RHF wrote:
On Jul 22, 5:58 am, Dave wrote:
Telamon wrote:
In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:41:29 -0400, dxAce wrote:
Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's
'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada.
Yeah via D{e@o G@r(}a , that place that should not be mentioned.
A pile of ore is not a weapon. It is not a gathering threat.
http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ego-garcia.htm
Really? What about the illness it caused in Iraq?
- The illness caused when we left the stockpile unguarded
- and the locals dumped the powder out and reused the
- barrels for drinking water? Tragic.

Dave so we are responsible for the Problems
cause by Saddam Hussein's Government ?

tragically you are wrong on this one too ~ RHF
.


Don't you often say that you "broke" Iraq and now must fix it? You broke
it, you buy it - including all the problems with it.

JB

RHF wrote:

Improved Hydro by Adding 100 Feet to most of the
Existing Dams in the USA could add to American's
Electric Energy Needs

I have a feeling that if there WERE the possibility of that extra 100
ft, it would have been done at the initial construction stage. I don't
think they can add height to ANY installation.

Even if the dam itself were suitable, the increased shoreline of the
reservoir would probably prevent it.

Adding MORE dams doesn't work either, as there has to be a minimum
'head' of water between reservoirs and it's pretty well all dammed up as
it is.


mike

--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail,
Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address.
It also filters everything from a .cn server.

http://improve-usenet.org/

D Peter Maus wrote:
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:16:36 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote:

Dave wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

"Nuclear" has been a dirty word since the movie 'The China
Syndrome,' a film often pointed to as a reference in debates where
nuclear plants were to be constructed. As a population, most of what
is 'understood' about nuclear energy production comes from that film.

Three Mile Island was the horror it was BECAUSE of the The China
Syndrome, when in fact, though a meltdown had occurred--some 8 feet of
reactor core was lost--the systems did precisely what they were
supposed to do, and shut the reactor down.

Odd, no one ever talks about THAT.

The problem is not the ignorant 'drill happy' folks.

The problem is the ignorant uneducated folks attempting to create a
panic based on short sight, and snapshot focus on a very narrow
picture of global events. And an overall suppression of understanding
of energy production by so-called professionals in education.


Nuclear plants need lots of water. Many installed nukes are running on
low power now due to water shortage.

There is no water shortage. Record snows last year, record rains this
spring, and the wettest summer in 50 years have rivers overunning their
banks. Lakes over their piers, and even tributaries with white water for
the first time in a century.

Nuclear plants are built on the shores of rivers, lakes and other
bodies of water. They're not running at half power due to low water.

http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/01/2...ry-up-nuclear-

power-plants-in-southeast/

http://drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html



You come help replace the burned out sump pump in my basement, and
I'll listen to your noise about drought.


Consider yourself fortunate that you have an abundance of water. Many
parts of the USA are in drought conditions.

http://drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

JB

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:47:07 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote:

http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/01/2...-could-dry-up-
nuclear-
power-plants-in-southeast/

http://drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html



You come help replace the burned out sump pump in my basement, and
I'll listen to your noise about drought.

Your basement is not the rest of the USA, nor the world.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:48:45 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote:


No search engine necessary. I've told you. But you have to actually
have read it to understand.


Go back and read what I wrote. It's there.

You are a Pavlovian drone, thanks to your uncritical gluttony of junk
media.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:13:23 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote:



Drought my ass.

California is having a major drought. As is Georgia. And Texas.

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:13:23 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote:


Drought my ass.

California is having a major drought. As is Georgia. And Texas.


How can those people be SO misguided?

http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html




mike


--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail,
Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address.
It also filters everything from a .cn server.

http://improve-usenet.org/

RHF wrote:
On Jul 22, 3:06 pm, m II wrote:
RHF wrote:
Improved Hydro by Adding 100 Feet to most of the
Existing Dams in the USA could add to American's
Electric Energy Needs

- I have a feeling that if there WERE the possibility of that extra
100
- ft, it would have been done at the initial construction stage. I
don't
- think they can add height to ANY installation.

Mike - Abilities and Needs have Changed
-and- You WOULD Be Dam Wrong.

- Even if the dam itself were suitable, the increased shoreline
- of the reservoir would probably prevent it.

Mike - You are Sure Dam Wrong.

- Adding MORE dams doesn't work either, as there has
- to be a minimum 'head' of water between reservoirs and
- it's pretty well all dammed up as it is.

Mike - You might be Head Strong -but- Dam Wrong.


I suggest you study the requirements of hydro electric power generation
before spouting off. I find it disturbing that you haven't got the
faintest idea of how water is used and stored.



mike



--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail,
Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address.
It also filters everything from a .cn server.

http://improve-usenet.org/

"m II" wrote in message news:5Wvhk.1161$%b7.532@edtnps82...
RHF wrote:
On Jul 22, 3:06 pm, m II wrote:
RHF wrote:
Improved Hydro by Adding 100 Feet to most of the
Existing Dams in the USA could add to American's
Electric Energy Needs

- I have a feeling that if there WERE the possibility of that extra
100
- ft, it would have been done at the initial construction stage. I
don't
- think they can add height to ANY installation.

Mike - Abilities and Needs have Changed
-and- You WOULD Be Dam Wrong.

- Even if the dam itself were suitable, the increased shoreline
- of the reservoir would probably prevent it.

Mike - You are Sure Dam Wrong.

- Adding MORE dams doesn't work either, as there has
- to be a minimum 'head' of water between reservoirs and
- it's pretty well all dammed up as it is.

Mike - You might be Head Strong -but- Dam Wrong.


I suggest you study the requirements of hydro electric power generation
before spouting off. I find it disturbing that you haven't got the
faintest idea of how water is used and stored.



mike

So true. I guess he doesn't realize that to raise the head of a dam, you
have to take the same amount off of the surrounding topography. I know many
damsites that it would literally be impossible to raise the head any
significant amount because what USED to be a valley is already a deep
reservoir with only a relatively few feet of land on either side. I know
others that to raise the head 50' would take out several (more) surrounding
towns and farmland.

In article
,
wrote:

On Jul 21, 2:27*am, D Peter Maus wrote:
wrote:

Can't go on using oil for more than another 10 to 20 years due to the
global warming emergency proven by science, dumbass.

* *Nothing has been proven. There is considerable debate within the
scientific community about the validity of the claims made by the global
warming movement. To underscore the point, NOAA released figures this
past quarter that indicate global temperatures have dropped by .6 of a
degree in the last 12 months.

* *As for greenhouse gasses...well, let's look at that. Carbon dioxide
is only .04% of atmospheric content. Every living creature on the planet
emits CO2. Even plants, in the absence of sunlight. *In the presence of
sunlight, they consume CO2 at a voracious rate.

* *Water, on the other hand, is the primary greehouse gas, with a known
impact on atmospheric temperature through cloud formation. And yet....no
one has even hinted at it's regulation.

* *A previous poster is correct....global warming is a socialist
movement. *It's goals are precisely the same as the alarmists who set
their crosshairs on the oil industry when Rockefeller was building the
Standard Oil monopoly.

There is no longer any serious debate.

SNIP

Your posts reflect that and also no thought whatsoever.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California