"charlesb" wrote:

There's probably only one hope for you now, Jason, and that is to buy
yourself a pack of Chesterfields or Luckies and fire one on up on your way
to "Golden Corral" to take advantage of that all-you-can-eat buffet.


Hey, the "Golden Corral" has much better food than the so-called fast food
joints, and it's cheaper too. Take out is especially inexpensive. Where else
can you get a steak dinner for two to thee bucks?

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"charlesb" wrote:

One quick example: Irrationally afraid of nuclear
power, the "PC police" has seen to it that we stick
with the burning of fossil fuels for our electricity.
How clever.


Irrationally afraid of nuclear power? According to the UN, there have been
386 serious nuclear power plant accidents around the world (serious defined
as a significant release of nuclear material into the atmosphere). Several
of those accidents have been right here in this country. In addition, there
have been over 6,000 nuclear weapons tests, resulting in millions of tons of
radioactive material spread across this planet. Nobody is certain how many
nuclear weapons accidents there have been. And, since records are not kept,
nobody is certain how many accidents there have been at nuclear research
facilities. The nuclear industry, peaceful or military, has been no friend
to this planet or it's people. And that's not a "PC" perspective - it's
simple common sense.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Back when I was running marathons, I was 178.

That's amazing! How old are you now?

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"charlesb" wrote:

One quick example: Irrationally afraid of nuclear
power, the "PC police" has seen to it that we stick
with the burning of fossil fuels for our electricity.
How clever.


Irrationally afraid of nuclear power? According to the UN, there have
been
386 serious nuclear power plant accidents around the world (serious
defined
as a significant release of nuclear material into the atmosphere). Several
of those accidents have been right here in this country. In addition,
there
have been over 6,000 nuclear weapons tests, resulting in millions of tons
of
radioactive material spread across this planet. Nobody is certain how many
nuclear weapons accidents there have been. And, since records are not
kept,
nobody is certain how many accidents there have been at nuclear research
facilities. The nuclear industry, peaceful or military, has been no friend
to this planet or it's people. And that's not a "PC" perspective - it's
simple common sense.


Yes, irrationally afraid of nuclear power. Nothing you said there convinced
me otherwise.

Keep in mind the fact that fossil-fuel burning plants pollute while working
perfectly. Unlike the nuclear plants, they don't have to wait for an
accident in order to cause a problem.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"charlesb" wrote:

One quick example: Irrationally afraid of nuclear
power, the "PC police" has seen to it that we stick
with the burning of fossil fuels for our electricity.
How clever.


Irrationally afraid of nuclear power? According to the UN, there have
been
386 serious nuclear power plant accidents around the world (serious
defined
as a significant release of nuclear material into the atmosphere). Several
of those accidents have been right here in this country. In addition,
there
have been over 6,000 nuclear weapons tests, resulting in millions of tons
of
radioactive material spread across this planet. Nobody is certain how many
nuclear weapons accidents there have been. And, since records are not
kept,
nobody is certain how many accidents there have been at nuclear research
facilities. The nuclear industry, peaceful or military, has been no friend
to this planet or it's people. And that's not a "PC" perspective - it's
simple common sense.

The following comments address power plants only. Weapons is an entirely
different issue.

Yes, irrationally afraid. The number of deaths from nuclear power plants
pales into insignificance in comparison to the number of minors who have
died to bring us coal to burn not only from accidents but black lung
disease. The damage done from nuclear power plants pales into
insignificance in comparison to the damage done from oil spills. More
people have died from dams breaking than power plant accidents.

If we applied the same logic and standards to other sources of power as we
do to nuclear, we would not have any electricity at all. We'd have to shut
down every coal, oil, and hydroelectric power plant in the world.

Nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, most efficient form of power
generation available at this time.

Wind and solar have to be excluded at this time since the technology doesn't
exist to make these forms widely available on an efficient basis. And if we
follow the logic of some people in this group on other items, wind power is
too antiquated since it's been used for hundreds if not thousands of years.

And let's compare nuclear power to some non-power industries. Are you aware
of how devastating accidents at chemical plants can be? Have you ever seen
a grain elevator explode from sparks causing the suspended dust to explode?

I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant than any other type of power
generating facility or any of several other industrial endeavors.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
. com...

Nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, most efficient form of power
generation available at this time.


Absolutely correct. Hands down. Although undeniably, all the comments
about deaths from other energy sources aside--an incident with nuclear power
carries much further impact and potential for harm than from any other
source (currently in use). While deaths and environmental impact may be
higher in number than from nuclear incidents, I think it would be found that
nuclear power/nuclear anything has greater risk than is immediately
recognized.

Take a coal mine. At any one coal mine there are probably folks who have,
and who have already died from, black lung or other health diseases; there
have probably been some people maimed and killed from caves, and there have
probably even been some serious environmental effects from the mining of
coal. But, one (serious) incident at a nuclear power plant--take Chernobyl
since that's the worst in history--and you have generations of trouble: to
the environment, to disaster recovery; to ecnomical and infrastructure; and
we haven't even mentioned the immediate and long-term health effects.

Kim W5TIT

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message

Again not so. Only 31 people died from Chernobyl. Even now there has been
no increased incident of deaths from diseases that may possibly be linked to
radiation.

Directly attributable deaths, Dee. It's important to make a distinction

The area where the fallout could be discerned from the normal
background measurements was relatively small. In addition, that accident
was due to an unauthorized experiment being conducted at the facility. In
other words, rules and safety precautions were being deliberately ignored.
Nuclear power generation has been round for 50 years now. A total of 34
people have died. That's the 31 at Chernobyl and 3 in the 1950s at an
experimental government facility (where once again regulations were not
followed).

Don't forget there were deaths earlier than the 1950's


The collapse of hydroelectric dams have affected areas as wide or wider than
a nuclear power plant accident. And they have killed more people. I'd much
rather live next to a nuclear plant than downstream of a dam.

And speaking of long term environmental impacts, what about thousands of
square miles that are supposedly affected by acid rain from burning coal??
What about the miles of coast and ocean that have been contaminated by oil
spills?? The long term effects could be quite significant.

So if an honest evaluation and comparison of long term effects, deaths,
environmental impacts, etc is done and the same standards applied across the
board, then it would indeed be necessary to shut down all oil, coal, and
hydroelectric plants. Personally I don't care to sit in the dark and
shiver.

Now let's take a look at serious industrial accidents. A prime example is
the chemical plant in Bhopal. 3,000 people died immediately when that
happened. As many as 10,000 people have died from long term effects of
exposure to the gas released since it damaged their lungs and other organs.
No one is shutting down the chemical industry. Yet some chemicals are as
persistent in the environment as nuclear materials.

If you want my take on the whole nuc power issue, the techies have
placed the blame on the public, while so very much lies within themselves.

You try to convince the public that the reactor is safe. What they
remember is that they were told that Chernoble was safe. The public is
left to sort out who is telling the truth, and who is not. And the
superior attitude of the techies did not help. Any guess why they chose
not to believe anyone?

I think that the way we were building the things was an inherently
unsafe situation. The concentration of so much power in one or two
relatively small places (per area served) is not an inherently safe
operation. It achieves economy of scale, but in the end, probably didn't
even do that.

Mistakes were made in the basic premises. And yes there is an element
of irrationality with peoples reaction to the problem. Can you
completely blame them? The techie person will answer yes, no doubt. But
that is being as irrational as they are, because it ignores that they
HAVE to be convinced.

Don't get me wrong, I a a firm proponent of nuc power. I just think it
has been handled very very poorly by the Techies.

As the world is now entering it's period of geometric population
growth, there I have no doubt that nuclear power will make a return; the
other choice is no power at all. The population growth is poised to
consume most of what is left of the fossil fuels, and will probably do
so in a surprisingly short time.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "charlesb"
writes:

Keep in mind the fact that fossil-fuel burning plants pollute while
working
perfectly.

Yup. So do nuclear plants. The pollution in each case is different, of
course.
Nuke plants generate various forms of radioactive waste that will remain
hazardous for far longer than anyone realistically knows how to deal with.


We already know how to realistically deal with them but since it requires
reprocessing, the various anti-nuke groups won't let us do that either.

Unlike the nuclear plants, they don't have to wait for an
accident in order to cause a problem.

But when a nuke plant has a problem, it's a BIG problem!

73 de Jim, N2EY


No bigger a problem than a hydroelectric dam breaking. The BIG problem is
the slanted and sometimes false information that is spread by the media just
to have an exciting story.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
. com...


No bigger a problem than a hydroelectric dam breaking. The BIG problem is
the slanted and sometimes false information that is spread by the media
just
to have an exciting story.

- which is one facet of the PC cult.

I remember the first time I heard the term "political correctness"... I
remember thinking that they must be talking about Red China and their crude
brainwashing experiments, back in the 1950's. It most certainly leaves that
same bad taste in the mouth, doesn't it?

Then I found out that it was the latest thing going on in U.S. politics, and
I thought it was a joke. Surely after winning the cold war and conclusively
proving that socialism was a miserable dead-end, we would not be stupid
enough to take on the trappings of the corrupt, backward culture we had just
defeated.

Imagine my surprise when it turned out that many people really ARE that
stupid! Amazing, isn't it?

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

In article ,
(Jason Hsu) writes:

"charlesb" wrote in message
. com...
Assuming that your post is serious and not intended to be humerous, Jason,
I'd say that you should be careful not to neglect your mental hygene.
Eating
right and staying away from tobacco is nice, but it won't ultimately do you
any good if your thinking is toxic.

Come on, how seriously can you take anything in
rec.radio.amateur.policy?

So you were trolling. OK...

I don't smoke, but I would gladly take up smoking as an alternative to
becoming another miserable, obnoxious member of the PC-police.

I guess the "PC police" are more evil than Phillip Morris, whose
products kill millions around the world every year. Wouldn't you
rather rebel against Phillip Morris? They represent everything you
hate about the Establishment!

Does Phillip Morris force anyone to smoke? Or is it a choice people make?

There's probably only one hope for you now, Jason, and that is to buy
yourself a pack of Chesterfields or Luckies and fire one on up on your way
to "Golden Corral" to take advantage of that all-you-can-eat buffet.

Smoking is so disgusting that I wouldn't even do it if it were
healthy.

Well, it's unhealthy, so you're off the hook.

True fact: The *original* antismoking campaigns had nothing to do with health
concerns. Their real problem with smoking was that it was perceived to be an
activity done *only* for pleasure - and therefore evil! (You have to eat and
sleep, so those activities were not targeted as much).

If it's any consolation to you, the Atkins diet followers think I
guzzle carbs the way a 1972 Cadillac guzzles fuel. (According to news
articles, these people now have their own grocery stores and
restaurants. Ugh.)

Why "ugh"? If that diet works for some people, that's a good thing.

Do you understand the relationship of carbs and insulin?

The anti-meat anti-fat Ornish diet followers
think I guzzle fat the way a 1972 Cadillac guzzles fuel.

There are all kinds of fats. Some are needed, some are almost poison.

I guess I must be eating right if other hams think I'm on a crash diet
and the followers of the latest diet fads think I eat like a hog.

No, you're eating right *for you* if your weight and other indicators are good.


George Sheehan used to say that each of us is an "experiment of one", and that
a big part of living is trying out different approaches and seeing what works
best for each of us at various times of our lives.

For example, I've found that eating mostly sugary and carb-y foods causes me to
gain weight and be tired. Plus I'm hungry all the time that way. Eating the
same number of calories in protein and healthy fats causes me to lose weight,
have more energy, and be much less hungry. So instead of cereal and skim milk
for breakfast I have a veggie omelet. Works for me. YMMV.

73 de Jim, N2EY