On 26/02/2021 15:28, Pancho wrote:
On 26/02/2021 15:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/02/2021 14:25, Pancho wrote:
On 26/02/2021 14:00, newshound wrote:

The design was known to a) increase power output as the control
rods were inserted, b) take too long to insert the rods and


It wasn't widely know, it was "noticed", in a "how strange" sort of way.

These points only apply IF you drive it outside the envelope


One of the impressions you get from Chernobyl is that the operators
behaved the way they did because they felt they had a sure fire fail
safe, scram, to shut down the reactor.

It is slightly concerning to see the same over confidence in safety
systems reflected in this thread.
No, just confidence. Its only your complete lack of technical
understandingÂ* plus your total desire to remain irrationallyÂ* scared
of 'nuclear power' against all reason that spins that in your mind
into 'overconfidence'


I'm 100% pro nuclear fission, 100% pro research into breeder reactors.
Pro SMR, would be also be happy with a massive reactor building program
like happened in France.

I'm even pro fission as opposed to fusion.

Unfortunately I'm also familiar with the kind of political idiocy that
infects big projects

But not with the quality of engineers that actually exists, despite
that, nor yet the systems of 'total quality' that are completely alien
to art students and the political class, yet are what makes industrial
engineering the quality product (as opposed to commercial product
design) that it is.






--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On 26/02/2021 14:25, Pancho wrote:
On 26/02/2021 14:00, newshound wrote:

The design was known to a) increase power output as the control rods
were inserted, b) take too long to insert the rods and


It wasn't widely know, it was "noticed", in a "how strange" sort of way.

These points only apply IF you drive it outside the envelope


One of the impressions you get from Chernobyl is that the operators
behaved the way they did because they felt they had a sure fire fail
safe, scram, to shut down the reactor.

No, this was considered a very important test to establish a different
aspect of safety. They were so focussed on this that they turned off
their brains.


It is slightly concerning to see the same over confidence in safety
systems reflected in this thread.

For the last couple of decades virtually all the focus for new designs
has been on passive safety.


The western systems are probably safer and better run, but to quote
Schiller:Â* "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."


I can't think of a significant engineering failure in the past 50 years
where no-one said "With hindsight, we knew that could happen".

You have probably got to go back to the Comet 1 failures in the 50's,
with fatigue initiated by fretting at rivets, and stress concentration
factors at window corners. The Liberty ship failures in WW2 led to the
science of fracture mechanics.

On 19/02/2021 16:49, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:09:11 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

The two disasters, namely Chernobyl and Fukushima were two disasters
waiting to happen. The lessons are don't operate a reactor with known
design flaws and don't build a reactor by the ocean with a history of
tsunamis.

WEll that rather ****s Japan then ....

Not at all. It was 40 year old designs that failed, because all their
backup generators were on the main raft. Modern designs put them a
little way up the hill, out of reach of any remotely conceivable flooding.

On 26/02/2021 16:29, newshound wrote:
On 26/02/2021 14:25, Pancho wrote:
On 26/02/2021 14:00, newshound wrote:

The design was known to a) increase power output as the control rods
were inserted, b) take too long to insert the rods and


It wasn't widely know, it was "noticed", in a "how strange" sort of way.

These points only apply IF you drive it outside the envelope


One of the impressions you get from Chernobyl is that the operators
behaved the way they did because they felt they had a sure fire fail
safe, scram, to shut down the reactor.

No, this was considered a very important test to establish a different
aspect of safety. They were so focussed on this that they turned off
their brains.


It is slightly concerning to see the same over confidence in safety
systems reflected in this thread.

For the last couple of decades virtually all the focus for new designs
has been on passive safety.


The western systems are probably safer and better run, but to quote
Schiller:Â* "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."


I can't think of a significant engineering failure in the past 50 years
where no-one said "With hindsight, we knew that could happen".

You have probably got to go back to the Comet 1 failures in the 50's,
with fatigue initiated by fretting at rivets, and stress concentration
factors at window corners. The Liberty ship failures in WW2 led to the
science of fracture mechanics.

Even the Russians knew the RBMKs were an accident waiting to happen. In
Japan the question 'what if a tsunami hits' had been answered by ' the
seven meter wall will keep it out' , and if someone had said 'what if it
doesn't?' the answer would correctly have been - 'the loss of four
reactors with secondary containment will be the least of our worries
compared to the devastation and loss of life such a tsunami would wreak'.

Its a bit like saying our reactors need to be safe from nuclear attack.
Why? A few more mSv of radiation when ****loads has been dropped in bomb
form...

The point about safety in a quality controlled environement is that
every incident that us not in accordance with regulations is noted, and
its implications are considered. The procedures or parts are modified
and tested.

Rolls Royce is the best possible company to be doing this - they have a
track record in small PWRs from submarines. They have a track record in
power generations from OCGT and CCGT adaptations of aero engines,. They
also have the total quality approach in place for the jet engine
program. And they have manufacturing capable of high quality mass
production.



--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 26/02/2021 16:40, newshound wrote:
On 19/02/2021 16:49, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:09:11 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

The two disasters, namely Chernobyl and Fukushima were two disasters
waiting to happen. The lessons are don't operate a reactor with known
design flaws and don't build a reactor by the ocean with a history of
tsunamis.

WEll that rather ****s Japan then ....

Not at all. It was 40 year old designs that failed, because all their
backup generators were on the main raft. Modern designs put them a
little way up the hill, out of reach of any remotely conceivable flooding.

And again there was nothing wrong with Fuku, Even with hindsight the
engineering decisions were not wrong.

If someone has said 'proof it against a 15 meter tsunami' they answer
would have been 'what for? that's going to kill 20,000 people or more.,
And we will lose four reactors. And there will be no loss of life due to
that, so it's a waste of time and money'. Fuku reactors were old BWRs of
1970s vintage and even so, they stood up really well.

--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 25/02/2021 22:55, Steve Walker wrote:
Plus the Soviet Union did not even require any containment around the
reactor.

Gotta lurve these Left leaning systems of gubberment

They knew it was unsafe, but did nothing about it. After Chernobyl, they
did make some changes to improve safety - making the basic design safer.
Changes that they could have done years earlier, but no-one dared to
speak out against higher power.

'Cancel' culture was invented by communists.

Bull****.

The Party Is Right. End Of. It Cannot Make Mistakes.

Thats not cancel culture.


UK companies in the nuclear industry have a policy that anyone - no
matter if they a Nuclear Safety Engineer or a humble labourer, can stop
any job at any time if they think that there is danger ... even if that
job is nothing to do with them, but they are just passing by and see
something.

Nose picking *******s

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Radio Man wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:24:42 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

Jethro_uk wrote:

Especially the possibility for desalination - plonk a few of these
around the parts of the world that need water and consider the
electricity a handy by product

Isn't the electricity /used/ to do the desalination?

Humour fail

Although, come to think of it, no. Well, not necessarily.

Nuclear reactor. Shedloads of serious heat (i.e. 100C) might as well
just distil the seawater. Unless you want to extract metals by
electrolysis I guess ?

It is possible to reclaim desert (or so I have been told) if you can
irrigate and foliate enough area to start releasing water. Although it
has to be *very* big.


The original way salt was extracted from sea water was by natural
evaporation but that was to collect the salt.

In general, it relied on heat from wood or coal fires.

Nope, he's right, it was by natural evaporation in big salt pans.

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:19:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

And all milk in a huge area around windscale was collected
from the farms and destroyed to stop people drinking it.

Poured into the drains and hence ultimately to the sea, IIRC. Perfectly
sensible, for Iodine 131. Mainly from the Lake District, I think.

Perfectly sensible tat the time and lack of understanding
Today a complete waste of decent milk.

Indeed it would be, it should have gone to the calves it was meant for
(especially today with so many alternatives that don't involve animal
suffering and exploitation).

Cheers, T i m

In article , Rod Speed
wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Radio Man
wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:24:42 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

Jethro_uk wrote:

Especially the possibility for desalination - plonk a few of these
around the parts of the world that need water and consider the
electricity a handy by product

Isn't the electricity /used/ to do the desalination?

Humour fail

Although, come to think of it, no. Well, not necessarily.

Nuclear reactor. Shedloads of serious heat (i.e. 100C) might as
well just distil the seawater. Unless you want to extract metals by
electrolysis I guess ?

It is possible to reclaim desert (or so I have been told) if you can
irrigate and foliate enough area to start releasing water. Although
it has to be *very* big.


The original way salt was extracted from sea water was by natural
evaporation but that was to collect the salt.

In general, it relied on heat from wood or coal fires.

Nope, he's right, it was by natural evaporation in big salt pans.

In Australia - right. In northern Europe wrong.

I once saw, in the cinema, a documentary on Australian salt . Would people
use it if they knew it was collected using bulldozers and other such
mechanical beasts.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 26/02/2021 20:17, charles wrote:

I once saw, in the cinema, a documentary on Australian salt . Would people
use it if they knew it was collected using bulldozers and other such
mechanical beasts.

Why ever not? Have you not seen how potatoes beans and cereals are
harvested?


--
€œPeople believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, ones
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
ones suitability to be taken seriously.€�

Paul Krugman

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 05:27:38 +1100, Fredcantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile cretin's latest troll**** unread

--
JimK addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"I really feel the quality of your trolling has dropped in the last few
months..."
MID:

On 26/02/2021 14:25, Pancho wrote:
On 26/02/2021 14:00, newshound wrote:

The design was known to a) increase power output as the control rods
were inserted, b) take too long to insert the rods and


It wasn't widely know, it was "noticed", in a "how strange" sort of way.

These points only apply IF you drive it outside the envelope


One of the impressions you get from Chernobyl is that the operators
behaved the way they did because they felt they had a sure fire fail
safe, scram, to shut down the reactor.

It is slightly concerning to see the same over confidence in safety
systems reflected in this thread.

The western systems are probably safer and better run, but to quote
Schiller:Â* "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."

The Western systems simply would not allow the RBMK reactor and its
inherent problems.

The design meant that in an emergency, rods could not be inserted
rapidly and that for the first part of their insertion, power output
would rise. Clearly a dangerous combination.

It was known and they decided to ignore it.

On 26/02/2021 16:29, newshound wrote:
On 26/02/2021 14:25, Pancho wrote:
On 26/02/2021 14:00, newshound wrote:

The design was known to a) increase power output as the control rods
were inserted, b) take too long to insert the rods and


It wasn't widely know, it was "noticed", in a "how strange" sort of way.

These points only apply IF you drive it outside the envelope


One of the impressions you get from Chernobyl is that the operators
behaved the way they did because they felt they had a sure fire fail
safe, scram, to shut down the reactor.

No, this was considered a very important test to establish a different
aspect of safety. They were so focussed on this that they turned off
their brains.


It is slightly concerning to see the same over confidence in safety
systems reflected in this thread.

For the last couple of decades virtually all the focus for new designs
has been on passive safety.


The western systems are probably safer and better run, but to quote
Schiller:Â* "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."


I can't think of a significant engineering failure in the past 50 years
where no-one said "With hindsight, we knew that could happen".

You have probably got to go back to the Comet 1 failures in the 50's,
with fatigue initiated by fretting at rivets, and stress concentration
factors at window corners.

Fatigue was known about before the Comet. Neville Shute based one of his
books on it "No Highway", published in 1948.

The Liberty ship failures in WW2 led to the
science of fracture mechanics.

I didn't know about those failures - I did know that they were a British
design and that the later Americanised design use of oil firing meant
problems dealing with ice on the Artic convoys, because they no longer
had hot ashes to spread to help give a solid footing and clear some of
the ice.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 26/02/2021 20:17, charles wrote:

I once saw, in the cinema, a documentary on Australian salt . Would
people use it if they knew it was collected using bulldozers and other
such mechanical beasts.

Why ever not? Have you not seen how potatoes beans and cereals are
harvested?

most of those are cooked before eating. Salt is often added "raw"

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 26/02/2021 16:29, newshound wrote:
On 26/02/2021 14:25, Pancho wrote:
On 26/02/2021 14:00, newshound wrote:

The design was known to a) increase power output as the control rods
were inserted, b) take too long to insert the rods and


It wasn't widely know, it was "noticed", in a "how strange" sort of way.

These points only apply IF you drive it outside the envelope


One of the impressions you get from Chernobyl is that the operators
behaved the way they did because they felt they had a sure fire fail
safe, scram, to shut down the reactor.

No, this was considered a very important test to establish a different
aspect of safety. They were so focussed on this that they turned off
their brains.


It is slightly concerning to see the same over confidence in safety
systems reflected in this thread.

For the last couple of decades virtually all the focus for new designs
has been on passive safety.


The western systems are probably safer and better run, but to quote
Schiller: "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."


I can't think of a significant engineering failure in the past 50 years
where no-one said "With hindsight, we knew that could happen".

You have probably got to go back to the Comet 1 failures in the 50's,
with fatigue initiated by fretting at rivets, and stress concentration
factors at window corners.

Fatigue was known about before the Comet. Neville Shute based one of his
books on it "No Highway", published in 1948.

The Liberty ship failures in WW2 led to the
science of fracture mechanics.

I didn't know about those failures - I did know that they were a British
design and that the later Americanised design use of oil firing meant
problems dealing with ice on the Artic convoys, because they no longer
had hot ashes to spread to help give a solid footing and clear some of
the ice.

The problem with the breaking of Liberty ships was all welded construction
and the wrong type of steel which went brittle when cold. In my degree
course about 60 years ago.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 26/02/2021 21:23, Tim Streater wrote:
On 26 Feb 2021 at 21:16:01 GMT, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 26/02/2021 14:25, Pancho wrote:
On 26/02/2021 14:00, newshound wrote:

The design was known to a) increase power output as the control rods
were inserted, b) take too long to insert the rods and


It wasn't widely know, it was "noticed", in a "how strange" sort of way.

These points only apply IF you drive it outside the envelope


One of the impressions you get from Chernobyl is that the operators
behaved the way they did because they felt they had a sure fire fail
safe, scram, to shut down the reactor.

It is slightly concerning to see the same over confidence in safety
systems reflected in this thread.

The western systems are probably safer and better run, but to quote
Schiller:Â* "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."

The Western systems simply would not allow the RBMK reactor and its
inherent problems.

The design meant that in an emergency, rods could not be inserted
rapidly and that for the first part of their insertion, power output
would rise. Clearly a dangerous combination.

It was known and they decided to ignore it.

Possibly not known to the operators?

The point is that it was known to the Soviet Authorities and they
decided to ignore it and go ahead anyway.

On 26/02/2021 21:46, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 26/02/2021 20:17, charles wrote:

I once saw, in the cinema, a documentary on Australian salt . Would
people use it if they knew it was collected using bulldozers and other
such mechanical beasts.

Why ever not? Have you not seen how potatoes beans and cereals are
harvested?

most of those are cooked before eating. Salt is often added "raw"

So let me be clear about this line of reasoning.
Salt which doesn't support organic life, is at rusk of contamination by
machinery that also cannot support organic life.
But vegetables that can get crapped on by a fox etc are ok because they
are sometimes cooked?

Have you ever spent more than 30 seconds inspecting a farm or market garden?


--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

On 26/02/2021 17:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/02/2021 16:29, newshound wrote:


The point about safety in a quality controlled environement is that
every incident that us not in accordance with regulations is noted, and
its implications are considered. The procedures or parts are modified
and tested.

Rolls Royce is the best possible company to be doing this - they have a
track record in small PWRs from submarines. They have a track record in
power generations from OCGT and CCGT adaptations of aero engines,. They
also have the total quality approach in place for the jet engine
program. And they have manufacturing capable of high quality mass
production.


+1. They are also heavily involved in the clever C&I stuff in civil
nuclear plant.

At the moment SMRs are being talked about all over the place. When it
shakes down to two or three serious lines RR should be up there with the
best. And I guess we might see some interesting licensing deals.

On 26/02/2021 17:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/02/2021 16:40, newshound wrote:
On 19/02/2021 16:49, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:09:11 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

The two disasters, namely Chernobyl and Fukushima were two disasters
waiting to happen. The lessons are don't operate a reactor with known
design flaws and don't build a reactor by the ocean with a history of
tsunamis.

WEll that rather ****s Japan then ....

Not at all. It was 40 year old designs that failed, because all their
backup generators were on the main raft. Modern designs put them a
little way up the hill, out of reach of any remotely conceivable
flooding.

And again there was nothing wrong with Fuku, Even with hindsight the
engineering decisions were not wrong.

If someone has said 'proof it against a 15 meter tsunami' they answer
would have been 'what for? that's going to kill 20,000 people or more.,
And we will lose four reactors. And there will be no loss of life due to
that, so it's a waste of time and money'. Fuku reactors were old BWRs of
1970s vintage and even so, they stood up really well.

Yes but the economic consequences of the knee-jerk were disastrous for
Japan. They were unlucky with the timing too, some of the destroyed
plants were due to shut down the same year.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Rod Speed
wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Radio Man
wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:24:42 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

Jethro_uk wrote:

Especially the possibility for desalination - plonk a few of these
around the parts of the world that need water and consider the
electricity a handy by product

Isn't the electricity /used/ to do the desalination?

Humour fail

Although, come to think of it, no. Well, not necessarily.

Nuclear reactor. Shedloads of serious heat (i.e. 100C) might as
well just distil the seawater. Unless you want to extract metals by
electrolysis I guess ?

It is possible to reclaim desert (or so I have been told) if you can
irrigate and foliate enough area to start releasing water. Although
it has to be *very* big.


The original way salt was extracted from sea water was by natural
evaporation but that was to collect the salt.

In general, it relied on heat from wood or coal fires.

Nope, he's right, it was by natural evaporation in big salt pans.

In Australia - right. In northern Europe wrong.

Nope, it was done in europe that way too.

I once saw, in the cinema, a documentary on Australian
salt . Would people use it if they knew it was collected
using bulldozers and other such mechanical beasts.

Yep, and we do that with stuff like wheat too.
https://groundcover.grdc.com.au/grai...n-storage-tips
Not actually practical to do it with shovels.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Rod Speed
wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Radio Man
wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:24:42 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

Jethro_uk wrote:

Especially the possibility for desalination - plonk a few of
these
around the parts of the world that need water and consider the
electricity a handy by product

Isn't the electricity /used/ to do the desalination?

Humour fail

Although, come to think of it, no. Well, not necessarily.

Nuclear reactor. Shedloads of serious heat (i.e. 100C) might as
well just distil the seawater. Unless you want to extract metals by
electrolysis I guess ?

It is possible to reclaim desert (or so I have been told) if you
can
irrigate and foliate enough area to start releasing water. Although
it has to be *very* big.


The original way salt was extracted from sea water was by natural
evaporation but that was to collect the salt.

In general, it relied on heat from wood or coal fires.

Nope, he's right, it was by natural evaporation in big salt pans.

In Australia - right. In northern Europe wrong.

Nope, it was done in europe that way too.

I once saw, in the cinema, a documentary on Australian
salt . Would people use it if they knew it was collected
using bulldozers and other such mechanical beasts.

Yep, and we do that with stuff like wheat too.
https://groundcover.grdc.com.au/grai...n-storage-tips

https://images.app.goo.gl/RnFuKmeAgPVFcbpu9

Not actually practical to do it with shovels.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 26/02/2021 20:17, charles wrote:

I once saw, in the cinema, a documentary on Australian salt . Would
people use it if they knew it was collected using bulldozers and other
such mechanical beasts.

Why ever not? Have you not seen how potatoes beans and cereals are
harvested?

most of those are cooked before eating. Salt is often added "raw"

But easy to see if the machine has dropped anything.

There is no practical alternative with evaporated salt pans.

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 14:32:22 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile cretin's latest troll**** unread

--
Keema Nam addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll."
"MID: .com"

On 25/02/2021 17:14, Tim Streater wrote:

The danger comes from the poor use of whatever it is. So enriched uranium and
plutonium, f'rinstance, will be dangerous if you let the wrong people play
with it. Or if you design a reactor which can be unsafe and don't train its
operators properly. If OTOH you design it to be inherently safe, which is what
happens these days, then you're much better off. Chernobyl happened because of
a poor design AND bad luck AND poorly trained operators. Remove any one of
these and the reactor operates safely.

AIUI Chernobyl was supposed to run the test in the early evening, using
the day shift that had been trained and briefed for the task.

An unexpected demand for power meant that the controller in Kiev, who
knew of the test, rang Chernobyl to ask them to keep the reactor online
until demand had dropped. By the time this happened and the controller
had released the reactor, the trained day shift had handed over to the
night shift. These people knew of the test and I believe had the
protocols to hand. Someone decided the test should go ahead. However,
there should have been a reactor expert on hand in the control room, but
for whatever reason he wasn't there, so vital clues were not picked up
by the operators.

So the chain of errors that led to the reactor running away was quite
long, and if any single one had not happened, we'd never had heard of
the place.

--
Spike

On 25/02/2021 16:04, T i m wrote:

That 'damage radius' could be extended to say a couple of thousand
miles or more, if any toxin / pollutant could be carried by the wind
and then settles or washed down onto the ground below.

Have you ever calculated - always presuming you have enough fingers to
count on - the 'damage radius' of the cement factories that make the
ingredients for the 2,500-ton concrete plinth for each wind turbine?

Or the 'damage radius' of the rare-earth elements' mining, refining, and
component manufacture needed by its design?

Or the 'damage radius' for the lithium mining, refining, and component
manufacture?

Or the 'damage radius' of the production of the carbon fibre of its
construction?

Or the 'damage radius' of the engineering resins used to make the
composites?

Or the 'damage radius' of the cable manufacture?

Then there's the transport of all this stuff...

But most of this happens in countries far, far away. Out of sight, out
of mind, eh, except for your favourite hobby-horses?


--
Spike

On 26/02/2021 19:52, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:19:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

And all milk in a huge area around windscale was collected
from the farms and destroyed to stop people drinking it.

Poured into the drains and hence ultimately to the sea, IIRC. Perfectly
sensible, for Iodine 131. Mainly from the Lake District, I think.

Perfectly sensible tat the time and lack of understanding
Today a complete waste of decent milk.

Indeed it would be, it should have gone to the calves it was meant for
(especially today with so many alternatives that don't involve animal
suffering and exploitation).

Cheers, T i m


Wouldn't that have resulted in horribly mutated monsters? At least
according to some.

On 27 Feb 2021 11:14:00 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 25 Feb 2021 at 16:04:40 GMT, T i m wrote:

That 'damage radius' could be extended to say a couple of thousand
miles or more, if any toxin / pollutant could be carried by the wind
and then settles or washed down onto the ground below.

Now, when that's Sahara sand or volcanic ash or even frogs, the
chances are few are doing to suffer much from it. If it's (say)
radioactive, a few hundred farmers may not be allowed to sell a few
thousand sheep or worse.

Except that such precautions are, in fact, unlikely to be necessary.

'Precautions'. WTF are you talking about?

They are
only taken because the relevant government (made up from people without proper
training in things like risk assessment) feel they have to be seen be "doing
something",

Bwhaha ... you think those people make such decisions .... bwahaha,

and feel pressured by the media and egged on by twerps like you,
who lack judgement.

Yeah, right. You sad, deluded goblin.

Ah! Todays sig looks to be made specially for you.

"Please stop telling us what you feel. Please stop telling us what
your intuition is. Your intuitive feelings are of no interest
whatsoever, and nor are mine. I don't give a bugger what you feel, or
what I feel. I want to know what the evidence shows." --
Richard Dawkins"

1) You don't seem to have the brains / imagination / intelligence to
come up with anything of your own.

2) Feelings have nothing to do with the irrefutable *FACT* that
anything that involves nuclear has the *potential* to do bad things
for a long time and over a large area. Full stop.

Were you a study of Mr Dawkins when he was looking for the ultimate
example of the existence of the Selfish Gene?


Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 11:25:05 +0000, newshound
wrote:

On 26/02/2021 19:52, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:19:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

And all milk in a huge area around windscale was collected
from the farms and destroyed to stop people drinking it.

Poured into the drains and hence ultimately to the sea, IIRC. Perfectly
sensible, for Iodine 131. Mainly from the Lake District, I think.

Perfectly sensible tat the time and lack of understanding
Today a complete waste of decent milk.

Indeed it would be, it should have gone to the calves it was meant for
(especially today with so many alternatives that don't involve animal
suffering and exploitation).


Wouldn't that have resulted in horribly mutated monsters? At least
according to some.

Not sure they are allowed to live from birth or live long enough if
they aren't born mutated for any such mutations to come out (if such
was likely etc).

I thought I caught mention of sheep 'often' having mutated lambs on
the TV the other day (some farming show / Countryfile) but I didn't
catch where or why (if not 'normal' irrespective of the environmental
conditions etc).

Probably just another 'cost' to the farmer (and the animals of course)
as a result of over / selective breeding ...

https://ibb.co/GRyxDfs

Cheers, T i m

On 25/02/2021 14:41, T i m wrote:

Oh the irony (or maybe this is the best I should expect when trying to
discuss things with trolls, left brainers or people who obviously have
a vested interest / bias). ;-(

I think we can safely say that the B12 supplementation isn't working.

--
Spike

On 26/02/2021 11:52, T i m wrote:

The Hiroshima nuke was *NOT* a ground blast and was detonated as an
air blast to *specifically* limit the radioactive contamination of the
ground and reduce airborne debris.

Please feel free to let your 'bigger picture' right-brained approach
select the facts that suit your agenda.

Your statement fails to mention that an air-burst was chosen *primarily*
to cause maximum blast damage. The contamination aspect was a secondary
issue.

--
Spike

On 27/02/2021 11:14, Tim Streater wrote:
On 25 Feb 2021 at 16:04:40 GMT, T i m wrote:

That 'damage radius' could be extended to say a couple of thousand
miles or more, if any toxin / pollutant could be carried by the wind
and then settles or washed down onto the ground below.

Now, when that's Sahara sand or volcanic ash or even frogs, the
chances are few are doing to suffer much from it. If it's (say)
radioactive, a few hundred farmers may not be allowed to sell a few
thousand sheep or worse.

Except that such precautions are, in fact, unlikely to be necessary. They are
only taken because the relevant government (made up from people without proper
training in things like risk assessment) feel they have to be seen be "doing
something", and feel pressured by the media and egged on by twerps like you,
who lack judgement.

Ah! Todays sig looks to be made specially for you.


+10001


--
€œProgress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,€�

€“ Ludwig von Mises

On 27/02/2021 14:27, Spike wrote:
On 26/02/2021 11:52, T i m wrote:

The Hiroshima nuke was *NOT* a ground blast and was detonated as an
air blast to *specifically* limit the radioactive contamination of the
ground and reduce airborne debris.

Please feel free to let your 'bigger picture' right-brained approach
select the facts that suit your agenda.

Your statement fails to mention that an air-burst was chosen *primarily*
to cause maximum blast damage. The contamination aspect was a secondary
issue.

And it is an urban myth anyway. The same amount of radioactivity is
released. It just tends to be in gas form from an airburst

--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 03:05:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/02/2021 11:52, T i m wrote:

The Hiroshima nuke was *NOT* a ground blast and was detonated as an
air blast to *specifically* limit the radioactive contamination of the
ground and reduce airborne debris.

snip Spuke puke

Your statement fails to mention that an air-burst was chosen *primarily*
to cause maximum blast damage. The contamination aspect was a secondary
issue.

And it is an urban myth anyway.

Trolls like Spuke are like snipers using bollox for ammunition (and
why they are so easy to ignore).

The same amount of radioactivity is
released.

'Of course'.

It just tends to be in gas form from an airburst

Quite, not throwing up tons of radioactive contaminated mass that will
fall down elsewhere, even on a country 1500+ miles away, contaminating
that as well for many many years.

The same sort of thing as a nuclear power station catching fire etc.

Now, if they can *NEVER* do any of that, irrespective of the reason,
then everything is fine. If you can't guarantee them to never do that,
you then have to evaluate the risks against alternatives.

*Today*, there are more alternatives than when we were first building
nukes and why some countries are hesitant of building new ones and
further have the 'nuclear power phase-out'.

Same logic as banning legally owned in the UK. If they aren't there
there is less chance of them being used for bad things, even though
the vast majority weren't.

Cheers, T i m

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 26/02/2021 21:46, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 26/02/2021 20:17, charles wrote:

I once saw, in the cinema, a documentary on Australian salt . Would
people use it if they knew it was collected using bulldozers and other
such mechanical beasts.

Why ever not? Have you not seen how potatoes beans and cereals are
harvested?
most of those are cooked before eating. Salt is often added "raw"

So let me be clear about this line of reasoning.
Salt which doesn't support organic life, is at rusk of contamination by
machinery that also cannot support organic life.
But vegetables that can get crapped on by a fox etc are ok because they
are sometimes cooked?

Salads in Spain are fed with excrement and then washed in chlorine, you
know, the deadly stuff the Americans use to wash chicken carcasses.
Have you ever spent more than 30 seconds inspecting a farm or market garden?



--
bert

In article , T i m
writes
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:37:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

Looking at Banqiao - I mean who has even heard of the greatest ever
power generation loss of life ever?

Anyone who kept their eyes on the news.

But why isn't the damage to some dams because of a typhoon as
acceptable as the damage to a nuke because if a tsunami (given you
dgaf about people)?

no one would bat an eyelid.
It's *green* you see.

You really are childish / ignorant / disgusting aren't you. You are so
keen to push your own agenda and diss everything else (like the good
left brainer you are), you stoop to such low levels.

Green deaths are not immoral. They are martyrs to the One True Cause.

Stupid ****. Deaths are deaths ... but the bit you don't seem able to
even start to consider (because of how left brained you are) is how
long any issue might carry on killing / polluting things.
Just as a matter of interest and digressing a little does anyone know
how they propose to dispose of all these solar panels from warms and
roof tops at end of life in about 25 years? I also wonder how many CFL
bulbs are now ending up in land fill.
Snip shed load of crap
--
bert

On 28/02/2021 14:11, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 26/02/2021 21:46, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 26/02/2021 20:17, charles wrote:

I once saw, in the cinema, a documentary on Australian salt . Would
people use it if they knew it was collected using bulldozers and other
such mechanical beasts.

Why ever not? Have you not seen how potatoes beans and cereals are
harvested?
Â*most of those are cooked before eating. Salt is often added "raw"

So let me be clear about this line of reasoning.
Salt which doesn't support organic life, is at rusk of contamination
by machinery that also cannot support organic life.
But vegetables that can get crapped on by a fox etc are ok because
they are sometimes cooked?

Salads in Spain are fed with excrement and then washed in chlorine, you
know, the deadly stuff the Americans use to wash chicken carcasses.
Have you ever spent more than 30 seconds inspecting a farm or market
garden?

To be fair, the objection is not to chlorine washing of chicken, but to
the poor conditions that they are kept and processed in and that make
chlorine washing necessary.

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:39:35 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

snip


To be fair, the objection is not to chlorine washing of chicken, but to
the poor conditions that they are kept and processed in and that make
chlorine washing necessary.

That's why daughter (her group and many others) fast for 24 hours on
the 2nd of every month in support for all the animals that are starved
before slaughter ... because if they haven't eaten (or drunk, often)
anything the previous ~72 hours it won't be so 'incontinent for the
whole killing and butchering process with less 'mess' to clean up from
the killing floor and off the animal flesh.

Feeding them is also considered a 'waste of resources' ... nice (not).

AFOTS, Animals first on the second.




Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:19:37 +0000, bert wrote:
snip for the lazy troll and nymshifter

Just as a matter of interest and digressing a little does anyone know
how they propose to dispose of all these solar panels from warms and
roof tops at end of life in about 25 years?

Yes, by recycling, easy given they are mostly glass and metal. And why
25 years? Just because they might not be giving 100% of their initial
capacity there would be no reason to dispose of them if they were
still outputting something?

https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/20...anel-recycling

I also wonder how many CFL
bulbs are now ending up in land fill.

Oh dear, the poor burke / Spuke troll doesn't even know what CFL
stands for ...

'Compact fluorescent lamp / bulb' ... of did you mean CFBs but I guess
more than there might be in landfill if 'people' like you don't
dispose of them properly (our local recycling centre has a place for
them and plain tubes).

And why focus on CFL's and not smoke detectors and not anything
powered by nicad or NiMh cells?

Cheers, T i m

In article , T i m
writes
On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:19:37 +0000, bert wrote:
snip for the lazy troll and nymshifter

Just as a matter of interest and digressing a little does anyone know
how they propose to dispose of all these solar panels from warms and
roof tops at end of life in about 25 years?

Yes, by recycling, easy given they are mostly glass and metal.

And which metals would they be?
And why
25 years?
Approximate life cycle.
Just because they might not be giving 100% of their initial
capacity there would be no reason to dispose of them if they were
still outputting something?

https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/20...s-of-solar-pan
el-recycling

I also wonder how many CFL
bulbs are now ending up in land fill.

Oh dear, the poor burke / Spuke troll doesn't even know what CFL
stands for ...

'Compact fluorescent lamp / bulb' ... of did you mean CFBs but I guess
more than there might be in landfill if 'people' like you don't
dispose of them properly (our local recycling centre has a place for
them and plain tubes).


Wiki CFL
A compact fluorescent lamp (CFL), also called compact fluorescent light

Not as smart as you think.
And why focus on CFL's and not smoke detectors and not anything
powered by nicad or NiMh cells?

10 year life expectancy Much less of a problem, but a problem just the
same. How many people will simply chuck them in the waste bun esp those
without a car to go to the recycling centre.
Cheers, T i m



--
bert

On 28/02/2021 17:18, bert wrote:
In article , T i m
writes
On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:19:37 +0000, bert wrote:
snip for the lazy troll and nymshifter

Just as a matter of interest and digressing a little does anyone know
how they propose to dispose of all these solar panels from warms and
roof tops at end of life in about 25 years?

Yes, by recycling, easy given they are mostly glass and metal.

And which metals would they be?
And why
25 years?
Approximate life cycle.
Just because they might not be giving 100% of their initial
capacity there would be no reason to dispose of them if they were
still outputting something?

https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/20...s-of-solar-pan
el-recycling

I also wonder how many CFL
bulbs are now ending up in land fill.

Oh dear, the poor burke / Spuke troll doesn't even know what CFL
stands for ...

'Compact fluorescent lamp / bulb' ... of did you mean CFBs but I guess
more than there might be in landfill if 'people' like you don't
dispose of them properly (our local recycling centre has a place for
them and plain tubes).


Wiki CFL
A compact fluorescent lamp (CFL), also called compact fluorescent light

Not as smart as you think.
And why focus on CFL's and not smoke detectors and not anything
powered by nicad or NiMh cells?

10 year life expectancy Much less of a problem, but a problem just the
same. How many people will simply chuck them in the waste bun esp those
without a car to go to the recycling centre.


And mercury has an infinite half life, so arguably far worse than any
radioisotope as, unlike low level radiation, mercury does stay in the
body and build up and cause madness....hello T i m? Been eating the
CFLs again?


Cheers, T i m





--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.