"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/

"Jason Hsu" wrote in message
om...
I never hear people complain about:
1. The amount of junk food other hams eat
2. Smokers at hamfests

i hate to break this to you jason, but these vices are not just limited to
hams... may i suggest you join a health club, or maybe the sierra club, or
some local vegan support group to find others of like feelings... if you
insist on going to club meetings and hamfests with feelings like this all
you will do is frustrate yourself and annoy others that you try to change.

"Jason Hsu" wrote in message
om...
I never hear people complain about:
1. The amount of junk food other hams eat
2. Smokers at hamfests

Carl, please keep your retarded children away from your computer.
Damn, don't you have leashes at the NCI® Compound?




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003

The leftist-socialist-utopian types will soundly
support your ideas.

Clint
KB5ZHT

--
--


Former New York Mayor Ed Koch,
self proclaimed DEMOCRAT,
SHORTLY after the 9/11 attack-

"...everybody has a right to have thier own
oppinion... ...i'm even a Democrat... ...but
in this time of trouble, we need to show the
world our resolve and we're united, and we
should NOT denigrate the president."


--


Tom Daschle believes in the rich paying taxes....
....um, except for HIMSELF...

http://sibbyonline.blogspot.com/2003...e_archive.html

--

If you sympathize with terrorists & middle eastern tyrants,
vote for liberals...

--


"Jason Hsu" wrote in message
om...
I never hear people complain about:
1. The amount of junk food other hams eat
2. Smokers at hamfests

Junk food is a staple at club meetings and Field Day. At my club's
meetings, you can always find plenty of salty potato chips (not the
low-salt Pringles Right Crisps), coffee cake, glazed muffins, sweet
rolls, and other unhealthy food. There is always plenty of soda pop
to drink. True, apple pie snacks and cookies are junk food too, but
at least they taste good. Kentucky Fried Chicken and donuts are
served at each of our annual Field Day weekends.

I am the only ham radio operator who complains that other hams eat too
much junk food. As a Morse Code testing opponent, I hate to say this,
but junk food seems to be an EVEN MORE sacred tradition than Morse
Code tests. The trend has been towards reducing Morse Code testing
requirements, but I see no sign that the junk food tradition is ready
to head off into the sunset.

People complain about hams with body odor at hamfests, but I can't
remember reading anyone complaining about smokers at hamfests. I
don't notice people's body odor - I don't run around sniffing
everybody. But the foul tobacco smoke spreads like wildfire. I don't
think body odor can spread 10-20 feet away very easily.

Hmmm, I see a great idea for a compromise on the Morse Code testing
issue. The anti-Morse-testing side complains that the Morse Code test
is unnecessary. The pro-Morse-testing side complains that removing
the Morse Code test will make it too easy for people to become
licensed. I propose that we replace the Morse Code test with health
requirements. The replacement license requirements will be:
1. Your Body Mass Index (http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bmicalc.htm)
must be below 19. Of course, if I gain 5 pounds this fall and winter,
I'll have to revise the cutoff upward to 20.
2. No smokers may earn ham radio licenses.
3. No club is allowed to serve soda pop, donuts, glazed muffins, or
potato chips with more than 135mg of sodium per serving.
4. At all club Field Day events, vegetables must be served for
dinner.

Hey, these requirements would make it nice and challenging for people
to earn their licenses. We want our hams to be healthy. Too many are
afflicted with obesity, heart disease, high cholesterol, high blood
pressure, and other health problems. We won't give licenses away -
hams will need to cut the fast food, junk food, and tobacco out of
their lives. This will be quite a challenge given how sacred the
Kentucky Fried Chicken, soda pop, and donuts are.

Jason Hsu, AG4DG

In article ,
(Jason Hsu) writes:

I never hear people complain about:
1. The amount of junk food other hams eat
2. Smokers at hamfests

Jason, meet Vipul. Look up almost any post here by 'vshah101'. He's way ahead
of you on the 'fat ham' riff.

Junk food is a staple at club meetings and Field Day.

Maybe where you live...

At my club's
meetings, you can always find plenty of salty potato chips (not the
low-salt Pringles Right Crisps), coffee cake, glazed muffins, sweet
rolls, and other unhealthy food. There is always plenty of soda pop
to drink.

When's the next meeting?

True, apple pie snacks and cookies are junk food too, but
at least they taste good. Kentucky Fried Chicken and donuts are
served at each of our annual Field Day weekends.

mmmmmm......donuts........

I am the only ham radio operator who complains that other hams eat too
much junk food.

No, you're not. You and Vipul should have a good time. Discuss amongst
yourselves.

As a Morse Code testing opponent, I hate to say this,
but junk food seems to be an EVEN MORE sacred tradition than Morse
Code tests. The trend has been towards reducing Morse Code testing
requirements, but I see no sign that the junk food tradition is ready
to head off into the sunset.

People complain about hams with body odor at hamfests, but I can't
remember reading anyone complaining about smokers at hamfests. I
don't notice people's body odor - I don't run around sniffing
everybody. But the foul tobacco smoke spreads like wildfire. I don't
think body odor can spread 10-20 feet away very easily.

No comment...

Hmmm, I see a great idea for a compromise on the Morse Code testing
issue. The anti-Morse-testing side complains that the Morse Code test
is unnecessary. The pro-Morse-testing side complains that removing
the Morse Code test will make it too easy for people to become
licensed. I propose that we replace the Morse Code test with health
requirements. The replacement license requirements will be:
1. Your Body Mass Index (http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bmicalc.htm)
must be below 19. Of course, if I gain 5 pounds this fall and winter,
I'll have to revise the cutoff upward to 20.
2. No smokers may earn ham radio licenses.
3. No club is allowed to serve soda pop, donuts, glazed muffins, or
potato chips with more than 135mg of sodium per serving.
4. At all club Field Day events, vegetables must be served for
dinner.

HAW!!!

Those'll go over big!

Hey, these requirements would make it nice and challenging for people
to earn their licenses. We want our hams to be healthy. Too many are
afflicted with obesity, heart disease, high cholesterol, high blood
pressure, and other health problems.

Take all that away, and what will they talk about on 75 meters? ;-)

We won't give licenses away -
hams will need to cut the fast food, junk food, and tobacco out of
their lives. This will be quite a challenge given how sacred the
Kentucky Fried Chicken, soda pop, and donuts are.

I dunno if you're serious, trolling, or satirical, but it's funny any of those
ways!

Seriously, though, it's not just a ham radio problem - it's an American
problem. Just look around you. Combine an aging population, cheap sugary/fatty
foods, sedentary but high-stress living, and a drop in other vices like
smoking, and you have a recipe (pun intended) for folks getting heavier.

I'm 6' 3" and my target weight is 180. I'll let ya know when I get there.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article ,
(Jason Hsu) writes:

snippage

We won't give licenses away -
hams will need to cut the fast food, junk food, and tobacco out of
their lives. This will be quite a challenge given how sacred the
Kentucky Fried Chicken, soda pop, and donuts are.


I dunno if you're serious, trolling, or satirical, but it's funny any of
those
ways!

Yeah, here we go Jim:

Entry level license is the Smart!tician. Test requirements are eating
no less than 3 meals of meat per week.

I think you mean "no more than..."

The successful applicant must
also demonstrate the ability to cooko pasta in at least 30 unappetizing
ways. Extra credit for recipes including Tofu.

Toe food?

Priveliges for the Smart!tician will be the same as the technician plus

is today.

Next up the ladder is the Generallyhealthy! class. Test requiremts are
to show the ability to fast for a minimum of 3 days, followed by a
cleansing diet of only fruit juices, in addition to the Smart!tician
tests. This is as high in the service as meat eaters can go * the lone
exception is noted below

Priveliges for the Generallyhealthy! are the same as the Smart!tician,
plus HF access in SSB only.

At the top of the sprout heap is the ExtraDelicious! license. This is
the epitome of both hamdom and the oh so healthy lifestyle. The
ExtraDelicious! *must* be a vegatarian, specificly a vegan.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law: Hitler was a vegetarian. I am not making
this up.

*The only
exception to this is that medical waivers can be granted for
lacto-ovarians, and in certain rare instances, for macrobiotics. These
must be signed by a physician.

The successful applicant for ExtraDelicious! must display the ability
to be condescending onto others, to announce their vegan status to every
person they meet within 45 seconds, and to be a general nuisance at
restaraunts, being required to ask the waitress of the possibilty of
animal products in everything in the facility, including the salt and
pepper shakers.

You ever hear of Edgar Friendly?

The ExtraDelicious! has all priveliges, as befits the obvious
superiority of this type of person.

Seriously, though, it's not just a ham radio problem - it's an American
problem. Just look around you. Combine an aging population, cheap
sugary/fatty
foods, sedentary but high-stress living, and a drop in other vices like
smoking, and you have a recipe (pun intended) for folks getting heavier.

I'm 6' 3" and my target weight is 180. I'll let ya know when I get there.

You have to be kidding, Jim!

No, I'm serious.

Unless you have an incredibly small bone
structure, that will be hard to attain.

Back when I was running marathons, I was 178.

I'm not too wild about the way
"they" figure the body weight thing out either. It really has to be done
more on a fat percentage thing rather than some stupid one size fits all
approach. By the tables, I am considered grossly obese, and yet by the
fat percentage, not. Put me in the pool, and I sink like a stone. Fat
being neutral density as compared to water, allows the person to float
easily, and weigh relatively less in water than a person of high
muscle/fat ratio of equal weight.

BMI is a better indicator, but your point is well made.

Perhaps the best indicators are things like total cholesterol, LDL, HDL,
resting heart rate, blood pressure, 12 minute test (how far can you
walk/jog/run in 12 minutes?) rather than weight.

Go figure!

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Back when I was running marathons, I was 178.

That's amazing! How old are you now?

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

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 attributed deaths. If a pregnant woman 1000 miles away was exposed to
high levels of windblown radiation, and her child developed leukemia at age 2
and died as a direct result of that exposure, how does that death ever get
attributed to the Chernobyl accident?

The area where the fallout could be discerned from the normal
background measurements was relatively small.

How many square miles? How long will it be hot?

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.

Yep. Absolutely true. And I've never seen any reason given.

But these were not stupid, evil or suicidal people. They just did some
amazingly dumb things, which got out of their control. And perhaps that's the
real lesson of Chernobyl: People will do amazingly stupid things for no
explainable reason at all. Then the rest of us are left to pick up the pieces.


But when technology is small and distributed, the effects of doing amazingly
stupid things for no explainable reason at all are contained to a relatively
small area and numbers of people. When technology is huge and concentrated, the
effects can be much worse.

And the more complex the technology, the easier it is to do something really
dumb.

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).

Attributable deaths.

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.

When is the last time a hydro dam in the USA collapsed and killed people?

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.

Sure. But not as significant as the effects of radioactive materials that take
millennia to break down.

Consider just one spent fuel rod from a nuke plant like TMI. How long before it
is harmless?

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.

I'd like to see such a comparison.

Personally I don't care to sit in the dark and
shiver.

It's not a binary problem.

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.

The chemical industry in India does not have anywhere near the safeguards of
the chemical industry in the USA.

And as horrible as the Bhopal disaster was, the gas dispersed and will break
down. How long will TMI be radioactive?

Yet some chemicals are as
persistent in the environment as nuclear materials.

Some examples, please?

A process can be developed to break down any chemical compound. PCBs, for
example, were specifically designed to be inert and nonreactive, yet they can
be broken down into their components quickly. But there's no way to speed up
nuclear decay.

So sorry to say, your long term environmental arguments just don't hold
water. There's lots of things that can affect even wider spread areas and
last just as long.

Perhaps we should discuss the half life of plutonium?

And if you're going to discuss dangerous industrial processes, consider this:
The most dangerous common form of mechanized transportation in use today in the
USA are privately owned motor vehicles. Every year and a half, about as many
Americans die on US highways as died in the entire Vietnam war. Airlines,
trains, buses and ships are far safer, yet few people refuse to drive or ride
in a car compared to other modes. Why?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dee D.
Flint"
writes:

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 attributed deaths. If a pregnant woman 1000 miles away was
exposed to
high levels of windblown radiation, and her child developed leukemia at
age 2
and died as a direct result of that exposure, how does that death ever get
attributed to the Chernobyl accident?

The area where the fallout could be discerned from the normal
background measurements was relatively small.

How many square miles? How long will it be hot?


Dissipation will be by the inverse square law so at 1000 miles from the
plant it will have a concentration of only 1 millioneth of the concentration
at the release site. While specific deaths can't be attributed, the overall
numbers can be assigned by simply comparing the death rate due to leukemia
in the affected zone to the death rate outside. This can be done for each
cause of death that can be increased by radiation. If society wants the
data, it can be gathered. But people would rather hide behind the emotional
fear of possible problems than researching what problems will occur and the
magnitude of the problem and making an enlightened decision.

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.

Yep. Absolutely true. And I've never seen any reason given.

But these were not stupid, evil or suicidal people. They just did some
amazingly dumb things, which got out of their control. And perhaps that's
the
real lesson of Chernobyl: People will do amazingly stupid things for no
explainable reason at all. Then the rest of us are left to pick up the
pieces.


Still, stupidity can't be allowed to stop us from facing the energy needs of
the future. Instead one addresses the issue and error proofs and mistake
proofs the facility.


But when technology is small and distributed, the effects of doing
amazingly
stupid things for no explainable reason at all are contained to a
relatively
small area and numbers of people. When technology is huge and
concentrated, the
effects can be much worse.

And the more complex the technology, the easier it is to do something
really
dumb.


Nuclear technology is not complex. It's relatively simple in fact.

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).

Attributable deaths.

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.

When is the last time a hydro dam in the USA collapsed and killed people?

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.

Sure. But not as significant as the effects of radioactive materials that
take
millennia to break down.

Not proven. Millennia worth of acid rain could conceivably be just as
harmful as the time taken to breakdown radioactive materials. Why? Because
even though the acid rain dissipates, it keeps on coming down year after
year.


Consider just one spent fuel rod from a nuke plant like TMI. How long
before it
is harmless?

Let it be reprocessed and recycled and it's not a problem.


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.

I'd like to see such a comparison.


I would too. It is exactly the type of data that we as a society need to
make informed decisions about our energy future. Right now we are stuck
with people's emotional reactions. I should have said "...it would probably
be necessary..." My point was that people are refusing to even consider the
dangers of other means of power generation.

Personally I don't care to sit in the dark and
shiver.

It's not a binary problem.


It's getting close to that in California although shivering will be mild
(except perhaps up in the mountains) as it isn't a severe climate.
California has built no new power plants of any kind in 10 years. They
can't get any of them (fossil fuel, hydro, or nuclear) past the
environmental requirements in the state. Population continued to grow and
they had brown outs and blackouts. Their solution was to buy it from out of
state. Well that hasn't worked either. The rates are simply too high and
the state can't afford it. Costs are being absorbed by the state government
instead of being passed to the users and it's wrecked the state budget. It
looks like those contracts will be canceled and California will be right
back to their brown outs and black outs.

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.

The chemical industry in India does not have anywhere near the safeguards
of
the chemical industry in the USA.

And as horrible as the Bhopal disaster was, the gas dispersed and will
break
down. How long will TMI be radioactive?


TMI has been contained so it will not impact the surrounding residents.
Long term radiation exposure thus becomes a non-issue.

Yet some chemicals are as
persistent in the environment as nuclear materials.

Some examples, please?

A process can be developed to break down any chemical compound. PCBs, for
example, were specifically designed to be inert and nonreactive, yet they
can
be broken down into their components quickly. But there's no way to speed
up
nuclear decay.

Yes you can speed up radioactive decay by reprocessing and reusing the spent
fuel. While PCBs can be broken down, it's not being done due to cost. Save
with PVC. Same with other chemicals.


So sorry to say, your long term environmental arguments just don't hold
water. There's lots of things that can affect even wider spread areas
and
last just as long.

Perhaps we should discuss the half life of plutonium?


Again preprocess and reuse.

And if you're going to discuss dangerous industrial processes, consider
this:
The most dangerous common form of mechanized transportation in use today
in the
USA are privately owned motor vehicles. Every year and a half, about as
many
Americans die on US highways as died in the entire Vietnam war. Airlines,
trains, buses and ships are far safer, yet few people refuse to drive or
ride
in a car compared to other modes. Why?


1. Convenience
2. It's what they are used to
3. Each feels they are in control so it can't happen to them.

Just because we do something doesn't mean it's rational. Mankind is a
rationalizing animal. We will find justifications for our wants and desires
and fears whether there is any basis in fact for them or not.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

Dissipation will be by the inverse square law so at 1000 miles from the
plant it will have a concentration of only 1 millioneth of the
concentration
at the release site.


It's a popular thought in the environmental impact world that the "solution
to pollution is dissolution" or something like that. And, of course, that's
wrong. On its 1000 mile (more actually) trip to infinitesimal measurement,
how much impact did it have along the way?


Nuclear technology is not complex. It's relatively simple in fact.


Another favorite thought. Yeah, in basis theory, the technology is not
complex. Everything on paper looks great.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Kim W5TIT