Dear Everyone.
Chris made some very good comments. He caught me on the breeder reactor
(didn't think before hitting "send" key) and did the math on the solar
stuff very well. I don't know Chris' backround either, but sure thought
his reply was well thought out and germane.
Although I disagree with some things that Chris said, he is pretty
sharp, and I hope we can use his input to temper any more discussions
around Nuclear Power.
As everyone can tell, I am about as Pro-Nuclear Power as you can get
and not be labelled part of the Lunatic Fringe. I consider myself very
knowledgeable, and not just because I work around a Nuclear Reactor at
OSU. I have had training, and was at one time fully qualified in Basic
Engineering Systems (Nuclear) onboard USS Plunger (SSN595), a nuclear
fast-attack submarine long since turned to razor blades. I have a
picture of the last removed reactor core stored up North if anyone is
interested, but it's pretty boring.
And I was Leading Chief and the Radiac Maintenance School at Naval
Technical Training Center, Treasure Island, San Francisco, CA. from 1989
to 1991. Then I retired and had to really work for a living.
Anyway, Chris seems to be pro-nuclear to me. He just has the "poison
pen" affliction that so many of us get when we reply to email messages.
It's easy to get a little carried away when you see something you may
not agree with, or may only agree with a little. That's why we all ought
to think for a few minutes before we hit "Send". I do this frequently,
and end up deleting many messages that would have seemed inflammatory.
Take my advice, think for two minutes before you hit "Send". It works.
Regards, Jim Darrough
PS: Thanks for standing up for me, James.
On Tue, 2001-11-27 at 10:40, kg7fu wrote:
> Here's a guy, Chris Allen, whose credibility is in question.....
>
> Unless he can tell me why he's arguing nuclear physics
> with a gentleman (Mr. Darrough) who works 6 with a
> reactor and has more experience and military training than
> Mr. Allen has years on earth (probably).
>
> And the lamer statement:
>
> "Batteries are still pure microsoft, just like two decades ago, unless
> you've heard something different."
>
> a) Microsoft makes cheesy OS and software
>
> b) seen Lithium ion, NiMH, NiCAD and HH20 cell technology
> lately? Aparently not! Just as an example NiCAD current vs.
> cell density levels have increased some 300% in the past 10 years.
>
> Please guys, do not cc activism...cc indivuduals instead...
>
> - jk
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
