| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#8
June 24th 04, 08:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY) Date: 6/23/2004 2:58 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... And President Bush is not the first to suggest that some scientific breakthrough was close at hand. Billary made an announcement that there was a breakthrough in AIDS research that was about to revolutionalize the care delivered to those victims. One mistake doesn't justify another. And as terrible as AIDS is, we are not dependent on foreign imports in order to deliver care to AIDS patients. Oh? Do you know where much of the "unapproved" but wide used and effeective drugs for AIDS treatment come from,. Jim? There's a major influx of theraputics from "illegal" sources" that are getting to folks...Not that it's a bad thing since most of them are working...That's why there's been a big move on FDA to loosen it's standards on AIDS treatments. Afterall...what can they do? Kill them? Still, it sounds nice, makes for great photo ops and is a pleasant PopSci diversion from the reality that the US imports way too much oil, and pays way too much for it in the process. That payment isn't just in dollars per barrel. Agreed. But as long as we insist on not harvesting OUR reserves yet are willing to let the Arabs suck themselves dry, what are we to do. First off, our reserves are not that large. Nor are they easy or inexpensive to reach. Look up how much oil we'd get if we allowed unrestricted drilling in Alaska. It's not nearly enough for us to tell OPEC to stuff it. Jim, there are a LOT of things that are not that easy to get to, nor are they that "Inexpensive" to harvest...UNLESS we just bite the bone and spend the money on the new infrastructure. Imagine where we'd be in space travel if we'd continued our push out in the 70's and 80's, instead of still debating it in the 21st Century... Imagine where we might be as far as our own oil reserves might be if we weren't so preoccupied with what it would "cost"...?!?! What needs to be done is simply to become more efficient and wiser in our energy use. But that's a complex set of problems that requires discipline and longterm investment. I agree. I am the first one to support greater mass transit and re-invigorating our railroads in support of this...I'd gladly spend my morning commute to work reading the paper and sipping coffee rather than dodging Granny and worrying about how wet the roads are. Now if we can get the other 299,999,999 Americans to do the same. But do you think the lobbyists in Detroit, Tokyo and Bonn will go along...?!?! This isn't news. This "crisis" has been in the wings for decades. People a lot wiser than you or I have been promising this was coming, and they were right. Yet our leaders since then simply ignore it. That's one reason Reagan was so popular - he told us it was OK to have big fast cars, consume, and not worry about where it all came from. Our leaders are not "ignoring" it, Jim. They are mirrors of thier consituencies. And the lobbys are spending billions of dollars to tell everyone to buy more cars and trucks...And they are doing it. I se this on the same par with the "drought" in the SW United States. To whom is it a "surprise" that we are millions of acre-feet short of the needed water supplies out there? The proponents of desalianation were hushed up by politicos 20 years ago who insisted that present infrastructure would support SW US needs well into the 21st Century. Well, it's the 21st century now... The problem is technological disconnect. Too many people just don't think about what keeps everything running, or what it really costs. And the political leadership keeps them insulated from it. For example, it is much more safe, clean and efficient to travel by modern electric railways like France's TGV than by air or car. For distances up to several hundred miles it's actually faster. But building such systems costs time and money, plus a commitment from govt. that just isn't there. (Amtrak's entire capital budget would build a few new runways at a major airport). Or another example: There *used to be* considerable tax credits for installing energy saving equipment in your home. Replace the old HVAC with more efficient hardware, insulate, replace the windows, etc., and document it, and the IRS gave you a break. That was in Carter's time. Reagan's "get the government off your back" tax simplification dumped it. And that we'll have permanent moon colonies and manned missions to Mars in the "near future". No mention of how it will be paid for, or what real benefits will accrue. Heck, there isn't even a commitment to save the Hubble space telescope or replace the shuttle. Again...all of this "forecasted" in the 50's and 60's. And it hasn't happened because of the enormous cost and dubious benefits. But now Bush talks about it like we should make it a national priority. And why shouldn't we? Because it's simply not worth what it will cost to do it. Oh? For example, consider the fact that it is estimated to cost $26,000 per pound to deliver freight to the moon. That's based on mass production of next-generation rockets specifically designed to do the job. Maybe that price can be shaved a bit, but it is fundamentally governed by the physics of the situation. You're assuming that all we are going to do is go up there and look back at Eart and play moongolf. Now figure how many *tons* of equipment and supplies need to be shipped to the moon in order to set up a permanent base. And it get's MORE expensive to send that stuff up every day. Remember that the temperature on the lunar surface varies more than 400 degrees from day to night, and that each is 2 weeks long. Also remember that the moon has no significant magnetic field or atmosphere, so there is absolutely no protection from any of the various forms of solar and cosmic radiation that constantly bombard it. Satellites in low earth orbit are afforded some protection by the earth's magnetic field, and if things get really bad humans in orbit can get back to the earth's surface in minutes. The moon is a totally different story. We already have the technology to build adequate shelter for them. And as crass as it may sound, more Americans are killed in automobile accidents every MONTH than have been killed in the space program since it's INCEPTION. In the tri-county area of Southern Tennessee where I live alone, we've had enough fatal MVA's since June 1st to staff ISS for the next couple of years. How many tons of equipment would it take to establish a permanent moon colony of any size? How many pounds of supplies per year to keep it stocked? So we sit around and say "what if" until the sun goes nova? As for what it "costs", Jim, what about it's rewards? The advancement of computing technology alone, spurred on by technological developments in the space program, have moved you and I, the little guys" ahead quantum leaps. Or look at how much even the scaled-down ISS has cost so far - and it's only in earth orbit. And think of what it could accomplish if we'd quit trying to do band-aid financing of the programs...?!?! Medical research alone could pay for the thing in less than a decade. But I guess we'll just sit around and pout about how much it costs "today"... 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Threaded Mode
