety and ignorance work in the real
world...culled shamelessly from, the Late Prof. Cohens excellent work.

Harry the *local hero*? Now there is a possible explanation:-)

Big snip..

That is how a few people with little knowledge or understanding of the
problem induced the United States Government to pour a billion dollars
"down a rathole." I watched every step of the process as it went off as
smooth as glass. And the perpetrators of this mess have become local
heroes to boot.


--
Tim Lamb

On 28/08/2014 07:40, harryagain wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Arfa Daily
wrote:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

2) Drinking water.

This is another debatable area. For a very long time, water was supplied
through lead pipes. Indeed, the house that I lived in as a kid had lead
pipe-work, as did most others that I knew, and as I'm sure many still do.
Did it give us all brain damage ? Considering the apparent intelligence
of our generation compared to the last couple, I would have said not.
That being the case when the water flowed through fully lead pipes, I'm
not sure how you justify the validity of removing lead from soldered
copper joints that are not basically in contact with the water anyway.

Won't it depend on the pH of the water? It's a question of the extent
to which the lead dissolves. There is a school of though that says that
lead in the water did for the Romans.

The Romans made drinking vessels out of lead.
Also lead pipes for water.


They also used lead acetate as a sweetener, which may have more to do
with the problem than the tiny amount of lead that even soft water
leaches out of plumbing. Lead drinking containers are in contact with
fluid for so little time that you'd be hard pushed to detect any lead
from that source, even in a paranoid laboratory. Lead from pipework is
also easily cleared from the water by letting the tap run for a few
seconds before filling a container, as recommended by most water
suppliers where lead pipes are still used as feeders for homes.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 28/08/2014 07:46, harryagain wrote:

Energy saving is about a multitude of small things.
Draughtproofing one window doesn't save much but if you do the whole
house....


You end up in a warmer house with no draughts, with enough extra
moisture in the air to damage your health by increasing the amount of
fungus spores floating around in it. Unless you install heat exchangers
and forced ventilation, which uses almost as much energy as heating the
air coming in via the natural ventilation you blocked up.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
In case you still don't get it, my point was that 'energy saving' is
the vehicle that this pup is being sold to us on. I don't believe for
one moment that anyone who might be responsible for introducing this,
can have arrived at the conclusion that for the expense and disruption
to the industry that will be involved, the power saving will be
worthwhile IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS.

Right. So you're making a political point. Why not just say so rather
than try and dress it up?

The only place that it's being 'dressed up' is in your silly head.
Please just wind your neck in and shut up if you don't have anything
useful to add.

Well, I've tried to start a discussion about vacuum cleaner design. but
you apparently aren't interested. Which leads me to conclude your reasons
for starting this thread. Of course if you'd like to say how much you like
the EU and want to continue being a member...


And if it *really* is, and EU departments honestly believe (or know)
that power saving levels such as this are going to be needed, then we
really *are* in the **** ...

That can be said about any energy saving measure.

No. It can only be said about ones that are stupidly small for the
potential disruption, such as this one. You really do come out with
ever dumber crap by the day ...

The potential disruption? Isn't that rather over the top even for you?


And I don't "ignore the rest". They are by-products of the basic
legislation, and largely immaterial to it. If you reduce the size of
the motor, it's going to get quieter or and / or suck less. If you
shift less air through the cleaner, then it's also likely, if you
keep the same level of filtering, that dust emissions back into the
air will be reduced.

You seem determined not to discuss whether it is possible to make a vacuum
cleaner more efficient. Which would at least me on topic for here.

Where have I refused to discuss it ? All I have said is that I don't
believe that there is much power saving to actually be had, without
compromising the performance of the machine.

You must have missed the point I made earlier. Of the three vacuum
cleaners I have here, the most powerful one as regards suction - and by
quite some margin - has an 800 watt motor. The least powerful an 1800 watt
motor. The latter also being the newest one. But my conclusion that the
power consumption of a vacuum has little to do with its performance
doesn't seem to fit in with your ideological rant.


Most that have entered the
discussion seem to be largely of the same opinion. Vacuum cleaners
*may* have been more 'efficient' in the past with their motors of
lesser power than we have now. But by the same token, the motor / fan
was only sucking through a cloth or paper bag, and typically up a
fairly straightforward air path. Since the manufacturers have
introduced all the high level filtering, that is no longer the case,
and is probably why motor power had to increase.

BTW, have you read the entire EU document on the subject?

Yes

So give a summary of all it says. Not just the Mail version.

--
*Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
They also used lead acetate as a sweetener, which may have more to do
with the problem than the tiny amount of lead that even soft water
leaches out of plumbing. Lead drinking containers are in contact with
fluid for so little time that you'd be hard pushed to detect any lead
from that source, even in a paranoid laboratory.

Depends what you keep in them.

--
*This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra security *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 29/08/14 10:12, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/08/2014 07:46, harryagain wrote:

Energy saving is about a multitude of small things.
Draughtproofing one window doesn't save much but if you do the whole
house....


You end up in a warmer house with no draughts, with enough extra
moisture in the air to damage your health by increasing the amount of
fungus spores floating around in it. Unless you install heat exchangers
and forced ventilation, which uses almost as much energy as heating the
air coming in via the natural ventilation you blocked up.

There is a happy medium.

For a start mostly people are cold in winter, where the interior
humidity of a CH house is very very low.

and if its insulated enough not to form condensation on outside walls,
the chances of mould growth are fairly minimal.

You can then control ventilation by opening vents or windows on a as
needed basis.

So whilst there is a little merit in what you say, the balance is
towards full draughtproofing




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 29/08/14 10:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So give a summary of all it says. Not just the Mail version.

Dunno about that but:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-clean-4125086

Well done EU - single handedly buggered up the entire vacuum cleaner market.

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 29/08/14 10:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So give a summary of all it says. Not just the Mail version.

Dunno about that but:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-clean-4125086

Well done EU - single handedly buggered up the entire vacuum cleaner
market.

Hmm. Did you actually read this article?

Here's a quote from it:-

'Sir James Dyson, who gave the world the first bagless vacuum, waded into
the row and called for more rigid testing for the appliances in a proper
family environment rather than sterile labs.

He said: ”The motor cap is the sensible part of the upcoming regulation
from Europe, as it can drive investment in efficient technology.'

Wonder what all the Dyson enthusiasts make of that?

FWIW, my 20 year old upright cleaner meets all proposed legislation
restricting power input, and I've not found that lacking in suction. Even
when my long haired dog was still around. So I'm genuinely curious why any
domestic cleaner would require a motor of three times that power input.

--
*It's this dirty because I washed it with your wife's knickers*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 29/08/2014 11:17, Tim Watts wrote:
On 29/08/14 10:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So give a summary of all it says. Not just the Mail version.

Dunno about that but:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-clean-4125086


Well done EU - single handedly buggered up the entire vacuum cleaner
market.

Buggered up? Is it now impossible to find a decent vacuum cleaner for a
decent price?

On 29/08/14 12:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 29/08/14 10:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So give a summary of all it says. Not just the Mail version.

Dunno about that but:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-clean-4125086

Well done EU - single handedly buggered up the entire vacuum cleaner
market.

Hmm. Did you actually read this article?

Here's a quote from it:-

'Sir James Dyson, who gave the world the first bagless vacuum, waded into
the row and called for more rigid testing for the appliances in a proper
family environment rather than sterile labs.

He said: ”The motor cap is the sensible part of the upcoming regulation
from Europe, as it can drive investment in efficient technology.'

Wonder what all the Dyson enthusiasts make of that?

FWIW, my 20 year old upright cleaner meets all proposed legislation
restricting power input, and I've not found that lacking in suction. Even
when my long haired dog was still around. So I'm genuinely curious why any
domestic cleaner would require a motor of three times that power input.


That may well be true - but this is not seatbelts in cars - I do not see
that the problem is one that needs solving.

If they wanted to "solve" the problem, then stipulate that an efficiency
rating be measured by prescribed means and make them display that and
let the consumer decide.

On 29/08/14 13:20, Clive George wrote:
On 29/08/2014 11:17, Tim Watts wrote:
On 29/08/14 10:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So give a summary of all it says. Not just the Mail version.

Dunno about that but:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-clean-4125086



Well done EU - single handedly buggered up the entire vacuum cleaner
market.

Buggered up? Is it now impossible to find a decent vacuum cleaner for a
decent price?


At this precise moment it is - as I mentioned I wasted a day and half
tracking down the make and general type I wanted.

Argos had none (in 12 different stores) neight did any of the electrical
stores nor online suppliers.

John Lewis in Tunbridge Wells is positively bare in the hoover section
(except for some Dysons which I wouldn't touch).

I found a smaller online store in Reigate with exactly 2 left - the
bloke confirmed - my preferred choice is 200W or so above the this
stupid max level and everyone had been buying them and the manufacturers
seem to be waiting for the dust to settle before making more units.


The EU personally wasted a load of my time and thus I would happily push
the lot of them into a pit filled with aligators.

Tim Watts wrote:

If they wanted to "solve" the problem, then stipulate that an efficiency
rating be measured by prescribed means and make them display that and
let the consumer decide.

Indeed, fridges and/or freezers are the 24x7x52 energy guzzlers, I don't
recall the EU banning any of them above a specified power, simply slap
an A-G rating sticker on them ... inform don't dictate.

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
FWIW, my 20 year old upright cleaner meets all proposed legislation
restricting power input, and I've not found that lacking in suction. Even
when my long haired dog was still around. So I'm genuinely curious why any
domestic cleaner would require a motor of three times that power input.


That may well be true - but this is not seatbelts in cars - I do not see
that the problem is one that needs solving.

Probably just part of grading all domestic appliances.

If they wanted to "solve" the problem, then stipulate that an efficiency
rating be measured by prescribed means and make them display that and
let the consumer decide.

That is part of the reg. But I can't for the life of me understand why
wanting to improve the efficiency of such a boring device as a vacuum
cleaner makes so many boil over. Unless, of course, simply politically
motivated.

--
*See no evil, Hear no evil, Date no evil.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 29/08/14 14:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

That is part of the reg. But I can't for the life of me understand why
wanting to improve the efficiency of such a boring device as a vacuum
cleaner makes so many boil over. Unless, of course, simply politically
motivated.

Nope. Simply because it caused me personal inconvenience for no good gain.

But it is adding to my political opinion that the EU is an unaccountable
mess and one day they might actually do something really bad (TM) if
this carries on.

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 29/08/14 14:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

That is part of the reg. But I can't for the life of me understand why
wanting to improve the efficiency of such a boring device as a vacuum
cleaner makes so many boil over. Unless, of course, simply politically
motivated.

Nope. Simply because it caused me personal inconvenience for no good
gain.

Well, it was published some time ago. But of course the Meja leave it to
the last moment to publicise it with scare stories. Producing probably
what they wanted - a rush to buy before stocks run out, providing yet more
copy. Nothing like a shortage or ban to make people buy something now they
probably didn't need.

But it is adding to my political opinion that the EU is an unaccountable
mess and one day they might actually do something really bad (TM) if
this carries on.

No surprise there.

--
*They told me I had type-A blood, but it was a Type-O.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 29/08/2014 14:14, Tim Watts wrote:
On 29/08/14 13:20, Clive George wrote:
On 29/08/2014 11:17, Tim Watts wrote:
On 29/08/14 10:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So give a summary of all it says. Not just the Mail version.

Dunno about that but:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-clean-4125086




Well done EU - single handedly buggered up the entire vacuum cleaner
market.

Buggered up? Is it now impossible to find a decent vacuum cleaner for a
decent price?


At this precise moment it is - as I mentioned I wasted a day and half
tracking down the make and general type I wanted.

Argos had none (in 12 different stores) neight did any of the electrical
stores nor online suppliers.

John Lewis in Tunbridge Wells is positively bare in the hoover section
(except for some Dysons which I wouldn't touch).

I found a smaller online store in Reigate with exactly 2 left - the
bloke confirmed - my preferred choice is 200W or so above the this
stupid max level and everyone had been buying them and the manufacturers
seem to be waiting for the dust to settle before making more units.

The EU personally wasted a load of my time and thus I would happily push
the lot of them into a pit filled with aligators.

That's not a buggered market, that's simply one particular type becoming
unavailable. You wasted your own time with your particular requirements.

On 29/08/14 15:27, Clive George wrote:

That's not a buggered market, that's simply one particular type becoming
unavailable. You wasted your own time with your particular requirements.

No. The EU wasted my time.

My requirements were a Miele upright. Not even too fussed which model.

On 29/08/2014 15:30, Tim Watts wrote:
On 29/08/14 15:27, Clive George wrote:

That's not a buggered market, that's simply one particular type becoming
unavailable. You wasted your own time with your particular requirements.

No. The EU wasted my time.

No, you wasted your own time. The EU requirements have been known about
for a long time.

My requirements were a Miele upright. Not even too fussed which model.

Blame Miele and the retailers then. They've known about this change for
really quite a long time. Miele appear to make three models which comply
with the new leglislation. Why have the retailers failed to ensure
they're in stock? (yes, John Lewis don't mention them).

On 29/08/14 15:40, Clive George wrote:
On 29/08/2014 15:30, Tim Watts wrote:
On 29/08/14 15:27, Clive George wrote:

That's not a buggered market, that's simply one particular type becoming
unavailable. You wasted your own time with your particular requirements.

No. The EU wasted my time.

No, you wasted your own time. The EU requirements have been known about
for a long time.

Nope. Don't agree.

It's a pointless change. And I needed a vac *now* not 3 months ago.

So as far as I'm concerned the EU can **** right off if this is all they
have to worry about.

My requirements were a Miele upright. Not even too fussed which model.

Blame Miele and the retailers then. They've known about this change for
really quite a long time. Miele appear to make three models which comply
with the new leglislation. Why have the retailers failed to ensure
they're in stock? (yes, John Lewis don't mention them).

Who knows - but it's outside of my control and if the EU stayed out of
it, it would not have been a problem...

In article ,
Clive George wrote:
Blame Miele and the retailers then. They've known about this change for
really quite a long time. Miele appear to make three models which comply
with the new leglislation. Why have the retailers failed to ensure
they're in stock? (yes, John Lewis don't mention them).

They want to clear their old stock at full price. Nothing like this sort
of scare story for doing that. If the story had been reported more
sensibly, they'd have had to discount any stock left before the deadline.

--
*Some days you're the dog, some days the hydrant.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 29/08/2014 16:03, Tim Watts wrote:
On 29/08/14 15:40, Clive George wrote:
On 29/08/2014 15:30, Tim Watts wrote:
On 29/08/14 15:27, Clive George wrote:

That's not a buggered market, that's simply one particular type
becoming
unavailable. You wasted your own time with your particular
requirements.

No. The EU wasted my time.

No, you wasted your own time. The EU requirements have been known about
for a long time.

Nope. Don't agree.

You don't agree with what? They really have been known about for a long
time.

It's a pointless change. And I needed a vac *now* not 3 months ago.

Your opinion, and it's not necessarily an important one.

So as far as I'm concerned the EU can **** right off if this is all they
have to worry about.

My requirements were a Miele upright. Not even too fussed which model.

Blame Miele and the retailers then. They've known about this change for
really quite a long time. Miele appear to make three models which comply
with the new leglislation. Why have the retailers failed to ensure
they're in stock? (yes, John Lewis don't mention them).

Who knows - but it's outside of my control and if the EU stayed out of
it, it would not have been a problem...

It's not "who knows", it's definitely retailers/miele cocking up.