Bad day in Oklahoma

On 2006-03-08, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:
Name all the people that have died as a result of Nuclear accidents in the
US.

Some trivia: Edward Teller claimed to be the only victim of Three Mile
Island - because the stress gave him a heart attack (which he survived).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

On 2006-03-08, RST Engineering wrote:
You are coming at it from the wrong direction, Jay. Nuclear fission
requires some rather scarce chemistry (U235 doesn't come out of the faucet
when you turn it on) but FUSION does come out of the faucet.

There are reactor designs now that run on natural uranium. Reprocessing
means the fuel supplies are good for around 100,000 years.

Fusion is of course the holy grail because the waste problem isn't
nearly as big and it's inherently safer. Of course when people go on
about waste from conventional plants, I say it's a lot easier to deal
with the waste from a nuclear plant (it's all contained on one small
location) than a coal plant (where it's just spread all over the planet
and almost impossible to ever clean up).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

On 2006-03-09, LWG wrote:
the shores of Florida. While we are sitting at home in our frigid houses,
without light or heat, or the ability to go to work

I'm just being facetious here, but I have a perfectly servicable
bicycle. And chopping wood gets you warm three times - once when you log
it, once when you chop it, and once when you burn it in the fireplace!

But seriously, there is a minority whose agenda is that we should all go
back to living in an agrarian society (which simply won't work without
killing off a lot of people).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

On 2006-03-08, Grumman-581 grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM wrote:
Even when we have a solar eclipse, the moon's shadow is only going across a
portion of the planet... If the moon orbited at a greater distance (I'm
don't remember of the exact distance off the top of my head), all we would
see of the eclipse would be the silhouette of the moon obscuring a part of
the sun

We are actually living in quite a privileged time for eclipses - the
moon is gradually getting further from the Earth (something like 3 or 4
centimetres per year). Given a few million years, eclipses won't be
anywhere near as spectacular.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-03-09, LWG wrote:
the shores of Florida. While we are sitting at home in our frigid
houses,
without light or heat, or the ability to go to work

I'm just being facetious here, but I have a perfectly servicable
bicycle. And chopping wood gets you warm three times - once when you log
it, once when you chop it, and once when you burn it in the fireplace!

Wood burning stoves have been outlawed in some places due to the polution
they produce. In the US we are almost forced to consume unrenewable fuel
and in many cases it is due to environmentalist hard line stands.

But seriously, there is a minority whose agenda is that we should all go
back to living in an agrarian society (which simply won't work without
killing off a lot of people).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
om...
Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

I find it supremely ironic that the ultimate solution to our
problems in the Middle East, as well as the ultimate solution to
our so-called climate crisis, is being politically quashed by the
same people who are screaming the loudest against burning
petrochemical fuels.

I find off-hand comments about "ultimate solutions" a bit
concerning. Care to elaborate?

Electricity created with nuclear fission can be used to create all
sorts of alternative fuels, from clean-burning hydrogen, to ethanol.
For reasons that are clear only to the activists themselves, dirty
and dangerous coal -- and politically unstable oil and natural gas --
are seen as "safer" than nuclear energy.

Thanks for the clarification! Not that I think that the solution is all
that simple.

Technically speaking, I agree that nuclear fission offers a more efficient
and less poluting source of energy than burning fossil fuels.
However,
practically speaking, the process of obtaining nuclear fuel and containing
the waste (we have no real way to "dispose" of it) is problematic,

Nope!


Thus, when these very same "environmentalists" protest against the
use of non-renewable energy (oil, coal, gas) and "global warming"
it's impossible to take them seriously. Their actions speak far
louder than their words.

Is this really an either/or issue, though? We could solve our problems in
the same way that they're solved in other countries; tax the heck out of
gas.

Uh huh! Can you think of a few "unintended consequences" that might arise
from that tactic?

How many Hummers with one person in them would we see on the road if
gas was $7.00 a gallon? As I see it, our biggest problem is that we
squander non-renewable energy sources.

Wow! You're so....MORAL!!

As I see it, too many people spew and never think beyond their own nose.

BARF!!

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

Ok Jose,

I have a quick test for you.

Name all the people that have died as a result of Nuclear accidents in the
US.

Name all of the people that have died while riding in Ted Kennedy's car.

Which is statistically safer?

1) Nuclear energy
2) Hunting with Dick Cheney
3) Riding with Ted Kennedy or being an aide to Gary Condit.

"LWG" wrote in message
...
And even worse, there is no escaping the fact that even if we adopt
nuclear fission as a long term energy solution, for the short term we are
compelled to depend on oil. We have oil we can develop within the US, and
off our shores. And yet we would rather risk a nuclear weapon detonated
in the Port of Newark hidden in the bowels of an oil tanker than drill in
ANWAR or off the shores of Florida. While we are sitting at home in our
frigid houses, without light or heat, or the ability to go to work, we can
comfort ourselves with the notion that there are three polars bears who
are undisturbed. And the Kennedys don't have to worry about have their
view spoiled by a wind farm.

And in all that I'm sure Ted Kennedy and his friends will have plenty of
heat and electricity since they are so crucial to Americas well-being...

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...

But seriously, there is a minority whose agenda is that we should all go
back to living in an agrarian society
(which simply won't work without
killing off a lot of people).

Ever notice that people who think the Earth is over populated are never
willing to go first...

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-03-08, Jay Honeck wrote:
You did not. Worse, you're missing the point.

No, you're missing the point.

The bottom line is quite simple: There is not one, single, solitary
thing
that you, or I, or ANYONE (including GW Bush) can do to reverse or even
slow
down the rate of global warming. Or global cooling. Or whatever the
"crisis of the week" is. It's simply out of our control.

We can stop from WORSENING it which is my point (and the point you were
missing).

Even if we stop all using fossil fuel in the industrialize west, we'd only
make about 0.08C difference. BFD!

Recognising that continuing to live unsustainably is...erm...
unsustainable is a good start, then over the next few decades,
migrating to more sustainable methods of supporting our lifestyles
is generally a good idea.

Your version of "sustainable is based on STASIS, not DYNAMIC methods.

Sticking our fingers in our
ears and going 'la la la la la' is never the right solution. You are
presenting a false dilemma.

Energy efficiency is a good start to the process. Finding new and
cleaner ways to make energy are the next steps.

Been happening for over 50 years.

Some places are very
pro-active about it. But continuing to throw our hands up and say 'oh
well' and continuing to change the atmospheric composition is not the
answer.


Ummm...BS!

Of course, I could be a cynic and say you're only taking this attitude
because you're assuaging your guilt at flying something that burns 14gph
and only goes 140 ktas :-)
But I won't.

Hmmmm....guilt feeelings?


To make matters worse, the ultimate solution to our energy woes has been
at
hand for decades -- yet the very same people who adamantly advocate
changing
the world's economy are standing four-square in the path to clean, cheap,
and abundant nuclear energy.

Burning coal apparently puts more radioactivity into the atmosphere than
all the civil nuclear industry (including the Soviet one) put together.

Huh?