In article ,
dude says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:20:19 -1000, dsi1
wrote:

My guess is that some official will probably kill himself because he
didn't do something right. They do weird stuff like that over there. I
wish this was a more common practice in our country. :-)

Officials do kill themselves over here, but we call it suicide.
Unfortunately, the ones here who should be committing seppuku never
think they were wrong and everything is just peachy.

The thing you have to remember is that the only people who really _knew_
what was going on were those 180 guys in the plant trying to get things
under control, and they had more important things to do than give
detailed reports to bureaucrats and reporters.

Near as I can tell the Japanese government gave them whatever they asked
for, stayed off their backs otherwise, and tried to avoid panic. I
don't see anything exceptionable in that approach. And now the
situation seems to be under control, the radiation release was
detectable but not likely to cause major problems for anybody except
possibly farmers within a few miles of the facility, and we see that
even in a worst case disaster going beyond anything that the plants were
designed to deal with, the worst that happens is that they render
themselves inoperable and leak a small amount of radiation.

But no, according to those who would protect us, we must panic and be
very afraid because the bogeyman is coming to get us.

If the entire US navy left port in Japan because of radiation, then the
bogeyman must be radioactive.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/21/jap...ion/index.html

The entire US Navy did not leave port. The tiny part of it that was in
port at Yukosuka left port. And there doesn't have to be any radiation
present for the fleet to leave port--the Navy does such things you know.

http://www.radiationnetwork.com/

What of it?

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
dude says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:20:19 -1000, dsi1
wrote:

My guess is that some official will probably kill himself because he
didn't do something right. They do weird stuff like that over there. I
wish this was a more common practice in our country. :-)

Officials do kill themselves over here, but we call it suicide.
Unfortunately, the ones here who should be committing seppuku never
think they were wrong and everything is just peachy.

The thing you have to remember is that the only people who really _knew_
what was going on were those 180 guys in the plant trying to get things
under control, and they had more important things to do than give
detailed reports to bureaucrats and reporters.

Near as I can tell the Japanese government gave them whatever they asked
for, stayed off their backs otherwise, and tried to avoid panic. I
don't see anything exceptionable in that approach. And now the
situation seems to be under control, the radiation release was
detectable but not likely to cause major problems for anybody except
possibly farmers within a few miles of the facility, and we see that
even in a worst case disaster going beyond anything that the plants were
designed to deal with, the worst that happens is that they render
themselves inoperable and leak a small amount of radiation.

But no, according to those who would protect us, we must panic and be
very afraid because the bogeyman is coming to get us.

If the entire US navy left port in Japan because of radiation, then the
bogeyman must be radioactive.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/21/jap...ion/index.html

The entire US Navy did not leave port. The tiny part of it that was in
port at Yukosuka left port. And there doesn't have to be any radiation
present for the fleet to leave port--the Navy does such things you know.

The article from CNN states otherwise:

"As of Monday, the U.S. Navy had no more warships in port at the base. The
aircraft carrier USS George Washington, which had been undergoing
maintenance in Yokosuka, left port Monday to get away from the plume of
radioactive particles that could blow over the base."

You may have faith in the engineering of nuclear energy, I do not.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

In article ,
dude says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
dude says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:20:19 -1000, dsi1
wrote:

My guess is that some official will probably kill himself because he
didn't do something right. They do weird stuff like that over there. I
wish this was a more common practice in our country. :-)

Officials do kill themselves over here, but we call it suicide.
Unfortunately, the ones here who should be committing seppuku never
think they were wrong and everything is just peachy.

The thing you have to remember is that the only people who really _knew_
what was going on were those 180 guys in the plant trying to get things
under control, and they had more important things to do than give
detailed reports to bureaucrats and reporters.

Near as I can tell the Japanese government gave them whatever they asked
for, stayed off their backs otherwise, and tried to avoid panic. I
don't see anything exceptionable in that approach. And now the
situation seems to be under control, the radiation release was
detectable but not likely to cause major problems for anybody except
possibly farmers within a few miles of the facility, and we see that
even in a worst case disaster going beyond anything that the plants were
designed to deal with, the worst that happens is that they render
themselves inoperable and leak a small amount of radiation.

But no, according to those who would protect us, we must panic and be
very afraid because the bogeyman is coming to get us.

If the entire US navy left port in Japan because of radiation, then the
bogeyman must be radioactive.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/21/jap...ion/index.html

The entire US Navy did not leave port. The tiny part of it that was in
port at Yukosuka left port. And there doesn't have to be any radiation
present for the fleet to leave port--the Navy does such things you know.

The article from CNN states otherwise:

"As of Monday, the U.S. Navy had no more warships in port at the base. The
aircraft carrier USS George Washington, which had been undergoing
maintenance in Yokosuka, left port Monday to get away from the plume of
radioactive particles that could blow over the base."

You're still conflating the few ships in port in Yukosuka with "The
entire US Navy". The entire US Navy won't _fit_ in Yukosuka.

As for the reason, "could blow over the base" and "the base is currently
glowing in the dark" are two different things. They left port not
because radiation was pouring into the base but because something
_might_ happen.

People like you see precautions and take it as evidence that there is
certainty that something unpleasant is happening.

You may have faith in the engineering of nuclear energy, I do not.

I have more faith in the engineering of nuclear energy than in the
accuracy of netloon fearmongering.

By the way, one of those ships that you claim left port in fear of the
horrible cloud of radiation that was devastating the port took more
radiation with it than has been emitted by all the reactor accidents in
history. If you're using the behavior of the Navy to support fear of
nuclear power remember that the Navy operates more than 100 nuclear
reactors.

"J. Clarke" wrote:

People like you see precautions and take it as evidence that there is
certainty that something unpleasant is happening.

It is called "Cause and Effect" not precautions.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

On Mar 22, 5:40*pm, Nad R wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:20:19 -1000, dsi1
wrote:

My guess is that some official will probably kill himself because he
didn't do something right. They do weird stuff like that over there.. I
wish this was a more common practice in our country. :-)

Officials do kill themselves over here, but we call it suicide.
Unfortunately, the ones here who should be committing seppuku never
think they were wrong and everything is just peachy.

The thing you have to remember is that the only people who really _knew_
what was going on were those 180 guys in the plant trying to get things
under control, and they had more important things to do than give
detailed reports to bureaucrats and reporters.

Near as I can tell the Japanese government gave them whatever they asked
for, stayed off their backs otherwise, and tried to avoid panic. *I
don't see anything exceptionable in that approach. *And now the
situation seems to be under control, the radiation release was
detectable but not likely to cause major problems for anybody except
possibly farmers within a few miles of the facility, and we see that
even in a worst case disaster going beyond anything that the plants were
designed to deal with, the worst that happens is that they render
themselves inoperable and leak a small amount of radiation.

But no, according to those who would protect us, we must panic and be
very afraid because the bogeyman is coming to get us.

If the entire US navy left port in Japan because of radiation, then the
bogeyman must be radioactive.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/21/jap...ion/index.html

The entire US Navy did not leave port. *The tiny part of it that was in
port at Yukosuka left port. *And there doesn't have to be any radiation
present for the fleet to leave port--the Navy does such things you know..

The article from CNN states otherwise:

"As of Monday, the U.S. Navy had no more warships in port at the base. The
aircraft carrier USS George Washington, which had been undergoing
maintenance in Yokosuka, left port Monday to get away from the plume of
radioactive particles that could blow over the base."

You may have faith in the engineering of nuclear energy, I do not.

There are tradeoffs with every energy source. Nuclear energy works
very well in my neighboring state of Illinois, except that there are
still the issues of disposal of used fuel. Every other technology
also has its downsides. I think that the biggest issue is the
tradeoffs between increasing and decreasing population, both within
nation states, and the Earth as a whole. The "Flaccid Penis Man" in
the Vatican has in effect fathered more children who are doomed to die
of the effects of poverty than any other man. The happy medium may
lie between the Malthusians and the folks who advocate breeding like
rats.

When I see plates of food half-eaten on the abandoned tables of
restaurants, I see people ****ing in the faces of hungry people. They
are obviously too stupid to feel the shame that they ought to feel.
Am *I* the elitist?

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R *(Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

--Bryan

Bryan wrote:

There are tradeoffs with every energy source. Nuclear energy works
very well in my neighboring state of Illinois, except that there are
still the issues of disposal of used fuel. Every other technology
also has its downsides.

Nuclear downside is real bummer. If a coal plant goes down no one has to
evacuate their homes. Michigan has had problems with their nuke plants.

http://www.amazon.com/Almost-Lost-De...0847484&sr=8-1

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

In article ,
dude says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:

People like you see precautions and take it as evidence that there is
certainty that something unpleasant is happening.

It is called "Cause and Effect" not precautions.

No, it's called precautions. You're projecting your own fears on the
Navy.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:32:29 +0000 (UTC), Nad R
wrote:

Bryan wrote:

There are tradeoffs with every energy source. Nuclear energy works
very well in my neighboring state of Illinois, except that there are
still the issues of disposal of used fuel. Every other technology
also has its downsides.

Nuclear downside is real bummer. If a coal plant goes down no one has to
evacuate their homes. Michigan has had problems with their nuke plants.

http://www.amazon.com/Almost-Lost-De...0847484&sr=8-1

What to do with nuclear waste is more than a minor problem as are all
the other issues we're seeing in Japan at the moment.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

In article ,
dude says...

Bryan wrote:

There are tradeoffs with every energy source. Nuclear energy works
very well in my neighboring state of Illinois, except that there are
still the issues of disposal of used fuel. Every other technology
also has its downsides.

Nuclear downside is real bummer. If a coal plant goes down no one has to
evacuate their homes.

If a nuclear plant goes down no evacuation is needed. Something much
worse than "going down" has to happen.

Michigan has had problems with their nuke plants.

http://www.amazon.com/Almost-Lost-De...0847484&sr=8-1

Actually the "nuke plant" in question was an experimental reactor, not a
power plant. And when they had problems they pulled the plug and went
back to the drawing board, which is what you are supposed to do when an
experimental design doesn't turn out the way you expected. Now, do you
have an example of a problem in Michigan with a commercial nuclear
generating station?

By the way, a fertilizer ship killed more people than Chernobyl.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:32:29 +0000 (UTC), Nad R
wrote:

Bryan wrote:

There are tradeoffs with every energy source. Nuclear energy works
very well in my neighboring state of Illinois, except that there are
still the issues of disposal of used fuel. Every other technology
also has its downsides.

Nuclear downside is real bummer. If a coal plant goes down no one has to
evacuate their homes. Michigan has had problems with their nuke plants.

http://www.amazon.com/Almost-Lost-De...0847484&sr=8-1

What to do with nuclear waste is more than a minor problem as are all
the other issues we're seeing in Japan at the moment.

Well, one solution is to deliver it all to Jimmy Carter's peanut farm
and let him deal with it. He's the one who passed the edict forbidding
it to be recycled in nuclear reactors and requiring that it be stored
forever and ever instead. Maybe when he starts to glow in the dark
he'll rethink that particular act of stupidity.

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
dude says...

Bryan wrote:

There are tradeoffs with every energy source. Nuclear energy works
very well in my neighboring state of Illinois, except that there are
still the issues of disposal of used fuel. Every other technology
also has its downsides.

Nuclear downside is real bummer. If a coal plant goes down no one has to
evacuate their homes.

If a nuclear plant goes down no evacuation is needed. Something much
worse than "going down" has to happen.

Michigan has had problems with their nuke plants.

http://www.amazon.com/Almost-Lost-De...0847484&sr=8-1

Actually the "nuke plant" in question was an experimental reactor, not a
power plant. And when they had problems they pulled the plug and went
back to the drawing board, which is what you are supposed to do when an
experimental design doesn't turn out the way you expected. Now, do you
have an example of a problem in Michigan with a commercial nuclear
generating station?

Nuclear energy is not safe and I do not want it!

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

In article ,
dude says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
dude says...

Bryan wrote:

There are tradeoffs with every energy source. Nuclear energy works
very well in my neighboring state of Illinois, except that there are
still the issues of disposal of used fuel. Every other technology
also has its downsides.

Nuclear downside is real bummer. If a coal plant goes down no one has to
evacuate their homes.

If a nuclear plant goes down no evacuation is needed. Something much
worse than "going down" has to happen.

Michigan has had problems with their nuke plants.

http://www.amazon.com/Almost-Lost-De...0847484&sr=8-1

Actually the "nuke plant" in question was an experimental reactor, not a
power plant. And when they had problems they pulled the plug and went
back to the drawing board, which is what you are supposed to do when an
experimental design doesn't turn out the way you expected. Now, do you
have an example of a problem in Michigan with a commercial nuclear
generating station?

Nuclear energy is not safe and I do not want it!

And the rest of us have to shiver in the dark because of your irrational
fear?

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
dude says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
dude says...

Bryan wrote:

There are tradeoffs with every energy source. Nuclear energy works
very well in my neighboring state of Illinois, except that there are
still the issues of disposal of used fuel. Every other technology
also has its downsides.

Nuclear downside is real bummer. If a coal plant goes down no one has to
evacuate their homes.

If a nuclear plant goes down no evacuation is needed. Something much
worse than "going down" has to happen.

Michigan has had problems with their nuke plants.

http://www.amazon.com/Almost-Lost-De...0847484&sr=8-1

Actually the "nuke plant" in question was an experimental reactor, not a
power plant. And when they had problems they pulled the plug and went
back to the drawing board, which is what you are supposed to do when an
experimental design doesn't turn out the way you expected. Now, do you
have an example of a problem in Michigan with a commercial nuclear
generating station?

Nuclear energy is not safe and I do not want it!

And the rest of us have to shiver in the dark because of your irrational
fear?

Better than personally glowing in the dark. There also other systems of
generating energy that are safer. I am for population reduction therefore
less CO2. If nuclear is so safe I propose that you build the plants in the
downtown cities rather than the boondocks.

Mr. Clark, So tell me do you work for or on behalf of the nuclear industry?

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

sf wrote:
Nad R wrote:

Nuclear downside is real bummer. If a coal plant goes down no one has to
evacuate their homes.

Coal plants release more radiation than nuclear plants. It's in the
ash and in the steam and C02. The ash waste from coal plants also
remains toxic forever. Forever is longer than the halflife of any
radioactive neuclide.

What to do with nuclear waste is more than a minor problem as are all
the other issues we're seeing in Japan at the moment.

What to do with nuclear waste is a political issue not a technical
issue. Ask the French. They reprocess out the transuranics then
vitrify the small amount of short lived (short as in centuries not
millennia) waste and put it in granite vaults that are very deep used
mines. Do that reprocessing without concentrating the fissionables and
you never make any bomb material.

Fukushima is worse than TMI, not as bad as Chernobyl. It's a mess. It
was an old style boiling water reactor. At this point I want all of the
bioling water reactors aged out and replaced with CanDu dynamically
stable reactors. Which are better at burning the reprocessed fuel rod
material as well.

In article ,
dude says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
dude says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
dude says...

Bryan wrote:

There are tradeoffs with every energy source. Nuclear energy works
very well in my neighboring state of Illinois, except that there are
still the issues of disposal of used fuel. Every other technology
also has its downsides.

Nuclear downside is real bummer. If a coal plant goes down no one has to
evacuate their homes.

If a nuclear plant goes down no evacuation is needed. Something much
worse than "going down" has to happen.

Michigan has had problems with their nuke plants.

http://www.amazon.com/Almost-Lost-De...0847484&sr=8-1

Actually the "nuke plant" in question was an experimental reactor, not a
power plant. And when they had problems they pulled the plug and went
back to the drawing board, which is what you are supposed to do when an
experimental design doesn't turn out the way you expected. Now, do you
have an example of a problem in Michigan with a commercial nuclear
generating station?

Nuclear energy is not safe and I do not want it!

And the rest of us have to shiver in the dark because of your irrational
fear?

Better than personally glowing in the dark. There also other systems of
generating energy that are safer. I am for population reduction therefore
less CO2.

So how are you going to reduce the population? The only way to do it
quickly that I know of involved a _lot_ of radiation.

If nuclear is so safe I propose that you build the plants in the
downtown cities rather than the boondocks.

If whatever alternative you prefer is so safe why not put that in the
downtown cities rather than the boondocks?

Has it occurred to you that land in downtown cities is _expensive_
compared to land in the boondocks?

Mr. Clark, So tell me do you work for or on behalf of the nuclear
industry?

No. Do you work for or on behalf of the alternative energy industry?