Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Many nuclear accidents, including Chernobyl, are the results of
>> operators going through a non-mainstream procedure with which they
>> were not familiar.

>Chernoble remains the only reactor accident to have any cancers of any
>sort tracable to it, since the danger of radiation was learned in the
>1940s. And the design of Chernoble was so bad it would get a failing
>grade in any nuclear engineering program anywhere in the western world.

Okay let's analyze this a little more closely.

Radioactive materials emerge from reactors in four ways:

(1) During normal operation, some radiation escapes into the
air, water, and soil.

(2) If there is an incident, additional radiation escapes into
the air, water, and soil.

(3) Waste products get shipped offsite, where they may eventually
escape into the environment.

(4) Radioactive substances are deliberately produced and sold off,
and may subsequently cause harm.

You and Pete are discussing how the dangers from (1) and (2) can
be minimized, which is fine, but has nothing to do with my proposal
to eliminate (4) entirely, and to address (3) by permanent entombment
at the reactor site.

I have stated that I will approve of more nukes only if we deal with
(3) and (4). Pete (and perhaps you as well, it's hard to tell)
are countering my proposal by saying the dangers from (1) and (2)
can be minimized. So I see your statements as a sideways argument,
at least mostly.

Steve

On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:00:33 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:08:23 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 07:00:20 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Steve Pope wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pete C. > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Generally this stuff take so little power in standby that no same person
>>>>>>>would bother to play the power strip game some folks do. Going through
>>>>>>>all that hassle to save $2/mo of electricity is pretty ridiculous unless
>>>>>>>you are off-grid and relying on solar / wind for power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you ever heard of the "carbon crisis"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you know that overconsumption of resources is causing human
>>>>>> illness, suffering, and death?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, sorry, I don't drink that kool-aid. Unlike the current products of
>>>>> our failing schools, I understand the science and can do the math to
>>>>> find the truth vs. the propaganda.
>>>>
>>>> climate change is a myth, then?
>>>
>>> Hardly. The earth's climate has been changing for as long as there has
>>> been an earth. The climate was changing long before humans evolved and
>>> it will continue to change long after humans are gone.
>>
>> ...and now it's pretty much indisputable that it's changing rapidly due to
>> man's activities except among republicans and other knuckle-draggers.
>
> The funny thing is that people like you make that "indisputable" claim,
> yet fail to ever provide supporting evidence. I've looked for supporting
> evidence of this human caused climate change, and all I find are
> circular references and fudged missing data points. It may exist, it may
> not, but there seems to be a huge lack of solid data to derive a
> reasonable determination from, and a lot of people who blind themselves
> to that lack of data while wildly attacking anyone who points it out.

it's the consensus of climate scientists apart from a few quacks on the
payroll of the oil companies. you can believe it or not, but if you think
there's no evidence you are a fool.

blake

On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:54:20 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> On 01/11/2010 4:35 PM, blake murphy wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Hardly. The earth's climate has been changing for as long as there has
>>> been an earth. The climate was changing long before humans evolved and
>>> it will continue to change long after humans are gone.
>>
>> ...and now it's pretty much indisputable that it's changing rapidly due to
>> man's activities except among republicans and other knuckle-draggers.
>
> There is no doubt that the earth's atmosphere has undergone cyclic
> changes for millions of years. There have been major and minor ice ages.
> I live in an area that was covered by glacier 21,000 years ago.It took a
> long time for the ice to move down this way, and it is taking a long
> time for it to recede. For all I know, this is just another part of the
> cyclic change.

but that's the thing. i ice caps are *not* taking a long time to recede

Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they
are elsewhere in the world. Arctic ice is getting thinner, melting and
rupturing. For example, the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the
Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started
cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is
now breaking into pieces.

The polar ice cap as a whole is shrinking. Images from NASA satellites show
that the area of permanent ice cover is contracting at a rate of 9 percent
each decade. If this trend continues, summers in the Arctic could become
ice-free by the end of the century.

<http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp>

your pal,
blake

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:23:19 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> On 30/10/2010 10:21 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> "gloria.p" > wrote
>>>
>>> Heat-producing appliances as well as a/c use a lot of electricity.
>>> Instant-on appliances also eat up the power even when you think they
>>> are off.
>>>
>>> gloria p
>>
>> The rules change in winter though. You are paying to heat the house so
>> the heat from the DW or any other appliance is not lost. It just reduces
>> the amount of heat your main furnace/boiler/heat pump needs to put out.
>
> A year or so ago there was talk here in Ontario of banning incandescent
> light bulbs and it cited the amount of energy they waste in the form of
> heat. Yep... in the land where we heat our house 8 months a year.

still, don't you think it might be better to apply that electricity to a
device specifically designed to heat rather than light?

your pal,
blake

sf wrote:
>
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 18:41:02 -0700, Arri London >
> wrote:
>
> >You need to add on the time taken to remove the clothes from the dryer
> >and fold/hang them up as well
> >
> >Takes me about 10 minutes to hang up one washer load. The clothes are
> >already partly folded or hung up as they are put on the line or rack.
> >Less work afterward.
>
> It's more time overall. More time to hang them, more time to dry and
> just as much time to fold (no matter when part of it is done).
>
>
We live in a dry climate. By the time the last of the load is hung up,
the first items are dry I never just threw everything from the washer
into the dryer (when I had a dryer, that is). It took nearly as long to
load the dryer (for maximum efficiency) as to hang up the load anyway.

On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:20:23 -0700, Arri London >
wrote:

> It took nearly as long to
> load the dryer (for maximum efficiency) as to hang up the load anyway.

I find that impossible to believe.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On 02/11/2010 6:31 PM, blake murphy wrote:

>> A year or so ago there was talk here in Ontario of banning incandescent
>> light bulbs and it cited the amount of energy they waste in the form of
>> heat. Yep... in the land where we heat our house 8 months a year.
>
> still, don't you think it might be better to apply that electricity to a
> device specifically designed to heat rather than light?


Perhaps, of the designed was modern and more efficient. The thing is
that is is not a very convincing argument for a lot of people to hear
that the energy is being wasted because it is emitting heat when they
are paying to heat their houses for more than half the year. It would be
different if we were paying to cool the house and having to overcome
the heat generated.

I always knew that light bulbs generated heat. I didn't realize how much
until this summer when I was painting my bathroom in the middle of a
heat spell in July. I didn't want to use air conditioning because I had
the windows open for ventilation.My wife was away for a few days and it
seemed like a waste just for me. I have strip lighting with halogen
bulbs in that bathroom and I was amazed how much hotter it was to be
within about four feet of those lights.

Dave Smith > wrote:

>The thing is
>that is is not a very convincing argument for a lot of people to hear
>that the energy is being wasted because it is emitting heat when they
>are paying to heat their houses for more than half the year. It would be
>different if we were paying to cool the house and having to overcome
>the heat generated.

If you're heating the house half of the year, you are still saving
energy the other half of the year.

S.

On 02/11/2010 9:43 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> Dave > wrote:
>
>> The thing is
>> that is is not a very convincing argument for a lot of people to hear
>> that the energy is being wasted because it is emitting heat when they
>> are paying to heat their houses for more than half the year. It would be
>> different if we were paying to cool the house and having to overcome
>> the heat generated.
>
> If you're heating the house half of the year, you are still saving
> energy the other half of the year.


You might be saving a very small amount of money on electricity, but
you're probably making up for it on the price of the bulbs. Granted,
they have come down a lot in the last year or so. Bear in mind that
during the warmer weather there are more sunlight hours so you're not
using the lights as much, and only in the evening when it is cooler so
there is not as big a problem with the hosue being heated up by
incandescent light bulbs and requiring more air conditioning to compensate.

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
> >Steve Pope wrote:
>
> >> Many nuclear accidents, including Chernobyl, are the results of
> >> operators going through a non-mainstream procedure with which they
> >> were not familiar.
>
> >Chernoble remains the only reactor accident to have any cancers of any
> >sort tracable to it, since the danger of radiation was learned in the
> >1940s. And the design of Chernoble was so bad it would get a failing
> >grade in any nuclear engineering program anywhere in the western world.
>
> Okay let's analyze this a little more closely.
>
> Radioactive materials emerge from reactors in four ways:
>
> (1) During normal operation, some radiation escapes into the
> air, water, and soil.
>
> (2) If there is an incident, additional radiation escapes into
> the air, water, and soil.
>
> (3) Waste products get shipped offsite, where they may eventually
> escape into the environment.
>
> (4) Radioactive substances are deliberately produced and sold off,
> and may subsequently cause harm.
>
> You and Pete are discussing how the dangers from (1) and (2) can
> be minimized, which is fine, but has nothing to do with my proposal
> to eliminate (4) entirely, and to address (3) by permanent entombment
> at the reactor site.
>
> I have stated that I will approve of more nukes only if we deal with
> (3) and (4). Pete (and perhaps you as well, it's hard to tell)
> are countering my proposal by saying the dangers from (1) and (2)
> can be minimized. So I see your statements as a sideways argument,
> at least mostly.
>
> Steve

Your issue 1 is largely nonexistent in any "western" power reactor.

Your issue 2 has been shown to be a non issue with the TMI incident,
clearly demonstrating that the safeguards do indeed work.

Your issue 3 should be nonexistent as well since there is no need for
any permanent entombment when you reprocess and reuse the fuel. It's
recycling, it makes nuclear power even more "green".

Your issue 4 is also a non issue in any "western" country, and since we
have no control over third world countries where such a risk may exist,
it has no relevance whatsoever to what we should be doing at home to
solve out energy and pollution issues.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:00:33 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > blake murphy wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:08:23 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> >>
> >>> blake murphy wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 07:00:20 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Steve Pope wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Pete C. > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Generally this stuff take so little power in standby that no same person
> >>>>>>>would bother to play the power strip game some folks do. Going through
> >>>>>>>all that hassle to save $2/mo of electricity is pretty ridiculous unless
> >>>>>>>you are off-grid and relying on solar / wind for power.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Have you ever heard of the "carbon crisis"?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Do you know that overconsumption of resources is causing human
> >>>>>> illness, suffering, and death?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, sorry, I don't drink that kool-aid. Unlike the current products of
> >>>>> our failing schools, I understand the science and can do the math to
> >>>>> find the truth vs. the propaganda.
> >>>>
> >>>> climate change is a myth, then?
> >>>
> >>> Hardly. The earth's climate has been changing for as long as there has
> >>> been an earth. The climate was changing long before humans evolved and
> >>> it will continue to change long after humans are gone.
> >>
> >> ...and now it's pretty much indisputable that it's changing rapidly due to
> >> man's activities except among republicans and other knuckle-draggers.
> >
> > The funny thing is that people like you make that "indisputable" claim,
> > yet fail to ever provide supporting evidence. I've looked for supporting
> > evidence of this human caused climate change, and all I find are
> > circular references and fudged missing data points. It may exist, it may
> > not, but there seems to be a huge lack of solid data to derive a
> > reasonable determination from, and a lot of people who blind themselves
> > to that lack of data while wildly attacking anyone who points it out.
>
> it's the consensus of climate scientists apart from a few quacks on the
> payroll of the oil companies. you can believe it or not, but if you think
> there's no evidence you are a fool.

If there is evidence, why is it nowhere to be found? Why are the people
claiming the evidence is indisputable afraid to show it? Why have the
few bits of claimed evidence that have become public been proven to be
substantially fabricated? You got proof, then show it.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 02/11/2010 6:31 PM, blake murphy wrote:
>
> >> A year or so ago there was talk here in Ontario of banning incandescent
> >> light bulbs and it cited the amount of energy they waste in the form of
> >> heat. Yep... in the land where we heat our house 8 months a year.
> >
> > still, don't you think it might be better to apply that electricity to a
> > device specifically designed to heat rather than light?
>
> Perhaps, of the designed was modern and more efficient. The thing is
> that is is not a very convincing argument for a lot of people to hear
> that the energy is being wasted because it is emitting heat when they
> are paying to heat their houses for more than half the year. It would be
> different if we were paying to cool the house and having to overcome
> the heat generated.
>
> I always knew that light bulbs generated heat. I didn't realize how much
> until this summer when I was painting my bathroom in the middle of a
> heat spell in July. I didn't want to use air conditioning because I had
> the windows open for ventilation.My wife was away for a few days and it
> seemed like a waste just for me. I have strip lighting with halogen
> bulbs in that bathroom and I was amazed how much hotter it was to be
> within about four feet of those lights.

Halogen lighting is more efficient than regular incandescent lighting.
Imagine how hot you would have been with an equivalent lumen output
regular incandescent light strip.

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:45:10 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> > Is that the actual cost or do you get stung with additional charges? We
> > are paying 6.4 cents per kwh for the first 1000 then 7.4. We are in the
> > process of switching to time-of-use, 5.1 cents for off-peak, 8.1 at mid
> > peak and 9.9 for peak. If you can keep you usage to between 9 pm and 7
> > am you can save a bundle, but the peak hours are when people are up and
> > using electricity.
>
> That policy annoys the holy heck out of me with cell phones (no
> landline here), but at least with VoIP we have a way around it. Can't
> do that with electricity.

What cell phones have peak and off peak rates (in any practical sense)
anymore?

Pete C. > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Radioactive materials emerge from reactors in four ways:

[snip]

>Your issue 3 should be nonexistent as well since there is no need for
>any permanent entombment when you reprocess and reuse the fuel. It's
>recycling, it makes nuclear power even more "green".

Not all nuclear waste can be turned back into fuel. There will
still be radioactive waste left over.

>Your issue 4 is also a non issue in any "western" country, and since we
>have no control over third world countries where such a risk may exist,
>it has no relevance whatsoever to what we should be doing at home to
>solve out energy and pollution issues.

It's an issue for me.

For example: 30 cats died in Australia last year from eating irradiated
food. There was a discussion of it here on this group. To me,
those fatalities are a result of nuclear operators cooking up
Colbalt 60 and selling it to people who then proceeded to use it
irresponsibly.

More broadly speaking, every government in the western world
considers proliferation of radioactive materials to be a disaster
waiting to happen.

So, no I'm not going to approve of nuclear plans until issue (4) is
satisfied.

If the industry doesn't want to comply on this provision, then
no new nukes as far as I'm concerned.

Steve

In article .com>,
"Pete C." > wrote:

> sf wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:45:10 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Is that the actual cost or do you get stung with additional charges? We
> > > are paying 6.4 cents per kwh for the first 1000 then 7.4. We are in the
> > > process of switching to time-of-use, 5.1 cents for off-peak, 8.1 at mid
> > > peak and 9.9 for peak. If you can keep you usage to between 9 pm and 7
> > > am you can save a bundle, but the peak hours are when people are up and
> > > using electricity.
> >
> > That policy annoys the holy heck out of me with cell phones (no
> > landline here), but at least with VoIP we have a way around it. Can't
> > do that with electricity.
>
> What cell phones have peak and off peak rates (in any practical sense)
> anymore?

You mean there's any that *don't*?

I have AT&T:

http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-pho...lans/family-ce
ll-phone-plans.jsp?_requestid=139893

Plans have a number of minutes per month. Night and weekend calls
aren't charged against the minutes.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:32:04 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> sf wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:45:10 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Is that the actual cost or do you get stung with additional charges? We
> > > are paying 6.4 cents per kwh for the first 1000 then 7.4. We are in the
> > > process of switching to time-of-use, 5.1 cents for off-peak, 8.1 at mid
> > > peak and 9.9 for peak. If you can keep you usage to between 9 pm and 7
> > > am you can save a bundle, but the peak hours are when people are up and
> > > using electricity.
> >
> > That policy annoys the holy heck out of me with cell phones (no
> > landline here), but at least with VoIP we have a way around it. Can't
> > do that with electricity.
>
> What cell phones have peak and off peak rates (in any practical sense)
> anymore?

They certainly do. We pay for a certain number of daytime minutes.
Off peak and weekend minutes are "free".

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 22:08:21 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article .com>,
> "Pete C." > wrote:
>
> > sf wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:45:10 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is that the actual cost or do you get stung with additional charges? We
> > > > are paying 6.4 cents per kwh for the first 1000 then 7.4. We are in the
> > > > process of switching to time-of-use, 5.1 cents for off-peak, 8.1 at mid
> > > > peak and 9.9 for peak. If you can keep you usage to between 9 pm and 7
> > > > am you can save a bundle, but the peak hours are when people are up and
> > > > using electricity.
> > >
> > > That policy annoys the holy heck out of me with cell phones (no
> > > landline here), but at least with VoIP we have a way around it. Can't
> > > do that with electricity.
> >
> > What cell phones have peak and off peak rates (in any practical sense)
> > anymore?
>
> You mean there's any that *don't*?
>
> I have AT&T:
>
> http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-pho...lans/family-ce
> ll-phone-plans.jsp?_requestid=139893
>
> Plans have a number of minutes per month. Night and weekend calls
> aren't charged against the minutes.

Pete C lives in Pete's world... reality be damned.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

In article >,
Cheryl > wrote:

> On Tue 02 Nov 2010 08:20:23p, Arri London wrote in
> rec.food.cooking >:
>
> > We live in a dry climate. By the time the last of the load is
> > hung up, the first items are dry I never just threw
> > everything from the washer into the dryer (when I had a dryer,
> > that is). It took nearly as long to load the dryer (for maximum
> > efficiency) as to hang up the load anyway.
>
> That must be completely amazing to someone who hasn't seen something
> dry that fast! I dry a lot of my work clothes on hangers in the
> bathroom and in the winter it's dry in the house even with a humifier
> running, but I've never had something dry almost as fast as it's hung
> up.

We had a 37C day in Dunedin a few years ago. I washed everything -- all
the spare linens, towels, the lot. I'd hang one load of washing out,
put the next load in, and then take the load on the line down as the
load in the washing machine was finishing. Did that all day. It was
brilliant.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 22:08:21 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > In article .com>,
> > "Pete C." > wrote:
> >
> > > sf wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:45:10 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Is that the actual cost or do you get stung with additional charges? We
> > > > > are paying 6.4 cents per kwh for the first 1000 then 7.4. We are in the
> > > > > process of switching to time-of-use, 5.1 cents for off-peak, 8.1 at mid
> > > > > peak and 9.9 for peak. If you can keep you usage to between 9 pm and 7
> > > > > am you can save a bundle, but the peak hours are when people are up and
> > > > > using electricity.
> > > >
> > > > That policy annoys the holy heck out of me with cell phones (no
> > > > landline here), but at least with VoIP we have a way around it. Can't
> > > > do that with electricity.
> > >
> > > What cell phones have peak and off peak rates (in any practical sense)
> > > anymore?
> >
> > You mean there's any that *don't*?
> >
> > I have AT&T:
> >
> > http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-pho...lans/family-ce
> > ll-phone-plans.jsp?_requestid=139893
> >
> > Plans have a number of minutes per month. Night and weekend calls
> > aren't charged against the minutes.
>
> Pete C lives in Pete's world... reality be damned.

No, I live in the Verizon world where there are no per minute charges to
any other Verizon number at any time, and the plan minutes are only for
out of network calls.

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:32:04 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > sf wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:45:10 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is that the actual cost or do you get stung with additional charges? We
> > > > are paying 6.4 cents per kwh for the first 1000 then 7.4. We are in the
> > > > process of switching to time-of-use, 5.1 cents for off-peak, 8.1 at mid
> > > > peak and 9.9 for peak. If you can keep you usage to between 9 pm and 7
> > > > am you can save a bundle, but the peak hours are when people are up and
> > > > using electricity.
> > >
> > > That policy annoys the holy heck out of me with cell phones (no
> > > landline here), but at least with VoIP we have a way around it. Can't
> > > do that with electricity.
> >
> > What cell phones have peak and off peak rates (in any practical sense)
> > anymore?
>
> They certainly do. We pay for a certain number of daytime minutes.
> Off peak and weekend minutes are "free".

You should investigate other carriers, there are certainly better ones
out there. I use Verizon and there are no per minute charges to any
Verizon number at any time, and plan minutes are only for out of network
calls. The international rates (both US to international and
international roaming) are also quite good if you get then international
value plan for about $6/mo, $0.08/min to UK for example. The phone I
have is a "world" model that does GSM and CDMA and works pretty much
everywhere.

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Radioactive materials emerge from reactors in four ways:
>
> (1) During normal operation, some radiation escapes into the
> air, water, and soil.

During normal operations coal, oil and gas burning plants release more
radiation than nuclear plants. This is a specious point and focusing on
it is a sign of irrational thinking. Do you bring this point back as a
teaching tool for that reason?

> (2) If there is an incident, additional radiation escapes into
> the air, water, and soil.

Three Mile Island demonstrates that even the worst case disaster in any
reactor design acceptable in the west does not release radiation. It's
a lesson about irrational reactor designs having been built not a point
of rational discussion. You'll note that on this point my use of the
word irrational is toward the builders of a specific series of reactors
not toward the people who worry about the point.

> (3) Waste products get shipped offsite, where they may eventually
> escape into the environment.

This should be a topic of rational discussion but often is not. Waste
storage is a solved problem in some countries. In other countries
activists prevent the implementation of storage solutions.

This point is one of the reasons I discuss fast and slow breeder
reactors. The longest lived waste is the transuranics that are recycled
and burned as fuel in breeder reactors. Burn off the maximum amount of
transuranics and the total size of waste is greatly reduced and the time
of danger is also reduced by many orders of magnitude.

> (4) Radioactive substances are deliberately produced and sold off,
> and may subsequently cause harm.

My objection to this point is based on nuclear weapons production. The
reason I like fast or slw breeders is they can recycle and burn all of
the transuranics in their fuel so they neither need nor produce enhanced
uranium or plutonuim.

Your objection appears to include irradiated food. The incident you
mention is not one I know of. My previous reading on the topic is that
all objections I have encountered before your mention have been based on
a false assumption that exposure to radiation is "bad" and/or that it
makes the exposed item radioactive. I can't comment on your cited
incident - If it was a leak of the irradiating material that would be
bad. If it was some other effect I would want to read of it and look at
it more carefully.

> You and Pete are discussing how the dangers from (1) and (2) can
> be minimized, which is fine, but has nothing to do with my proposal
> to eliminate (4) entirely, and to address (3) by permanent entombment
> at the reactor site.

Entombment far from the reactor site has proved effective in France.
Remove the transuranics from the waste and reprocess them. Vitrify the
rest in concrete then wrap in stainless and entomb in a deep granite
vault. Permanent yes, on site no.

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Pete C. > wrote:
>
> >Steve Pope wrote:
>
> >> Radioactive materials emerge from reactors in four ways:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Your issue 3 should be nonexistent as well since there is no need for
> >any permanent entombment when you reprocess and reuse the fuel. It's
> >recycling, it makes nuclear power even more "green".
>
> Not all nuclear waste can be turned back into fuel. There will
> still be radioactive waste left over.

From the nuclear engineers I've talked to, nearly all of it can be
reprocessed, leaving hardly any waste to be stored.

>
> >Your issue 4 is also a non issue in any "western" country, and since we
> >have no control over third world countries where such a risk may exist,
> >it has no relevance whatsoever to what we should be doing at home to
> >solve out energy and pollution issues.
>
> It's an issue for me.
>
> For example: 30 cats died in Australia last year from eating irradiated
> food. There was a discussion of it here on this group. To me,
> those fatalities are a result of nuclear operators cooking up
> Colbalt 60 and selling it to people who then proceeded to use it
> irresponsibly.

Once again some vague claim with no citations or detail to validate it.
Typical of the all emotion, zero science anti kooks.

>
> More broadly speaking, every government in the western world
> considers proliferation of radioactive materials to be a disaster
> waiting to happen.

Again a distorted claim. Proliferation of nuclear materials to unstable
third world countries is the disaster waiting to happen, not commercial
nuclear power in "western" countries.

>
> So, no I'm not going to approve of nuclear plans until issue (4) is
> satisfied.

Your irrational paranoia will never be satisfied, consider professional
help.

>
> If the industry doesn't want to comply on this provision, then
> no new nukes as far as I'm concerned.

There is no provision to comply with, your paranoid claims lack any
logical basis to form any regulation on.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> On Wed 03 Nov 2010 05:37:45a, Pete C. told us...
>
> >
> > sf wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 22:08:21 -0700, Dan Abel >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article
> >> > .com>,
> >> > "Pete C." > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > sf wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:45:10 -0400, Dave Smith
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Is that the actual cost or do you get stung with
> >> > > > > additional charges? We are paying 6.4 cents per kwh for
> >> > > > > the first 1000 then 7.4. We are in the process of
> >> > > > > switching to time-of-use, 5.1 cents for off-peak, 8.1 at
> >> > > > > mid peak and 9.9 for peak. If you can keep you usage to
> >> > > > > between 9 pm and 7 am you can save a bundle, but the peak
> >> > > > > hours are when people are up and using electricity.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > That policy annoys the holy heck out of me with cell phones
> >> > > > (no landline here), but at least with VoIP we have a way
> >> > > > around it. Can't do that with electricity.
> >> > >
> >> > > What cell phones have peak and off peak rates (in any
> >> > > practical sense) anymore?
> >> >
> >> > You mean there's any that *don't*?
> >> >
> >> > I have AT&T:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-pho...l-phone-plans/
> >> > family-ce ll-phone-plans.jsp?_requestid=139893
> >> >
> >> > Plans have a number of minutes per month. Night and weekend
> >> > calls aren't charged against the minutes.
> >>
> >> Pete C lives in Pete's world... reality be damned.
> >
> > No, I live in the Verizon world where there are no per minute
> > charges to any other Verizon number at any time, and the plan
> > minutes are only for out of network calls.
> >
>
> So you still have limitations. Just because you're on Verizon
> doesn't mean the rest of the planet is.

Irrelevant limitations. Nearly everyone I know is on Verizon, and the
few that aren't consume minutes far under my monthly allotment (700 pool
for two lines). As I said, "What cell phones have peak and off peak
rates (in any practical sense) anymore?"

On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 10:57:13 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> >
> > On Wed 03 Nov 2010 05:37:45a, Pete C. told us...
> >
> > >
> > > sf wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 22:08:21 -0700, Dan Abel >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > In article
> > >> > .com>,
> > >> > "Pete C." > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > sf wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:45:10 -0400, Dave Smith
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Is that the actual cost or do you get stung with
> > >> > > > > additional charges? We are paying 6.4 cents per kwh for
> > >> > > > > the first 1000 then 7.4. We are in the process of
> > >> > > > > switching to time-of-use, 5.1 cents for off-peak, 8.1 at
> > >> > > > > mid peak and 9.9 for peak. If you can keep you usage to
> > >> > > > > between 9 pm and 7 am you can save a bundle, but the peak
> > >> > > > > hours are when people are up and using electricity.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > That policy annoys the holy heck out of me with cell phones
> > >> > > > (no landline here), but at least with VoIP we have a way
> > >> > > > around it. Can't do that with electricity.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > What cell phones have peak and off peak rates (in any
> > >> > > practical sense) anymore?
> > >> >
> > >> > You mean there's any that *don't*?
> > >> >
> > >> > I have AT&T:
> > >> >
> > >> > http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-pho...l-phone-plans/
> > >> > family-ce ll-phone-plans.jsp?_requestid=139893
> > >> >
> > >> > Plans have a number of minutes per month. Night and weekend
> > >> > calls aren't charged against the minutes.
> > >>
> > >> Pete C lives in Pete's world... reality be damned.
> > >
> > > No, I live in the Verizon world where there are no per minute
> > > charges to any other Verizon number at any time, and the plan
> > > minutes are only for out of network calls.
> > >
> >
> > So you still have limitations. Just because you're on Verizon
> > doesn't mean the rest of the planet is.
>
> Irrelevant limitations. Nearly everyone I know is on Verizon, and the
> few that aren't consume minutes far under my monthly allotment (700 pool
> for two lines). As I said, "What cell phones have peak and off peak
> rates (in any practical sense) anymore?"

Mine does. I don't live in your world.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:41:02 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> You should investigate other carriers, there are certainly better ones
> out there. I use Verizon and there are no per minute charges to any
> Verizon number at any time, and plan minutes are only for out of network
> calls. The international rates (both US to international and
> international roaming) are also quite good if you get then international
> value plan for about $6/mo, $0.08/min to UK for example. The phone I
> have is a "world" model that does GSM and CDMA and works pretty much
> everywhere.

Not to worry. My children have had and do have other carriers. Their
conclusion is Verizon is best for me, for my purposes. I need a large
no roaming charge area and no dropped calls. Verizon does that for
me. They are on other carriers now, TMobile and AT&T. So I can't
even talk to them for free. So much for friends and family. My plan
doesn't include F&F anyway.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

In article .com>,
"Pete C." > wrote:

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> >
> > On Wed 03 Nov 2010 05:37:45a, Pete C. told us...
> >
> > >
> > > sf wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 22:08:21 -0700, Dan Abel >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > In article
> > >> > .com>,
> > >> > "Pete C." > wrote:

> > >> > > What cell phones have peak and off peak rates (in any
> > >> > > practical sense) anymore?
> > >> >
> > >> > You mean there's any that *don't*?
> > >> >
> > >> > I have AT&T:
> > >> >
> > >> > http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-pho...l-phone-plans/
> > >> > family-ce ll-phone-plans.jsp?_requestid=139893
> > >> >
> > >> > Plans have a number of minutes per month. Night and weekend
> > >> > calls aren't charged against the minutes.
> > >>
> > >> Pete C lives in Pete's world... reality be damned.
> > >
> > > No, I live in the Verizon world where there are no per minute
> > > charges to any other Verizon number at any time, and the plan
> > > minutes are only for out of network calls.
> > >
> >
> > So you still have limitations. Just because you're on Verizon
> > doesn't mean the rest of the planet is.
>
> Irrelevant limitations. Nearly everyone I know is on Verizon, and the
> few that aren't consume minutes far under my monthly allotment (700 pool
> for two lines). As I said, "What cell phones have peak and off peak
> rates (in any practical sense) anymore?"

AT&T has the same deal. I've noticed that for some reason, not
everybody is on AT&T. When I tell people they have to switch to AT&T to
lower MY phone bill, they tell me to take a flying leap!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:28:02 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:00:33 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
f
>>>> ...and now it's pretty much indisputable that it's changing rapidly due to
>>>> man's activities except among republicans and other knuckle-draggers.
>>>
>>> The funny thing is that people like you make that "indisputable" claim,
>>> yet fail to ever provide supporting evidence. I've looked for supporting
>>> evidence of this human caused climate change, and all I find are
>>> circular references and fudged missing data points. It may exist, it may
>>> not, but there seems to be a huge lack of solid data to derive a
>>> reasonable determination from, and a lot of people who blind themselves
>>> to that lack of data while wildly attacking anyone who points it out.
>>
>> it's the consensus of climate scientists apart from a few quacks on the
>> payroll of the oil companies. you can believe it or not, but if you think
>> there's no evidence you are a fool.
>
> If there is evidence, why is it nowhere to be found? Why are the people
> claiming the evidence is indisputable afraid to show it? Why have the
> few bits of claimed evidence that have become public been proven to be
> substantially fabricated? You got proof, then show it.

is research sponsored by the national science foundation enough?

<http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110906>

<http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/programs/biotheme.jsp#pH>

<http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110027>

<http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/climate/textonly/people.jsp>

....but i'm sure you won't be bothered to click on any, because al gore is
fat.

and the 'few' (for some right-wing values of 'few') have been debunked?
really? by whom?

blake

On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:41:02 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> sf wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:32:04 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> sf wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:45:10 -0400, Dave Smith
>>> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Is that the actual cost or do you get stung with additional charges? We
>>> > > are paying 6.4 cents per kwh for the first 1000 then 7.4. We are in the
>>> > > process of switching to time-of-use, 5.1 cents for off-peak, 8.1 at mid
>>> > > peak and 9.9 for peak. If you can keep you usage to between 9 pm and 7
>>> > > am you can save a bundle, but the peak hours are when people are up and
>>> > > using electricity.
>>> >
>>> > That policy annoys the holy heck out of me with cell phones (no
>>> > landline here), but at least with VoIP we have a way around it. Can't
>>> > do that with electricity.
>>>
>>> What cell phones have peak and off peak rates (in any practical sense)
>>> anymore?
>>
>> They certainly do. We pay for a certain number of daytime minutes.
>> Off peak and weekend minutes are "free".
>
> You should investigate other carriers, there are certainly better ones
> out there. I use Verizon and there are no per minute charges to any
> Verizon number at any time, and plan minutes are only for out of network
> calls. The international rates (both US to international and
> international roaming) are also quite good if you get then international
> value plan for about $6/mo, $0.08/min to UK for example. The phone I
> have is a "world" model that does GSM and CDMA and works pretty much
> everywhere.

maybe so, but your question was

>>> What cell phones have peak and off peak rates (in any practical sense)
>>> anymore?

....and sf named at least one. so it looks like you are wrong again.

blake

On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:26:24 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> On 02/11/2010 6:31 PM, blake murphy wrote:
>
>>> A year or so ago there was talk here in Ontario of banning incandescent
>>> light bulbs and it cited the amount of energy they waste in the form of
>>> heat. Yep... in the land where we heat our house 8 months a year.
>>
>> still, don't you think it might be better to apply that electricity to a
>> device specifically designed to heat rather than light?
>
> Perhaps, of the designed was modern and more efficient. The thing is
> that is is not a very convincing argument for a lot of people to hear
> that the energy is being wasted because it is emitting heat when they
> are paying to heat their houses for more than half the year. It would be
> different if we were paying to cool the house and having to overcome
> the heat generated.

but for four months of the year you might be. for many, many people in the
u.s. that's the case.

>
> I always knew that light bulbs generated heat. I didn't realize how much
> until this summer when I was painting my bathroom in the middle of a
> heat spell in July. I didn't want to use air conditioning because I had
> the windows open for ventilation.My wife was away for a few days and it
> seemed like a waste just for me. I have strip lighting with halogen
> bulbs in that bathroom and I was amazed how much hotter it was to be
> within about four feet of those lights.

but ther's no system at all for distributing that heat. that's why it
might be more efficient to use that electricity for a heating, not
lighting, appliance.

your pal,
blake

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> In article .com>,
> "Pete C." > wrote:
>
> > Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed 03 Nov 2010 05:37:45a, Pete C. told us...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > sf wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 22:08:21 -0700, Dan Abel >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > In article
> > > >> > .com>,
> > > >> > "Pete C." > wrote:
>
> > > >> > > What cell phones have peak and off peak rates (in any
> > > >> > > practical sense) anymore?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > You mean there's any that *don't*?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I have AT&T:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-pho...l-phone-plans/
> > > >> > family-ce ll-phone-plans.jsp?_requestid=139893
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Plans have a number of minutes per month. Night and weekend
> > > >> > calls aren't charged against the minutes.
> > > >>
> > > >> Pete C lives in Pete's world... reality be damned.
> > > >
> > > > No, I live in the Verizon world where there are no per minute
> > > > charges to any other Verizon number at any time, and the plan
> > > > minutes are only for out of network calls.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you still have limitations. Just because you're on Verizon
> > > doesn't mean the rest of the planet is.
> >
> > Irrelevant limitations. Nearly everyone I know is on Verizon, and the
> > few that aren't consume minutes far under my monthly allotment (700 pool
> > for two lines). As I said, "What cell phones have peak and off peak
> > rates (in any practical sense) anymore?"
>
> AT&T has the same deal. I've noticed that for some reason, not
> everybody is on AT&T. When I tell people they have to switch to AT&T to
> lower MY phone bill, they tell me to take a flying leap!

I suspect whenever Verizon gets the iphone, a great many AT&T customers
will be taking a flying leap over to Verizon...

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:41:02 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > sf wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:32:04 -0500, "Pete C." >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> sf wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:45:10 -0400, Dave Smith
> >>> > > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Is that the actual cost or do you get stung with additional charges? We
> >>> > > are paying 6.4 cents per kwh for the first 1000 then 7.4. We are in the
> >>> > > process of switching to time-of-use, 5.1 cents for off-peak, 8.1 at mid
> >>> > > peak and 9.9 for peak. If you can keep you usage to between 9 pm and 7
> >>> > > am you can save a bundle, but the peak hours are when people are up and
> >>> > > using electricity.
> >>> >
> >>> > That policy annoys the holy heck out of me with cell phones (no
> >>> > landline here), but at least with VoIP we have a way around it. Can't
> >>> > do that with electricity.
> >>>
> >>> What cell phones have peak and off peak rates (in any practical sense)
> >>> anymore?
> >>
> >> They certainly do. We pay for a certain number of daytime minutes.
> >> Off peak and weekend minutes are "free".
> >
> > You should investigate other carriers, there are certainly better ones
> > out there. I use Verizon and there are no per minute charges to any
> > Verizon number at any time, and plan minutes are only for out of network
> > calls. The international rates (both US to international and
> > international roaming) are also quite good if you get then international
> > value plan for about $6/mo, $0.08/min to UK for example. The phone I
> > have is a "world" model that does GSM and CDMA and works pretty much
> > everywhere.
>
> maybe so, but your question was
>
> >>> What cell phones have peak and off peak rates (in any practical sense)
> >>> anymore?
>
> ...and sf named at least one. so it looks like you are wrong again.
>
> blake

Apparently you missed "in a practical sense".

sf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:41:02 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > You should investigate other carriers, there are certainly better ones
> > out there. I use Verizon and there are no per minute charges to any
> > Verizon number at any time, and plan minutes are only for out of network
> > calls. The international rates (both US to international and
> > international roaming) are also quite good if you get then international
> > value plan for about $6/mo, $0.08/min to UK for example. The phone I
> > have is a "world" model that does GSM and CDMA and works pretty much
> > everywhere.
>
> Not to worry. My children have had and do have other carriers. Their
> conclusion is Verizon is best for me, for my purposes. I need a large
> no roaming charge area and no dropped calls. Verizon does that for
> me. They are on other carriers now, TMobile and AT&T. So I can't
> even talk to them for free. So much for friends and family. My plan
> doesn't include F&F anyway.

If they're out of network, they are still "free" within your plan
minutes which are typically pretty substantial. Verizon also offers
plans that do indeed include unlimited calling to *any* network if
that's what you need.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:28:02 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > blake murphy wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:00:33 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> f
> >>>> ...and now it's pretty much indisputable that it's changing rapidly due to
> >>>> man's activities except among republicans and other knuckle-draggers.
> >>>
> >>> The funny thing is that people like you make that "indisputable" claim,
> >>> yet fail to ever provide supporting evidence. I've looked for supporting
> >>> evidence of this human caused climate change, and all I find are
> >>> circular references and fudged missing data points. It may exist, it may
> >>> not, but there seems to be a huge lack of solid data to derive a
> >>> reasonable determination from, and a lot of people who blind themselves
> >>> to that lack of data while wildly attacking anyone who points it out.
> >>
> >> it's the consensus of climate scientists apart from a few quacks on the
> >> payroll of the oil companies. you can believe it or not, but if you think
> >> there's no evidence you are a fool.
> >
> > If there is evidence, why is it nowhere to be found? Why are the people
> > claiming the evidence is indisputable afraid to show it? Why have the
> > few bits of claimed evidence that have become public been proven to be
> > substantially fabricated? You got proof, then show it.
>
> is research sponsored by the national science foundation enough?
>
> <http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110906>
>
> <http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/programs/biotheme.jsp#pH>
>
> <http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110027>
>
> <http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/climate/textonly/people.jsp>
>
> ...but i'm sure you won't be bothered to click on any, because al gore is
> fat.
>
> and the 'few' (for some right-wing values of 'few') have been debunked?
> really? by whom?
>
> blake

The funny thing is I've looked at those sites and still haven't found
hard data supporting the claims from the left of "indisputable human
caused climate change". What I do find is reports and data on
observations of current conditions, which are interesting and show that
the climate is changing, something nobody has ever disputed, but those
observations do not in any way translate into "indisputable human
caused climate change".

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> On Wed 03 Nov 2010 10:18:04a, Pete C. told us...
>
> >
> > Dan Abel wrote:
> >>
> >> In article
> >> .com>,
> >> "Pete C." > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed 03 Nov 2010 05:37:45a, Pete C. told us...
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > sf wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 22:08:21 -0700, Dan Abel
> >> > > >> > wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > In article
> >> > > >> > .com>,
> >> > > >> > "Pete C." > wrote:
> >>
> >> > > >> > > What cell phones have peak and off peak rates (in any
> >> > > >> > > practical sense) anymore?
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > You mean there's any that *don't*?
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > I have AT&T:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-pho...ice/cell-phone
> >> > > >> > -plans/ family-ce ll-phone-plans.jsp?_requestid=139893
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Plans have a number of minutes per month. Night and
> >> > > >> > weekend calls aren't charged against the minutes.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Pete C lives in Pete's world... reality be damned.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > No, I live in the Verizon world where there are no per
> >> > > > minute charges to any other Verizon number at any time, and
> >> > > > the plan minutes are only for out of network calls.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > So you still have limitations. Just because you're on
> >> > > Verizon doesn't mean the rest of the planet is.
> >> >
> >> > Irrelevant limitations. Nearly everyone I know is on Verizon,
> >> > and the few that aren't consume minutes far under my monthly
> >> > allotment (700 pool for two lines). As I said, "What cell
> >> > phones have peak and off peak rates (in any practical sense)
> >> > anymore?"
> >>
> >> AT&T has the same deal. I've noticed that for some reason, not
> >> everybody is on AT&T. When I tell people they have to switch to
> >> AT&T to lower MY phone bill, they tell me to take a flying leap!
> >
> > I suspect whenever Verizon gets the iphone, a great many AT&T
> > customers will be taking a flying leap over to Verizon...
> >
>
> I suspect that those of us who don't give a damn about the iphone
> won't.

Yes, that would be some 70% of the cell phone market. The remaining 30%
represent a very large portion of AT&Ts customer base, so they will be
hurting when it happens.

No, I don't give a damn about the iphone or anything else from scrapple
consumer toys either.

>
> In my immediate geographical location, Verizon's connectivity and
> reception sucks big time. T-Mobile has the strongest and most
> reliable signal here. Since I rarely travel, it's what works the
> best here that is more important to me.

You would seem to be in an unusual location, I travel quite a bit and
rarely ever find a "dead zone" on Verizon. Certainly what works best
locally would be most important if you don't travel a lot.

>
> As far as phones go, all I want to do is call or receive voice calls.
> Texting, IM, and the rest of the bells and whistles are of no
> interest whatsoever to me.

Text and pic messaging are quite important to me, both for work and
personal use. The ability to send someone at the store picking up parts
a picture of what they're supposed to be getting is invaluable. There
are many other similar uses as well. Text messages avoid the need for
the recipient to find somewhere to write stuff down and eliminate
transcription errors on part numbers, addresses, etc.

Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Radioactive materials emerge from reactors in four ways:
>>
>> (1) During normal operation, some radiation escapes into the
>> air, water, and soil.
>
>During normal operations coal, oil and gas burning plants release more
>radiation than nuclear plants. This is a specious point and focusing on
>it is a sign of irrational thinking. Do you bring this point back as a
>teaching tool for that reason?

I was not saying the amount involved in (1) is large, I was simply
classifying the emissions for the purposes of discussion.

In any case, all nuclear plants release some amount of radiation routinely.

>> (2) If there is an incident, additional radiation escapes into
>> the air, water, and soil.

>Three Mile Island demonstrates that even the worst case disaster in any
>reactor design acceptable in the west does not release radiation. It's
>a lesson about irrational reactor designs having been built not a point
>of rational discussion. You'll note that on this point my use of the
>word irrational is toward the builders of a specific series of reactors
>not toward the people who worry about the point.

>> (3) Waste products get shipped offsite, where they may eventually
>> escape into the environment.

>This should be a topic of rational discussion but often is not.

That's right.

What happens in the U.S. is you get diffusion of responsibility...
the plant operator does not feel responsible for long-term waste
disposal, but neither does anyone else.

Entombment on site is one possible solution. There may be others.
I'm open to real solutions on this one that are off-site.

>> (4) Radioactive substances are deliberately produced and sold off,
>> and may subsequently cause harm.

>My objection to this point is based on nuclear weapons production.

That's one reason to object to it -- radiological weapons generally need
material produced in a nuke plant.

>The
>reason I like fast or slw breeders is they can recycle and burn all of
>the transuranics in their fuel so they neither need nor produce enhanced
>uranium or plutonuim.

>Your objection appears to include irradiated food. The incident you
>mention is not one I know of. My previous reading on the topic is that
>all objections I have encountered before your mention have been based on
>a false assumption that exposure to radiation is "bad" and/or that it
>makes the exposed item radioactive. I can't comment on your cited
>incident - If it was a leak of the irradiating material that would be
>bad. If it was some other effect I would want to read of it and look at
>it more carefully.

The cats died due to radiolytic substances in the irradiated food.
The dose given to the cat food was on the same order as dosing
of human food. Apparently though the cats were sensitive to the altered
chemistry of the food. If you google this group you may find
some links to this incident.

The point is that _there is no requirement_ for selling off these
materials. The requirement is to produce power. Why make a project
even marginally less safe if there is no requirement to do so?

Steve

Pete C. > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Not all nuclear waste can be turned back into fuel. There will
>> still be radioactive waste left over.

>From the nuclear engineers I've talked to, nearly all of it can be
>reprocessed, leaving hardly any waste to be stored.

Ridiculous. While this may be true for fuel rods themselves, all
sorts of other components within the reactor core (e.g. structural
components) become high level waste and there is no fuel to be
recovered from them.

>Once again some vague claim with no citations or detail to validate it.
>Typical of the all emotion, zero science anti kooks.

Go back and read prior discussions of irradiated food on this
group, the references you are looking for are in there.

It appears you are not personally familiar with the many real-world
nuclear incidents that have happened. It is not my job
to provide references if you haven't read up on the subject.



Steve

On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 18:31:08 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) wrote:

>Pete C. > wrote:
>
>>Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>> Not all nuclear waste can be turned back into fuel. There will
>>> still be radioactive waste left over.
>
>>From the nuclear engineers I've talked to, nearly all of it can be
>>reprocessed, leaving hardly any waste to be stored.
>
>Ridiculous. While this may be true for fuel rods themselves, all
>sorts of other components within the reactor core (e.g. structural
>components) become high level waste and there is no fuel to be
>recovered from them.
>
>>Once again some vague claim with no citations or detail to validate it.
>>Typical of the all emotion, zero science anti kooks.
>
>Go back and read prior discussions of irradiated food on this
>group, the references you are looking for are in there.
>
>It appears you are not personally familiar with the many real-world
>nuclear incidents that have happened. It is not my job
>to provide references if you haven't read up on the subject.

Solar is best and safest, unfortunately it's vastly underfunded:
http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/P....asp?prID=1195

On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 13:53:07 -0600, Omelet >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 18:31:08 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
>> Pope) wrote:
>>
>> >Pete C. > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Steve Pope wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Not all nuclear waste can be turned back into fuel. There will
>> >>> still be radioactive waste left over.
>> >
>> >>From the nuclear engineers I've talked to, nearly all of it can be
>> >>reprocessed, leaving hardly any waste to be stored.
>> >
>> >Ridiculous. While this may be true for fuel rods themselves, all
>> >sorts of other components within the reactor core (e.g. structural
>> >components) become high level waste and there is no fuel to be
>> >recovered from them.
>> >
>> >>Once again some vague claim with no citations or detail to validate it.
>> >>Typical of the all emotion, zero science anti kooks.
>> >
>> >Go back and read prior discussions of irradiated food on this
>> >group, the references you are looking for are in there.
>> >
>> >It appears you are not personally familiar with the many real-world
>> >nuclear incidents that have happened. It is not my job
>> >to provide references if you haven't read up on the subject.
>>
>> Solar is best and safest, unfortunately it's vastly underfunded:
>> http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/P....asp?prID=1195
>
>Take another look at wind power.
>I personally find those towers to be graceful and attractive.
>
>People need to get over themselves when it comes to wind farms on flat,
>desolate, otherwise useless land...

Those wind farms cost more to erect and maintain than any money they
save... and most of the time they just sit idle. A few years ago I
became involved with a wind energy project study where I own acreage:
http://helderbergwind.org/

On Nov 3, 2:53*pm, Omelet > wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 18:31:08 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
> > Pope) wrote:
>
> > >Pete C. > wrote:
>
> > >>Steve Pope wrote:
>
> > >>> Not all nuclear waste can be turned back into fuel. *There will
> > >>> still be radioactive waste left over.
>
> > >>From the nuclear engineers I've talked to, nearly all of it can be
> > >>reprocessed, leaving hardly any waste to be stored.
>
> > >Ridiculous. *While this may be true for fuel rods themselves, all
> > >sorts of other components within the reactor core (e.g. structural
> > >components) become high level waste and there is no fuel to be
> > >recovered from them.
>
> > >>Once again some vague claim with no citations or detail to validate it.

On Nov 3, 3:39*pm, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 13:53:07 -0600, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article >,
> > Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 18:31:08 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
> >> Pope) wrote:
>
> >> >Pete C. > wrote:
>
> >> >>Steve Pope wrote:
>
> >> >>> Not all nuclear waste can be turned back into fuel. *There will
> >> >>> still be radioactive waste left over.
>
> >> >>From the nuclear engineers I've talked to, nearly all of it can be
> >> >>reprocessed, leaving hardly any waste to be stored.
>
> >> >Ridiculous. *While this may be true for fuel rods themselves, all
> >> >sorts of other components within the reactor core (e.g. structural
> >> >components) become high level waste and there is no fuel to be
> >> >recovered from them.
>
> >> >>Once again some vague claim with no citations or detail to validate it.
> >> >>Typical of the all emotion, zero science anti kooks.
>
> >> >Go back and read prior discussions of irradiated food on this
> >> >group, the references you are looking for are in there.
>
> >> >It appears you are not personally familiar with the many real-world
> >> >nuclear incidents that have happened. * It is not my job
> >> >to provide references if you haven't read up on the subject.
>
> >> Solar is best and safest, unfortunately it's vastly underfunded:
> >>http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/P....asp?prID=1195
>
> >Take another look at wind power.
> >I personally find those towers to be graceful and attractive.
>
> >People need to get over themselves when it comes to wind farms on flat,
> >desolate, otherwise useless land...
>
> Those wind farms cost more to erect and maintain than any money they
> save... and most of the time they just sit idle. *A few years ago I
> became involved with a wind energy project study where I own acreage:http://helderbergwind.org/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I thought the purpose was not to save money, but to use renewable
resources for energy.

N.