| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Why don't I ever hear these complaints about other hams?
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 |
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. I don't smoke, but I would gladly take up smoking as an alternative to becoming another miserable, obnoxious member of the PC-police. 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 section, please!" Charles Brabham, N5PVL "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 |
"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. |
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 |
"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 |
"Jason Hsu" wrote in message om... 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! Nope. The tobacco companies are great benefactors of mankind, compared to the PC police... Tobacco may poison individuals, but "PC" poisons entire cultures, causing much more damage and expense than all of the tobacco companies combined. 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. The main problem with "PC" is not to be found in individual examples of PC actions though, but rather in the pervasive stupidity it imposes upon the entire culture. It is basically an instrumnent of deconstructionists who insist that there is no truth, there is no history, so its "OK" to lie as long as its allegedly for somebody else's "good". "PC" sees it's fullest expression in California, the cereal-bowl state. (Once you get past the fruits and nuts, the only thing left are the flakes.) Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
Quite frankly, Charles, I'd love to see all of the smokers suddenly stop.
Really. Then everyone would find out what this is *really* all about. It's about money. You can't cut income taxes the way the government has without reducing spending - and they found a way to grab more money from the 25% of the adult population that smokes - and make it politically 'correct' as well! Our county found a way to sell that "future" tobacco income and raise a ton of money. Guess what? They spent it. Now Monroe County is facing some nasty decisions. New York state now charges $1.50 or $1.55 per pack plus 8.25% sales tax on that tax (at least here in Monroe County). I see a sign at the local grocery store - over $50.00 per carton plus 8.25% sales tax. Was it Alabama that rejected property tax hikes to support schools? What is happening is the elimination of support for necessary items (schools do come to mind). Unemployment has new wrinkles designed to keep folks from collecting even if they were laid off for business reasons. Yes, they now will pay for college education if you can't find a job after a year; unfortunately, there has been no funding for that since 2001! If you work for a company with a company paid pension and you are eligible to collect it, they will reduce unemployment by that amount - even if you aren't collecting it! Lovely. I was very fortunate in that I found another job within the company I work for. They have hollowed out the pension system and use the savings to hire new top managers (the new president only had to show up for work. He could quit or be fired the same day and would receive $175,000 per year for life. If he stays 9 years, he gets $1,000,000 per year for life.). Interestingly, a new store was built about 5 blocks from me. I tried it and was amazed. The groceries are the same quality as I'm used to and are far cheaper. 3 *large* reinforced shopping bags (one of which was so heavy it was cutting into my hand) cost me $38.20. Hmmm ... I wonder how the main store (Wegman's) is going to fair when folks discover this? So, Sam's club for meat and this other store for everything else as far as I'm concerned. Back to the smoking. I really wish everyone could stop smoking. You think Social Security is in a mess (you are aware that the feds have "borrowed" those funds?) now, just wait until 25% of the population starts living an extra 5 to 10 years! Many folks (non-smokers as well) live their final few years in a nursing home. The big difference in costs between smokers and non-smokers is the 5 or 10 years of Social Security that the non-smokers collect. Even a modest check of $1200 per month is $14,000 per year. That comes to $140,000 for an extra 10 years. Maybe we should pay the ball players $100,000,000 per year instead of only $10,000,000. That should fix things just fine. At least their kids will get a decent education. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA --- 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: 9/1/03 |
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 |
"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 , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.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. How do we know this is true? Are there no accidents in uranium mining? Part of the problem is the difficulty of data gathering. If a miner works in a deep mine for 30 years and dies of black lung, it's a safe bet where he got it - and that gets recorded. But if someone works in nuclear processing job for a few years develops cancer or leukemia 20 years later how do we establish a causal link? If a baby born in Harrisburg in 1980 had a birth defect that becomes fatal 10 years later, does that get counted as a result of the Three Mile Island accident? The damage done from nuclear power plants pales into insignificance in comparison to the damage done from oil spills. Specifics, please? I'm not defending oil spills, but their effects are clear and observable. More people have died from dams breaking than power plant accidents. Maybe. Again, the problem is one of data collection. If Holtwood Dam (a few miles from TMI) fails and somebody drowns, that's obvious and recorded. If somebody who was downwind of TMI in 1979 gets cancer as a result of exposure, who can prove it? 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. I disagree! 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. Based on what statistics? First off, to compare apples to apples you have to consider things like how many KWH are generated per fatality. Yes, it's a gruesome stat, but that's how risk assesment works. Second, the risks take different forms. For example, a coal fired plant, even with the best pollution control, spews a measurable amount of pollution into the air.But a coal plant cannot melt down or leak massive amounts of long-lived pollution. OTOH, a nuke plant emits much less pollution per KWH generated, but it can have a meltdown or leak that contaminates a wide area for an unimaginable length of time. Then there is the matter of nuclear waste. How is it to be dealt with? Where is it to be stored for the enormous lengths of time required for it to become reasonably safe? How are nuke plants to be decommissioned? When the technology was new, we were assured that long before nuke waste became a problem, there would be systems in place to deal with it. We're still waiting for those systems. We were also told that nuke power would be "too cheap to meter" and other such George jetson nonsense. Still waiting... 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. I disagree again! Wind technology has come a long way and is becoming competitive with other forms of generation. How many trillion dollars of tax money has been poured into nuclear power research since 1945? How does that compare to wind power research? 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. HAW! Good point! 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? Sure. But when a grain elevator explodes, it does not leave long-lived waste all over a huge area. Nor does its operation generate things that look harmless but will be very dangerous thousands of years from now. 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. OK, fine. Does that include a wind farm? But would you rather live next to a nuclear materials processing facility? Or nukewaste storage facility? The BIG problem with evaluating risk in a real world situation is that the math doesn't tell the whole story from a human perspective. The risk of a catastrophic nuke plant accident is very small, but the results of such an accident are very bad. How many people has the Chernobyl accident killed - so far? How much economic damage? How much will never be properly recorded? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message ... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message No new nuclear power generation is planned, 'least not that I know of... Kim W5TIT that's because the environmental wackos are doing thier damndest to fight them, at every level of governement and in every manner of social disobedience... This is why california hasn't built any new power plants in 10 years while experiencing a DOUBLING of population.... resulting in the blackouts they just had. Clint KB5ZHT You might make it clear that California hasn't built any new plants of ANY KIND because the environmentalists wackos are blocking them. It's not just nuclear they are blocking. They have taken the step that any risk whatsoever is unacceptable. Actually I'm amazed that there even willing to take the risk of getting out bed. Maybe they don't even use beds since they could fall out and break their necks. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
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:
Mike Coslo Wrote: some snippage 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? And bad information and false promises are the biggest problems in life as a whole. Being born isn't safe either. Sleeping isn't safe. There is nothing in this world that is safe. However people are foolish enough to think so. Good heavens, Dee. You could also point out that people are content to hurtle themselves at each other at relative speeds of 140 miles per hour and above in metal and glass boxes containing very dangerous flammable fluids. But I'd probably call that slippery sloping the issue. 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. My point was that it is no riskier than things we accept on a daily basis. As I commented above, there is nothing that is truly safe. No there isn't. But fact is, the safety must be addressed. THe idea that all is well, and mockery of safety issues is how we get places like Love Canal and Chernoble. Would you care to go live in either of those places? Those people were told "There's no problem." Now when people come around and tell people "There's no problem" the reaction is quite different And Jim mentions the waste disposal problem. This IS a real problem, as beyond whatever safety precautions we put on the material, it is going to be nasty stuff for a long time. And there we are telling people "there's no problem" in storage again. I feel in discussing this with you that I'm being pushed into the anti nuclear power group, when I can assure you that isn't the case. What is obvious to me is that due to the history of this topic, people have a pretty good reason to be skeptical. - Mike KB3EIA - |
-- "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message . com... You might make it clear that California hasn't built any new plants of ANY KIND because the environmentalists wackos are blocking them. It's not just nuclear they are blocking. yes, very very true.... Clint |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dee D. Flint wrote: My point was that it is no riskier than things we accept on a daily basis. As I commented above, there is nothing that is truly safe. No there isn't. But fact is, the safety must be addressed. THe idea that all is well, and mockery of safety issues is how we get places like Love Canal and Chernoble. Would you care to go live in either of those places? Those people were told "There's no problem." Now when people come around and tell people "There's no problem" the reaction is quite different And Jim mentions the waste disposal problem. This IS a real problem, as beyond whatever safety precautions we put on the material, it is going to be nasty stuff for a long time. And there we are telling people "there's no problem" in storage again. I feel in discussing this with you that I'm being pushed into the anti nuclear power group, when I can assure you that isn't the case. What is obvious to me is that due to the history of this topic, people have a pretty good reason to be skeptical. - Mike KB3EIA - I quite agree that safety must be addressed and that people should be skeptical. I would certainly insist on seeing the data to show safety rather than just letting someone tell me it's safe. The point I was trying to make is that people are allowing themselves to be scared off of nuclear power by emotional arguments and are not exercising the appropriate degree of skepticism on these arguments and demanding data. The "I think, I feel, I believe" approach has no place on either side of the argument. But when people let fear get in the way of seeking facts to resolve the issue, then they are doing all of us a disservice. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
. com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "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. 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 Yep, my point exactly. And, waste generation and facilitation is a part of the equation I completely forgot to even include in the debate. And, it's a very important part of the issue. Suffice it to say that no one will ever convince me that nuclear generation is a cost/environmental/health effective way for our power needs. It will never happen to be that nuclear generation is the way to go...and the industry recognizes that as well. No new nuclear power generation is planned, 'least not that I know of... Because they are blocked on every hand by people who operate on emotions rather data. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE See my reply to Clint, Dee. Nuclear power is bad ecnomics. Kim W5TIT |
"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 |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message ... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message No new nuclear power generation is planned, 'least not that I know of... Kim W5TIT that's because the environmental wackos are doing thier damndest to fight them, at every level of governement and in every manner of social disobedience... Has nothing to do with "wackos", Clint. Nothing at all. It has everything to do with Board Room decisions for publicly held corporations who have learned thier lesson losses from the construction, start-up, and generation of power from nuclear power plants. They are not cost effective in any way. They've become a pariah on the backs of the companies who have already built and own them. This is why california hasn't built any new power plants in 10 years while experiencing a DOUBLING of population.... resulting in the blackouts they just had. Clint KB5ZHT Sad to say, I think you're totally wrong. The above statement(s) are speculative at best and sensationalistic at worst. Nuclear power is economically unfeasible--proven by the plants already built and generating in this country. Leave alone all the implications of environmental and health impacts. They are just plain bad economics. Kim W5TIT So why hasn't California built any oil, coal, or hydroelectric power platns in the last ten years? I'll tell you. They too are being blocked by the environmentalists. Are they also economically unfeasible? It's unlikely. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message . com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "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. 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 Yep, my point exactly. And, waste generation and facilitation is a part of the equation I completely forgot to even include in the debate. And, it's a very important part of the issue. Suffice it to say that no one will ever convince me that nuclear generation is a cost/environmental/health effective way for our power needs. It will never happen to be that nuclear generation is the way to go...and the industry recognizes that as well. No new nuclear power generation is planned, 'least not that I know of... Because they are blocked on every hand by people who operate on emotions rather data. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE See my reply to Clint, Dee. Nuclear power is bad ecnomics. Kim W5TIT See my comments to your reply. Are coal, oil, and hydro also bad economics. California won't allow any of them to be built either. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "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 The only way to eliminate all pollution is to eliminate the human race. Since that is not a reasonable solution, it is up to people to develop energy supplies and attach the appropriate safety requirements without the emotional baggage caused by fear. To date, the nuclear industry has had a much better safety record than many other industries and we have the ability to make it even safer yet. Right now the irrational fears about nuclear power are standing in the way of collecting the data that will prove it either safe or dangerous and developing an appropriate energy action plan. What data does get collected is buried on the back of the last page at the bottom of the last column of the newspaper or doesn't even make it into the paper unless it is something that they can sensationalize. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "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. 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 Yep, my point exactly. And, waste generation and facilitation is a part of the equation I completely forgot to even include in the debate. And, it's a very important part of the issue. Suffice it to say that no one will ever convince me that nuclear generation is a cost/environmental/health effective way for our power needs. It will never happen to be that nuclear generation is the way to go...and the industry recognizes that as well. No new nuclear power generation is planned, 'least not that I know of... Because they are blocked on every hand by people who operate on emotions rather data. Dee, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with you, but very much disagreeing with your argument. Uranium miners get ill with apalling regularity. This is part of the overall cost of this method of energy production, unless you are force fitting your argument to include only the power generation stage. There are piles of radioactive tailings around some towns out west. Kids often play on them. http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/miners.html http://www.downwinders.org/cortez.htm These are just a couple examples. Is that directly attributable? Gosh who knows? Cigarettes were "not proven to be deadly until not all that many yars ago, while I have read literature from the 1860's that documented all the effects that tobacco smoking causes. My guess is that if a group of people involved in an activity show statistically significant trends in illness, some activity they have in common just may be responsible. I don't suspect you will understand this, but part of your approach is exactly why people distrust what they are told about NP. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
So why hasn't California built any oil, coal, or hydroelectric power platns in the last ten years? I'll tell you. They too are being blocked by the environmentalists. Are they also economically unfeasible? It's unlikely. Do you think it's that simple Dee? Another scenario is that the shakers and movers found in more profitable to try to buy and sell existing power from each other, until the inevitble happened. And it's not just in CA. Its all over |
"charlesb" wrote:
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. Most would consider the massive amounts of nuclear waste (from spent fuel, contaminated building materials from closed plants, and so on) a "problem." People over many generations will have to deal with those waste products. And, of course, this environmental polution is far worse than anything generated by fossil-fuel burning plants. So, your claim above ("unlike the nuclear plants...") is patently false. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
Because they are blocked on every hand by people who operate on emotions rather data. Exactly what data is that, Dee? I've read lots of data on nuclear power plants and little of it supports your views on that industry. When all things are factored in (construction, deconstruction, waste management, and so on), nuclear power is the most expensive power generated. At the present time, most of that cost is being shouldered by the American taxpayers, not the present or past plant owners. Of course, that fact, and only that fact, makes nuclear power profitable for the owners (which is exactly why they continue to push for new plants). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote: 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. (snip) Wind currents don't follow laws, Dee. There will be areas with much higher concentrations, and areas with much lower concentrations, over a given geographical area. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"N2EY" wrote:
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). Actually, I have a much more suspicious mind. The government's effort against smoking stepped up greatly in the late 50's, just in time to draw attention away from the health effects of the nuclear weapons tests of that time period. And, amazingly so, the "discovered" negative health effects commonly associated with smoking are almost identical to the negative health effects commonly associated with nuclear fallout (lung cancer, etc.). Amazing coincidence, isn't it? If true, an anti-smoking campaign would be a great "smoke" screen. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Yes and No...... Granted both failing will result in the loss of life, but
at least after the water drains off and everything dries out, you can still live fairly well if you were one of the sucessful survivors. If a nuke plant goes to hell, and leaks out a ton of radiation, it's many years before you can do anything anywhere near the plant..... -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... 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... "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. Provided equipment is stable, and the "human error" doesn't factor in...... 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. Wind is actually a good source, if there is a consistent breeze blowing enough to keep the blades of the windmill moving, and would seem to be fairly inexpensive to construct as well. As far as solar, the cost of setting up systems are extremely expensive still as the manufacturers of such materials are willing to lower their prices any....... And let's compare nuclear power to some non-power industries. Are you aware of how devastating accidents at chemical plants can be? Yes.... Dow Chemical and Dow Corning are my neighbors.... and I am nervous on a daily basis.... From an insider that I know, at of one of those plants that shared this little tidbit of information..... there is 2 specific materials (they wouldn't state which two) were mixed or tampered with the wrong way in storage there that would level Midland County and make it into a crater, and pretty much create extensive damage to Saginaw and Genesee Counties, and part of the Northern portion of Oakland County as well. Makes the human error equation a little more relevant to me, especially if it is a terrorist related activity. Have you ever seen a grain elevator explode from sparks causing the suspended dust to explode? Yep, the one I saw blew the top off of the silo, and burned for what like seemed forever! 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. Not me as much.... would rather see more "natural" forms utilized if it were cost effective. That is the problem. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:59 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com