Re: Nuclear power
On 26 November 2013 17:47, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Where is the glamorization of genocide?? The U.S. fought WW2 to defeat practitioners of genocide, when it could have just defended its borders and let the Nazis have Europe and Japan take China. And now you accuse us of glamorizing genocide!? I was referring to westerns. trumps a centuries-old revolution with no current relevance?) The lesson was that an armed citizenry could defend their rights against an army. So the proper application of the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee to citizens the right own guns equivalent to the army's - in this case that would be assault rifles. In terms of banning guns to reduce homicides, rifles are used in only fraction of a percent of killings in the U.S. Almost all gun homicides are by handgun. If people only had rifles I suspect that ratio would change. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 26 November 2013 19:41, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 November 2013 15:17, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Most people wouldn't feel deprived if they weren't allowed to play hockey, or go scuba diving, or take LSD, but if you are one of those people who likes playing hockey, or going scuba diving, or take LSD, you certainly would feel deprived if what you wanted to have or do was made illegal. I didn't say it should be made illegal. I just said it's odd so many people are, ahem, up in arms about something that in most countries is, as you say, on a par with skating or SCUBA diving - i.e. a minority interest. It may be an interest that is held by a minority, but it is by no means a minor issue. It is a right protected in the Constitution in the same sense as right to free speech or to a trial. Would people in most countries not be upset to see what are perceived as constitutionally protected liberties be curtailed? I'm more surprised that people WANT to own guns, I'm not suggesting they should be banned. Although having better background checks might help. (That Lee Harvey Oswald, for example...) In the history of genocides you will find that gun registration and confiscation is an almost universal precursor to genocides and democides. Which is why I'm not in favour of banning guns, but I'm also not keen on just anyone being able to purchase a semi-automatic weapon with inadequate background checks. It's legal to own guns here in New Zealand (and in most countries) but we don't have the level of gun ownership *or* gun violence of the USA, so it seems to me you guys have gone way overboard. And then make straw man arguments (like that video) presumably to claim that you are the ones being normal, and all the other countries where guns are legal but ownership is more subject to scrutiny are somehow not as free. I mean, gun registration is the law in most countries (are you saying it isn't in the US?) and you've somehow conflated it with confiscation; which is a straw man. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 11/26/2013 12:24 AM, LizR wrote: On 26 November 2013 17:47, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Where is the glamorization of genocide?? The U.S. fought WW2 to defeat practitioners of genocide, when it could have just defended its borders and let the Nazis have Europe and Japan take China. And now you accuse us of glamorizing genocide!? I was referring to westerns. You mean killing indians in fights? I can't think of a western that glamorizes genocide? On the contrary they generally depict the settlers and cavalry as more restrained and humane than they were. trumps a centuries-old revolution with no current relevance?) The lesson was that an armed citizenry could defend their rights against an army. So the proper application of the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee to citizens the right own guns equivalent to the army's - in this case that would be assault rifles. In terms of banning guns to reduce homicides, rifles are used in only fraction of a percent of killings in the U.S. Almost all gun homicides are by handgun. If people only had rifles I suspect that ratio would change. Sure, all gun homicides would be by rifle or shotgun. But would there be as many? Handguns are much easier to conceal and to carry around routinely. You have to plan to carry a rifle. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:36 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 November 2013 19:41, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 November 2013 15:17, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Most people wouldn't feel deprived if they weren't allowed to play hockey, or go scuba diving, or take LSD, but if you are one of those people who likes playing hockey, or going scuba diving, or take LSD, you certainly would feel deprived if what you wanted to have or do was made illegal. I didn't say it should be made illegal. I just said it's odd so many people are, ahem, up in arms about something that in most countries is, as you say, on a par with skating or SCUBA diving - i.e. a minority interest. It may be an interest that is held by a minority, but it is by no means a minor issue. It is a right protected in the Constitution in the same sense as right to free speech or to a trial. Would people in most countries not be upset to see what are perceived as constitutionally protected liberties be curtailed? I'm more surprised that people WANT to own guns, I'm not suggesting they should be banned. To each his own. Some people live in rural areas where the police response times might be very high, and they can't necessary rely on others to for their protection. Although having better background checks might help. There already are background checks. Criminals already bypass them by stealing them, using straw purchasers or making their own. (That Lee Harvey Oswald, for example...) See http://22november1963.org.uk/oswald-guilty-or-not-guilty Some of the conspirators have confessed including E Howard Hunt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbD_u7nUB_c And David Sanches Morales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_S%C3%A1nchez_Morales former attorney Robert Walton, who quoted Morales as having said, I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard In the history of genocides you will find that gun registration and confiscation is an almost universal precursor to genocides and democides. Which is why I'm not in favour of banning guns, but I'm also not keen on just anyone If you have been convicted of a felony, been in a mental institution in the previous 5 years, or are addicted to drugs, you are not allowed to buy or possess a gun in the U.S. See: http://usgovinfo.about.com/blnoguns.htm being able to purchase a semi-automatic weapon Are you aware of the distinction between manual, semiautomatic and fully automatic weapons? Are you okay with people buying pump action rifles, double-action revolvers or bolt action rifles without background checks? with inadequate background checks. It's legal to own guns here in New Zealand (and in most countries) but we don't have the level of gun ownership *or* gun violence of the USA, As in the link I sent to John Mikes, international studies have shown the two (rates of ownership and violence) are not correlated, and are possibly anti-correlated. so it seems to me you guys have gone way overboard. And then make straw man arguments (like that video) presumably to claim that you are the ones being normal, How is it a straw man? They cited numerous cases where governments disarmed the populace before it could get away with the most heinous abuses. I can cite several examples where dictators as a first order of business made private ownership of guns a crime punishable by death. and all the other countries where guns are legal but ownership is more subject to scrutiny are somehow not as free. I mean, gun registration is the law in most countries (are you saying it isn't in the US?) Registration is not the norm here. It is strongly resisted because it is seen as a precursor to confiscation. and you've somehow conflated it with confiscation; which is a straw man. How is it a straw man? If there is any empty argument it is that registration is necessary for public safety which is a non sequitur. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 26 November 2013 21:24, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 November 2013 17:47, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Where is the glamorization of genocide?? The U.S. fought WW2 to defeat practitioners of genocide, when it could have just defended its borders and let the Nazis have Europe and Japan take China. And now you accuse us of glamorizing genocide!? I was referring to westerns. Although tbh there *is *a lot of glamourisation of violence in TV and movies, and especially ones made in America --- amongst other places, of course, but it seems particularly prevalent in US output, so much so that we rarely watch any American TV anymore, despite the fact that we watch a lot of detecttive shows (we make an exception for Elementary). But so much TV from the US seems to be full of people being shot, and often in a clean way - they fall down dead, rather than dying realistically, in a painful, protracted, voiding-their-bowels sort of way. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 25 Nov 2013, at 02:31, LizR wrote: On 25 November 2013 14:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like to think of them as fusion reactors. I believe only a few of them are capable of exploding. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas Hypernovas? unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs Until we have a suitable theory I will remain agnostic on that - and even on the existence of black holes, at least as classically envisaged. I tend to believe as much in black holes than in the Moon and Mars, or in stars and supernovae, or in bosons and fermions, and in between. You are right that black hole can't exist in classical GR, but the quantum saves GR from dividing by zero. (And it seems to me that Bohr quasi-derived GR from the quantum, to defeat a critic made by Einstein. I learned things about our galaxy (hoping they are serious enough, please criticize if you think something is deeply wrong, as I am not an expert in cosmology). You might have already seen this. You might abstract a little bit from tones, but it sums many papers! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDaFQsdNNgU Dark matter looks like ignorance with some shapen... Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
I heard that hydrogen nuclei in the sun fuse after on average 5 billion years of wandering around bumping into each other (I guess that's kind of obvious - the Sun is due to live for about 10 billion years, so it must use its fuel at a comparable rate). So the energy production per volume would seem fairly low - one in 5 billion nuclei fuse per year, or one in 150 x 10^15 per second. I guess density is around 10^23 per cubic meter give or take an order of magnitude, so about a million atoms fuse per cubic metre/second. If I read Wikipedia right, each one releases about 7 Mev so a million release about 7 x 10^12 ev or around 10^-6 J/sec, which I believe is one microwatt. Damn, I've slipped up somewhere, haven't I? Maybe someone with more of a head for maths can do the calculation properly. On 25 November 2013 19:09, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason Resch *Sent:* Sunday, November 24, 2013 9:33 PM *To:* Everything List *Subject:* Re: Nuclear power On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like the analogy that stars are essentially just giant compost heaps. The levels of energy production in the core of the sun is quite low on a per-volume basis: a few hundred watts per cubic meter. On the same order as your own biological metabolism (and not much greater than that of a compost heap). It is only by virtue of the huge volume of a star that it produces large quantities of energy, but all the energy of a cubic meter of stellar core would be just enough to run a TV or a computer. Very interesting; never considered it that way. Thanks for sharing. Thanks, though I can't take credit for it, I found it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core#Energy_production which appears to be largely inspired from: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/17/3478276.htm So if a star is a compost heap, does that make a black hole the swirling flush of a cosmic toilet? I know… pretty much, a non-sequitur, but such is life :) :-) Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Actually it doesn't seem hard to make an atomic bomb if you have the materials. Yes, if you had some Plutonium or U235 and knew a little about chemical explosives and how to cast metals you could make a A-bomb. Going from there to using X-rays to evenly compress and heat deuterium and lithium to produce a H-bomb would not require more exotic materials (you can buy deuterium on E-bay) just more knowledge, but you can get most of that on the internet too. It's kind of surprising no one has done so (or stolen one for ransom, as per Thunderball.) Yes, if you told me the day after Nagasaki that another such bomb would not be used in anger for at least 70 years I would have said you were hopelessly naive, and yet that is what happened. I would also have been surprised to know that the second half of the 20'th century was far less bloody than the firs halft. Although much maligned I think it's safe to say that up to now at least nuclear weapons have saved far more lives than they killed. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 26 November 2013 10:02, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: I would also have been surprised to know that the second half of the 20'th century was far less bloody than the firs halft. There is a historical trend towards less violence, I believe. I put it down to improved technology generally which lets us more easily get to know people from distant lands (and therefore less able to demonise them), plus it makes it more difficult for tyrants to hold sway - because ignorance is their chief weapon - although the latter trend is perhaps in danger of being reversed by hi-tech surveillance etc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: To make a fusion bomb, you need a fission bomb; and to make a fission bomb you need a chemical bomb.It may not stop in the other direction. For example to make a supernova you need fusion. And to make a fission bomb you need fusion powered supernovas to make elements like Uranium and Thorium that are heavier than iron. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
I'm still not sure what doesn't stop in one direction. On 26 November 2013 10:12, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.comwrote: To make a fusion bomb, you need a fission bomb; and to make a fission bomb you need a chemical bomb.It may not stop in the other direction. For example to make a supernova you need fusion. And to make a fission bomb you need fusion powered supernovas to make elements like Uranium and Thorium that are heavier than iron. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:56 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I heard that hydrogen nuclei in the sun fuse after on average 5 billion years of wandering around bumping into each other (I guess that's kind of obvious - the Sun is due to live for about 10 billion years, so it must use its fuel at a comparable rate). So the energy production per volume would seem fairly low - one in 5 billion nuclei fuse per year, or one in 150 x 10^15 per second. I guess density is around 10^23 per cubic meter give or take an order of magnitude, so about a million atoms fuse per cubic metre/second. If I read Wikipedia right, each one releases about 7 Mev so a million release about 7 x 10^12 ev or around 10^-6 J/sec, which I believe is one microwatt. Damn, I've slipped up somewhere, haven't I? Maybe someone with more of a head for maths can do the calculation properly. The density of the core is about 100 - 200 grams per cubic centimeter, which is far more than the gas at STP (it takes 22.4 liters to equal one mole of gas), so there would be ~50 times that volume in a cubic meter, and then the gas is probably thousands of times standard pressure, but I don't know the exact pressure necessary to get Hydrogen-helium plasma to that density, but I imagine this might account for the discrepancy in your calculation. Jason On 25 November 2013 19:09, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason Resch *Sent:* Sunday, November 24, 2013 9:33 PM *To:* Everything List *Subject:* Re: Nuclear power On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like the analogy that stars are essentially just giant compost heaps. The levels of energy production in the core of the sun is quite low on a per-volume basis: a few hundred watts per cubic meter. On the same order as your own biological metabolism (and not much greater than that of a compost heap). It is only by virtue of the huge volume of a star that it produces large quantities of energy, but all the energy of a cubic meter of stellar core would be just enough to run a TV or a computer. Very interesting; never considered it that way. Thanks for sharing. Thanks, though I can't take credit for it, I found it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core#Energy_production which appears to be largely inspired from: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/17/3478276.htm So if a star is a compost heap, does that make a black hole the swirling flush of a cosmic toilet? I know… pretty much, a non-sequitur, but such is life :) :-) Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: I like the analogy that stars are essentially just giant compost heaps. The levels of energy production in the core of the sun is quite low on a per-volume basis: a few hundred watts per cubic meter. On the same order as your own biological metabolism (and not much greater than that of a compost heap). It is only by virtue of the huge volume of a star that it produces large quantities of energy, but all the energy of a cubic meter of stellar core would be just enough to run a TV or a computer. That's true of normal stars but not of supernovas. In a supernova in less than a second a mass of carbon and oxygen 1.44 times the mass of our sun is transmutated, primarily into iron, but with traces of heavier elements too . In that one second a supernova releases more energy than our sun will in its entire 10 billion year lifetime. And per pound the accretion disk around a black hole gives off even more energy than a supernova does. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On this black hole idea (wasn't this Andre Linde's idea originally, by the way?) - I can't work out if they handle rotating BHs - they mention Schwarzschild who was nonrotating I believe, bu all real black holes are likely to be rotating, so does their result still hold up? (One would think that might help, actually - indeed I think Penrose (?) indicated that any rotating BH must lead to another universe - this just shwos which universe that is). On 25 November 2013 16:09, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: OK. I'm just a bit sceptical of the writers now, because what they said in the bit I quoted didn't seem correct, so maybe they made other mistakes. But in any case it's an interesting theory. On 25 November 2013 15:29, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I think you are correct. However, the extra particles produce extra spin and torsion while the mass stayed constant. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:54 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That's very interesting. I don't understand this, though... The immensely high gravitational energy in this densely packed state would cause an intense production of particles, since energy can be converted into matter. This process would further increase the mass inside the black hole. Surely the mass of the black hole would remain the same whether it was in the form of matter or of energy? (Indeed, being inside an event horizon, surely no one outside could even know which form it was in.) On 25 November 2013 14:46, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: He just solved equations of the theory of General Relativity with spin called the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity, [which] takes into account effects from quantum mechanics. http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2013 14:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like to think of them as fusion reactors. I believe only a few of them are capable of exploding. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas Hypernovas? unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs Until we have a suitable theory I will remain agnostic on that - and even on the existence of black holes, at least as classically envisaged. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 26 November 2013 10:49, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: As part of that endless back-and-forth into Hinduistic Blackholes and Bohr's GR (!!) Bruno wrote: *We have no perfect democracy, but an imperfect democracy is still better than a tyranny. Then we have been blind and tolerate prohibition laws which change, slowly but surely, democracy into corporatist-tyranny, and that can only lead to catastrophes for all. * Did you read it? you just said the beginning's opposite at the end. I don't condone a little bit tyrannic democracy, the ruling of the FEW (rich owners) over the MANY (employed wage-earners). Voting is a hoax. A cabdidate lies during the campaign and formulates his views into programs LESS controversial to many than would be the total program, so he can BUY votes from the uninformed. The voters take (some) compromise to avoid those candidates who are MORE controversial to their interest. Concerning *G U N S - *you are lucky enough not to live in a country with gun-abuse. *:We should not prohibit guns either (although we could enforce serious regulations, and try to avoid selling efficacious automated guns to neurotic kids).* *In principle, I am in favor of the personal atomic bomb (take this with some amount of grains of salt).* It is not the* 'neurotic kids'. *the killer gun-users use often stolen guns, or just buy them with a CLEAN background check: B E F O R E they get a 'background'. E.g. Daddy has a lot of guns and the 6 year old steals one (a loaded one) to shoot his friend - or mother. It is not a prohibition! Both legal and illegal guns kill. (I hate to include here the military: as long as there are wars, the use of guns has an aura for 'hero' killers - they get medals. Sais a 'surviver' fighter member of the anti-Nazi underground in Europe in WWII). When I was first in the USA (Sabbatical 1965-66) a friend loaned us his car in California with the warning to be careful: when passing someone on the highway: he may take out his gun and shoot me. Those serious regulations' you mentioned are out of question: the super-wealthy gun lobby would not allow them to pass. The NRA (National Murder Association) makes lots of profit on gun-users. Liz?? I think I agree with everything you have said here. (Well, maybe I'm not sure about the first line at the top!) PS What I said about tyrants being less able to operate was concerned with the obvious ones like Stalin. Now the wheel turns and we get stealth tyranny utilising hi-tech -- which may end up as bad in the long run, if not stopped. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 11/25/2013 12:56 PM, LizR wrote: I heard that hydrogen nuclei in the sun fuse after on average 5 billion years of wandering around bumping into each other (I guess that's kind of obvious - the Sun is due to live for about 10 billion years, so it must use its fuel at a comparable rate). So the energy production per volume would seem fairly low - one in 5 billion nuclei fuse per year, or one in 150 x 10^15 per second. I guess density is around 10^23 per cubic meter give or take an order of magnitude, so about a million atoms fuse per cubic metre/second. If I read Wikipedia right, each one releases about 7 Mev so a million release about 7 x 10^12 ev or around 10^-6 J/sec, which I believe is one microwatt. Damn, I've slipped up somewhere, haven't I? Maybe someone with more of a head for maths can do the calculation properly. I think you've set the density way too low. Although it's interesting that the rate of energy production in the Sun is not very high, the energy density is pretty awesome. If I did the math right, it's 6.1e6 kWh/m^3. That essentially means the Sun is a really good insulator - to keep the core so hot with such low power. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 26 November 2013 14:19, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: It's not the lobby that is powerful or wealthy, (the NRA has only 4 million members), it's that there are a large number of gun owners in america and many of them are willing to vote to maintain their right to continue to own one. Over 50% of adult males and over 50% of households in the US own a gun. It isn't the lobby that keeps the politicians from passing anti-gun legislation, it is the voters. (e.g., We wouldn't say there is a rich and powerful reproductive rights lobby (it's that it is an important issue to a large segment of the population)). Guns aren't in the same league as reproductive rights (which were of course successfully legislated for decades in China). A lot of people want to reproduce, but most people don't want to own guns. You don't hear people in countries other than the US objecting because they don't have a gun in every household, or (hehe) banging on about how everyone should have some God-given right to be able to shoot other people whenever they feel like it . Who taught Americans that they needed so many more guns than anyone in any other country wants to own? Most people in most countries hardly ever *see* a gun (except on TV shows imported from the US). I don't feel that I'm being deprived because I don't own a gun, and I suspect the same is true of about 95% of the world's population. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 8:37 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 November 2013 14:19, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: It's not the lobby that is powerful or wealthy, (the NRA has only 4 million members), it's that there are a large number of gun owners in america and many of them are willing to vote to maintain their right to continue to own one. Over 50% of adult males and over 50% of households in the US own a gun. It isn't the lobby that keeps the politicians from passing anti-gun legislation, it is the voters. (e.g., We wouldn't say there is a rich and powerful reproductive rights lobby (it's that it is an important issue to a large segment of the population)). Guns aren't in the same league as reproductive rights My point is that it is the voters that are the basis of not passing new laws, not some powerful gun lobby. (which were of course successfully legislated for decades in China). A lot of people want to reproduce, but most people don't want to own guns. The percentage of people in the US who want guns to be legal is on the same order (if not greater than) as those who want abortion to be legal. You don't hear people in countries other than the US objecting because they don't have a gun in every household, or (hehe) banging on about how everyone should have some God-given right to be able to shoot other people whenever they feel like it . I've never heard anyone object to there not being a gun in every household or claiming the right to shoot other people whenever they feel like it. Who taught Americans that they needed so many more guns than anyone in any other country wants to own? The British. Most people in most countries hardly ever *see* a gun (except on TV shows imported from the US). There are plenty of countries with very high rates of gun ownership. Canada, Switzerland, France, Finland, Sweeden, Norway, Sweeden, Iceland all have over 30 guns per 100 people, and they don't have a violence problem because they don't have an aggressive drug war and high levels of wealth disparity. Gang(prohibition)-related murders account for the vast majority of the murders in the U.S. I don't feel that I'm being deprived because I don't own a gun, and I suspect the same is true of about 95% of the world's population. Most people wouldn't feel deprived if they weren't allowed to play hockey, or go scuba diving, or take LSD, but if you are one of those people who likes playing hockey, or going scuba diving, or take LSD, you certainly would feel deprived if what you wanted to have or do was made illegal. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 26 November 2013 15:17, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Most people wouldn't feel deprived if they weren't allowed to play hockey, or go scuba diving, or take LSD, but if you are one of those people who likes playing hockey, or going scuba diving, or take LSD, you certainly would feel deprived if what you wanted to have or do was made illegal. I didn't say it should be made illegal. I just said it's odd so many people are, ahem, up in arms about something that in most countries is, as you say, on a par with skating or SCUBA diving - i.e. a minority interest. (Or maybe most people aren't that concerned, perhaps its just those drug people who want lots of guns? But then if guns are mainly used for drug wars, why does everyone want them? To defend themselves against drug barons?) And The British as an answer is well out of date. If that was the case, people would be wanting muskets and flintlocks, not semi-automatic weapons. But in any case, I'm sure all those westerns and war movies are a much more recent influence (but maybe it wouldn't feel quite so comfortable to admit that the glamorisation of genocide trumps a centuries-old revolution with no current relevance?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 11/25/2013 5:37 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 November 2013 14:19, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: It's not the lobby that is powerful or wealthy, (the NRA has only 4 million members), it's that there are a large number of gun owners in america and many of them are willing to vote to maintain their right to continue to own one. Over 50% of adult males and over 50% of households in the US own a gun. It isn't the lobby that keeps the politicians from passing anti-gun legislation, it is the voters. (e.g., We wouldn't say there is a rich and powerful reproductive rights lobby (it's that it is an important issue to a large segment of the population)). Guns aren't in the same league as reproductive rights (which were of course successfully legislated for decades in China). A lot of people want to reproduce, but most people don't want to own guns. That's why we have votes. It turn out that most people don't want the government intruding a lot on gun ownership. You don't hear people in countries other than the US objecting because they don't have a gun in every household, or (hehe) banging on about how everyone should have some God-given right to be able to shoot other people whenever they feel like it . What American ever claimed that? We used to shoot redcoats whenever we felt like it - but that was a long time ago in a war. Who taught Americans that they needed so many more guns than anyone in any other country wants to own? Their success in defeating the English Army in the revolutionary war and their conclusion that the way to insure against an oppressive central government was an armed citizenry. It's probably not a good idea anymore - but it once was. Most people in most countries hardly ever /see/ a gun (except on TV shows imported from the US). Everybody between 18 and 30 in Switzerland is issued a gun - a real, fully automatic assault rifle. Which they can keep if they want to buy it after leaving the militia. I don't feel that I'm being deprived because I don't own a gun, and I suspect the same is true of about 95% of the world's population. 1) I don't think you've surveyed the world's population. 2) What difference does it make what people in some other country think about what they want? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 26 November 2013 16:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: 1) I don't think you've surveyed the world's population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country#List_of_countries_by_number_of_guns 2) What difference does it make what people in some other country think about what they want? I said it was odd, I didn't say it made a difference. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 11/25/2013 7:29 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 November 2013 15:17, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Most people wouldn't feel deprived if they weren't allowed to play hockey, or go scuba diving, or take LSD, but if you are one of those people who likes playing hockey, or going scuba diving, or take LSD, you certainly would feel deprived if what you wanted to have or do was made illegal. I didn't say it should be made illegal. I just said it's odd so many people are, ahem, up in arms about something that in most countries is, as you say, on a par with skating or SCUBA diving - i.e. a minority interest. (Or maybe most people aren't that concerned, perhaps its just those drug people who want lots of guns? But then if guns are mainly used for drug wars, why does everyone want them? To defend themselves against drug barons?) And The British as an answer is well out of date. If that was the case, people would be wanting muskets and flintlocks, not semi-automatic weapons. But in any case, I'm sure all those westerns and war movies are a much more recent influence (but maybe it wouldn't feel quite so comfortable to admit that the glamorisation of genocide Where is the glamorization of genocide?? The U.S. fought WW2 to defeat practitioners of genocide, when it could have just defended its borders and let the Nazis have Europe and Japan take China. And now you accuse us of glamorizing genocide!? trumps a centuries-old revolution with no current relevance?) The lesson was that an armed citizenry could defend their rights against an army. So the proper application of the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee to citizens the right own guns equivalent to the army's - in this case that would be assault rifles. In terms of banning guns to reduce homicides, rifles are used in only fraction of a percent of killings in the U.S. Almost all gun homicides are by handgun. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 November 2013 15:17, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Most people wouldn't feel deprived if they weren't allowed to play hockey, or go scuba diving, or take LSD, but if you are one of those people who likes playing hockey, or going scuba diving, or take LSD, you certainly would feel deprived if what you wanted to have or do was made illegal. I didn't say it should be made illegal. I just said it's odd so many people are, ahem, up in arms about something that in most countries is, as you say, on a par with skating or SCUBA diving - i.e. a minority interest. It may be an interest that is held by a minority, but it is by no means a minor issue. It is a right protected in the Constitution in the same sense as right to free speech or to a trial. Would people in most countries not be upset to see what are perceived as constitutionally protected liberties be curtailed? (Or maybe most people aren't that concerned, perhaps its just those drug people who want lots of guns? A large number of law-abiding and law-respecting individuals are concerned. But then if guns are mainly used for drug wars, Gun murders are mainly committed due to the drug war, in total, all murders by guns would amount to perhaps 20,000 a year in the US, but in that same time there are between 500,000 and a 1,000,000 defenses gun uses (legal acts of self-defense or the defense others using a gun) occur each year. If guns were outlawed, there would still be just as many (perhaps even more) murders each year, but the law abiding people (who turned in their guns) would be all the more defenseless, and the criminals with guns would be all the more emboldened. why does everyone want them? To defend themselves against drug barons?) There are many potential reasons. Among the ones I can think of, include: hunting, recreation, home defense, self-protection, and preventing a monopoly of power by the government. And The British as an answer is well out of date. It is difficult for a population to field an army consisting of more than 1% of the population. This fact was recognized by Madison and Hamilton in writing the Federalist papers, and remains true for the most part today. Therefore, even a well armed military would find itself hopelessly out numbered if the population is armed to any significant degree. People say we can't fight against an tanks with ridles, but the US has only 16,000 tanks. That is one for every 237 square miles and one for every 18,000 people. The Finnish managed pretty well against soviet tanks with little more than bottles full of fuel. If that was the case, people would be wanting muskets and flintlocks, not semi-automatic weapons. The writers of the Bill of Rights were prescient enough to codify arms rather than the particular weapons of the day. But in any case, I'm sure all those westerns and war movies are a much more recent influence (but maybe it wouldn't feel quite so comfortable to admit that the glamorisation of genocide trumps a centuries-old revolution with no current relevance?) In the history of genocides\ you will find that gun registration and confiscation is an almost universal precursor to genocides and democides. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-dzMcAKk8g Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
Hi John, On 23 Nov 2013, at 20:55, John Mikes wrote: Bruno wrote: ...Health should separate from the State, like the Church. I respectfully disagree. I appreciate :) Health care is a societal duty to be provided for those unfortunate who are not capable of covering their needs - like the poor, dependants of sick people, old folks (the last two only if they do not fall into categories callable 'super rich') and such duty cannot be solely based on charity. I respectfully agree! I o follow the like the Chorch part: di you mean ' the Church should separate from the State', or is Church meant as a variation for 'State' in charge of Health? (The latter not making much sense). When I say that health must be separated from the state, I mean only that the choice of medication and treatment should be free to you, and is a private question, concerning only you, and perhaps the doctor or shaman that you might have chosen. The state can enforce general principles like the obligation to put warnings on side effects, and traceability of components on the medication box; it can enforce vaccination of some diseases, and it can enforce some societal duty for the unfortunate. But it cannot chosen between radiotherapy and THC injection for you, it cannot make any medication (drug) illegal; on the contrary, it has to manage free and honest competition between all the many art of curing. My point is mainly only that we should not allow other people deciding what is good or bad to you, and we should forbid prohibition of foods and drugs. Modern states 'make money' on everything just to cover corruption, no matter how devaastating it may be on the citizens (e.g. wars for the Special Interest wealth). Yes. I would not volunteer to propose HOW and WHERE to start refurbishing the community governance. Humanity is not 'ready' to act decently (reasonably). I agree, alas. We have NO democracy (no system can be maintained according to the full agreement of the populace, not even for a majority of it - in which case the 'minority' would be subdued against their will) especially NOT in a cpitalistic setup where a minority of owners rules over the majority of employees and the high authorities (e.g. the US Supreme Court) allows wealthy people, 'corporations (i.e. persons(?) - )' to contribute unchecked amounts of MONEY for election bribery. We have no perfect democracy, but an imperfect democracy is still better than a tyranny. Then we have been blind and tolerate prohibition laws which change, slowly but surely, democracy into corporatist-tyranny, and that can only lead to catastrophes for all. And - PLEASE - do not forget the G U N S ! (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). We should not prohibit guns either (although we could enforce serious regulations, and try to avoid selling efficacious automated guns to neurotic kids). In principle, I am in favor of the personal atomic bomb (take this with some amount of grains of salt). Bruno On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2013, at 00:40, John Mikes wrote: How about alcoholic drinks? They may kill, put you in a frenzy, destroy your self-control and is addictive. How about GAMBLING? it destroys families and cause tragedies.Also addictive. How about tobacco? you don't kill anybody for having used it, except yourself and maybe people in your surrounding - costing tremendeous amounts of money to cure the damages. Highly addictive. There is few doubt that alcohol and tobacco are the two hardest drugs known today. That is another bad consequence of prohibition: it makes the most dangerous drug legal, and it makes schedule one products which are not much toxic and non addictive, like cannabis, LSD, magic mushrooms, etc. In fact it makes the state into a drug dealers. Many legal medication are also toxic and addictive. Tobacco is the killer one on the planet. All these bring in huge revenues for governemnts (and entrepreneurs) ... Health should separate from the State, like the Church. Bruno JM On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:17 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power On 20 Nov 2013, at 17:33, Chris de Morsella wrote: The more urgent sacrifice we have to do is to make cannabis legal, stop prohibition and the lies which go with it. We legalized Cannabis in the state of Washington Yes, I know, and I congratulate your for that. You show the path! Amsterdam Copenhagen (Christiania) showed the way earlier
Re: Nuclear power
On 24 November 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And - PLEASE - do not forget the *G U N S !* (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). We should not prohibit guns either (although we could enforce serious regulations, and try to avoid selling efficacious automated guns to neurotic kids). In principle, I am in favor of the personal atomic bomb (take this with some amount of grains of salt). Also my viewpoint. With a grain of salt. Actually it doesn't seem hard to make an atomic bomb if you have the materials. It's kind of surprising no one has done so (or stolen one for ransom, as per Thunderball.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
That reminds me of turtles all the way down. To make a fusion bomb, you need a fission bomb; and to make a fission bomb you need a chemical bomb. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 November 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And - PLEASE - do not forget the *G U N S !* (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). We should not prohibit guns either (although we could enforce serious regulations, and try to avoid selling efficacious automated guns to neurotic kids). In principle, I am in favor of the personal atomic bomb (take this with some amount of grains of salt). Also my viewpoint. With a grain of salt. Actually it doesn't seem hard to make an atomic bomb if you have the materials. It's kind of surprising no one has done so (or stolen one for ransom, as per Thunderball.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
And to make a chemical bomb explode you need a detonator, I assume, and to make that you need a source of electricity, I imagine, which is also down to chemical energy of some sort. However I imagine the buck stops here, or hereabouts. On 25 November 2013 13:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: That reminds me of turtles all the way down. To make a fusion bomb, you need a fission bomb; and to make a fission bomb you need a chemical bomb. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 November 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And - PLEASE - do not forget the *G U N S !* (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). We should not prohibit guns either (although we could enforce serious regulations, and try to avoid selling efficacious automated guns to neurotic kids). In principle, I am in favor of the personal atomic bomb (take this with some amount of grains of salt). Also my viewpoint. With a grain of salt. Actually it doesn't seem hard to make an atomic bomb if you have the materials. It's kind of surprising no one has done so (or stolen one for ransom, as per Thunderball.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
It may not stop in the other direction. For example to make a supernova you need fusion. Perhaps it stops at the Big Bang, but it ain't necessarily so. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: And to make a chemical bomb explode you need a detonator, I assume, and to make that you need a source of electricity, I imagine, which is also down to chemical energy of some sort. However I imagine the buck stops here, or hereabouts. On 25 November 2013 13:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: That reminds me of turtles all the way down. To make a fusion bomb, you need a fission bomb; and to make a fission bomb you need a chemical bomb. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 November 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And - PLEASE - do not forget the *G U N S !* (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). We should not prohibit guns either (although we could enforce serious regulations, and try to avoid selling efficacious automated guns to neurotic kids). In principle, I am in favor of the personal atomic bomb (take this with some amount of grains of salt). Also my viewpoint. With a grain of salt. Actually it doesn't seem hard to make an atomic bomb if you have the materials. It's kind of surprising no one has done so (or stolen one for ransom, as per Thunderball.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
I don't quite see what you're getting at here. On 25 November 2013 13:48, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: It may not stop in the other direction. For example to make a supernova you need fusion. Perhaps it stops at the Big Bang, but it ain't necessarily so. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: And to make a chemical bomb explode you need a detonator, I assume, and to make that you need a source of electricity, I imagine, which is also down to chemical energy of some sort. However I imagine the buck stops here, or hereabouts. On 25 November 2013 13:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: That reminds me of turtles all the way down. To make a fusion bomb, you need a fission bomb; and to make a fission bomb you need a chemical bomb. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 November 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And - PLEASE - do not forget the *G U N S !* (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). We should not prohibit guns either (although we could enforce serious regulations, and try to avoid selling efficacious automated guns to neurotic kids). In principle, I am in favor of the personal atomic bomb (take this with some amount of grains of salt). Also my viewpoint. With a grain of salt. Actually it doesn't seem hard to make an atomic bomb if you have the materials. It's kind of surprising no one has done so (or stolen one for ransom, as per Thunderball.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:05 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I don't quite see what you're getting at here. On 25 November 2013 13:48, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: It may not stop in the other direction. For example to make a supernova you need fusion. Perhaps it stops at the Big Bang, but it ain't necessarily so. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: And to make a chemical bomb explode you need a detonator, I assume, and to make that you need a source of electricity, I imagine, which is also down to chemical energy of some sort. However I imagine the buck stops here, or hereabouts. On 25 November 2013 13:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: That reminds me of turtles all the way down. To make a fusion bomb, you need a fission bomb; and to make a fission bomb you need a chemical bomb. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 November 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And - PLEASE - do not forget the *G U N S !* (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). We should not prohibit guns either (although we could enforce serious regulations, and try to avoid selling efficacious automated guns to neurotic kids). In principle, I am in favor of the personal atomic bomb (take this with some amount of grains of salt). Also my viewpoint. With a grain of salt. Actually it doesn't seem hard to make an atomic bomb if you have the materials. It's kind of surprising no one has done so (or stolen one for ransom, as per Thunderball.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 25 November 2013 14:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like to think of them as fusion reactors. I believe only a few of them are capable of exploding. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas Hypernovas? unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs Until we have a suitable theory I will remain agnostic on that - and even on the existence of black holes, at least as classically envisaged. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
He just solved equations of the theory of General Relativity with spin called the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity, [which] takes into account effects from quantum mechanics. http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2013 14:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like to think of them as fusion reactors. I believe only a few of them are capable of exploding. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas Hypernovas? unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs Until we have a suitable theory I will remain agnostic on that - and even on the existence of black holes, at least as classically envisaged. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
This looks like another article on the same theory. http://phys.org/news189792839.html#nRlv On 25 November 2013 14:54, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That's very interesting. I don't understand this, though... The immensely high gravitational energy in this densely packed state would cause an intense production of particles, since energy can be converted into matter. This process would further increase the mass inside the black hole. Surely the mass of the black hole would remain the same whether it was in the form of matter or of energy? (Indeed, being inside an event horizon, surely no one outside could even know which form it was in.) On 25 November 2013 14:46, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: He just solved equations of the theory of General Relativity with spin called the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity, [which] takes into account effects from quantum mechanics. http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2013 14:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like to think of them as fusion reactors. I believe only a few of them are capable of exploding. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas Hypernovas? unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs Until we have a suitable theory I will remain agnostic on that - and even on the existence of black holes, at least as classically envisaged. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
I think you are correct. However, the extra particles produce extra spin and torsion while the mass stayed constant. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:54 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That's very interesting. I don't understand this, though... The immensely high gravitational energy in this densely packed state would cause an intense production of particles, since energy can be converted into matter. This process would further increase the mass inside the black hole. Surely the mass of the black hole would remain the same whether it was in the form of matter or of energy? (Indeed, being inside an event horizon, surely no one outside could even know which form it was in.) On 25 November 2013 14:46, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: He just solved equations of the theory of General Relativity with spin called the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity, [which] takes into account effects from quantum mechanics. http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2013 14:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like to think of them as fusion reactors. I believe only a few of them are capable of exploding. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas Hypernovas? unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs Until we have a suitable theory I will remain agnostic on that - and even on the existence of black holes, at least as classically envisaged. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
Being of the Hindu faith (among others) I am compelled to relate that in the Bagavatum Vishnu sits in a Cosmic Egg with universes streaming out of his nose. Poplawski theory says that the baby universe forms at the sametime as the black hole. I will be looking for developments of this theory where more than one and perhaps a sequence of baby universes can form. Richard On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:56 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: This looks like another article on the same theory. http://phys.org/news189792839.html#nRlv On 25 November 2013 14:54, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That's very interesting. I don't understand this, though... The immensely high gravitational energy in this densely packed state would cause an intense production of particles, since energy can be converted into matter. This process would further increase the mass inside the black hole. Surely the mass of the black hole would remain the same whether it was in the form of matter or of energy? (Indeed, being inside an event horizon, surely no one outside could even know which form it was in.) On 25 November 2013 14:46, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: He just solved equations of the theory of General Relativity with spin called the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity, [which] takes into account effects from quantum mechanics. http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2013 14:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like to think of them as fusion reactors. I believe only a few of them are capable of exploding. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas Hypernovas? unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs Until we have a suitable theory I will remain agnostic on that - and even on the existence of black holes, at least as classically envisaged. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
OK. I'm just a bit sceptical of the writers now, because what they said in the bit I quoted didn't seem correct, so maybe they made other mistakes. But in any case it's an interesting theory. On 25 November 2013 15:29, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I think you are correct. However, the extra particles produce extra spin and torsion while the mass stayed constant. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:54 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That's very interesting. I don't understand this, though... The immensely high gravitational energy in this densely packed state would cause an intense production of particles, since energy can be converted into matter. This process would further increase the mass inside the black hole. Surely the mass of the black hole would remain the same whether it was in the form of matter or of energy? (Indeed, being inside an event horizon, surely no one outside could even know which form it was in.) On 25 November 2013 14:46, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: He just solved equations of the theory of General Relativity with spin called the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity, [which] takes into account effects from quantum mechanics. http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2013 14:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like to think of them as fusion reactors. I believe only a few of them are capable of exploding. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas Hypernovas? unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs Until we have a suitable theory I will remain agnostic on that - and even on the existence of black holes, at least as classically envisaged. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 25 November 2013 15:46, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Being of the Hindu faith (among others) I am compelled to relate that in the Bagavatum Vishnu sits in a Cosmic Egg with universes streaming out of his nose. I'm sure they nicked that from Douglas Adams. Beware the great white handkerchief! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Nuclear power
Stars are the visible manifestation of the meta-stable equilibrium between the explosive power of fusion and the compressive power of gravity. In the end gravity wins - for the most part (or percentage of mass that is) Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Ruquist Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 5:23 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:05 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I don't quite see what you're getting at here. On 25 November 2013 13:48, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: It may not stop in the other direction. For example to make a supernova you need fusion. Perhaps it stops at the Big Bang, but it ain't necessarily so. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: And to make a chemical bomb explode you need a detonator, I assume, and to make that you need a source of electricity, I imagine, which is also down to chemical energy of some sort. However I imagine the buck stops here, or hereabouts. On 25 November 2013 13:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: That reminds me of turtles all the way down. To make a fusion bomb, you need a fission bomb; and to make a fission bomb you need a chemical bomb. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 November 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And - PLEASE - do not forget the G U N S ! (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). We should not prohibit guns either (although we could enforce serious regulations, and try to avoid selling efficacious automated guns to neurotic kids). In principle, I am in favor of the personal atomic bomb (take this with some amount of grains of salt). Also my viewpoint. With a grain of salt. Actually it doesn't seem hard to make an atomic bomb if you have the materials. It's kind of surprising no one has done so (or stolen one for ransom, as per Thunderball.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: Nuclear power
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like the analogy that stars are essentially just giant compost heaps. The levels of energy production in the core of the sun is quite low on a per-volume basis: a few hundred watts per cubic meter. On the same order as your own biological metabolism (and not much greater than that of a compost heap). It is only by virtue of the huge volume of a star that it produces large quantities of energy, but all the energy of a cubic meter of stellar core would be just enough to run a TV or a computer. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Nuclear power
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason Resch Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 9:33 PM To: Everything List Subject: Re: Nuclear power On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like the analogy that stars are essentially just giant compost heaps. The levels of energy production in the core of the sun is quite low on a per-volume basis: a few hundred watts per cubic meter. On the same order as your own biological metabolism (and not much greater than that of a compost heap). It is only by virtue of the huge volume of a star that it produces large quantities of energy, but all the energy of a cubic meter of stellar core would be just enough to run a TV or a computer. Very interesting; never considered it that way. Thanks for sharing. So if a star is a compost heap, does that make a black hole the swirling flush of a cosmic toilet? I know. pretty much, a non-sequitur, but such is life :) Chris Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason Resch *Sent:* Sunday, November 24, 2013 9:33 PM *To:* Everything List *Subject:* Re: Nuclear power On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like the analogy that stars are essentially just giant compost heaps. The levels of energy production in the core of the sun is quite low on a per-volume basis: a few hundred watts per cubic meter. On the same order as your own biological metabolism (and not much greater than that of a compost heap). It is only by virtue of the huge volume of a star that it produces large quantities of energy, but all the energy of a cubic meter of stellar core would be just enough to run a TV or a computer. Very interesting; never considered it that way. Thanks for sharing. Thanks, though I can't take credit for it, I found it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core#Energy_production which appears to be largely inspired from: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/17/3478276.htm So if a star is a compost heap, does that make a black hole the swirling flush of a cosmic toilet? I know… pretty much, a non-sequitur, but such is life :) :-) Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
Bruno wrote: *...Health should separate from the State, like the Church.* I respectfully disagree. Health care is a societal duty to be provided for those unfortunate who are not capable of covering their needs - like the poor, dependants of sick people, old folks (the last two only if they do not fall into categories callable 'super rich') and such duty cannot be solely based on charity. I o follow the like the Chorch part: di you mean ' the Church should separate from the State', or is Church meant as a variation for 'State' in charge of Health? (The latter not making much sense). Modern states 'make money' on everything just to cover corruption, no matter how devaastating it may be on the citizens (e.g. wars for the Special Interest wealth). I would not volunteer to propose HOW and WHERE to start refurbishing the community governance. Humanity is not 'ready' to act decently (reasonably). We have NO democracy (no system can be maintained according to the full agreement of the populace, not even for a majority of it - in which case the 'minority' would be subdued against their will) especially NOT in a cpitalistic setup where a minority of owners rules over the majority of employees and the high authorities (e.g. the US Supreme Court) allows wealthy people, 'corporations (i.e. persons(?) - )' to contribute unchecked amounts of MONEY for election bribery. And - PLEASE - do not forget the *G U N S !* (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2013, at 00:40, John Mikes wrote: How about alcoholic drinks? They may kill, put you in a frenzy, destroy your self-control and is addictive. How about GAMBLING? it destroys families and cause tragedies.Also addictive. How about tobacco? you don't kill anybody for having used it, except yourself and maybe people in your surrounding - costing tremendeous amounts of money to cure the damages. Highly addictive. There is few doubt that alcohol and tobacco are the two hardest drugs known today. That is another bad consequence of prohibition: it makes the most dangerous drug legal, and it makes schedule one products which are not much toxic and non addictive, like cannabis, LSD, magic mushrooms, etc. In fact it makes the state into a drug dealers. Many legal medication are also toxic and addictive. Tobacco is the killer one on the planet. All these bring in huge revenues for governemnts (and entrepreneurs) ... Health should separate from the State, like the Church. Bruno JM On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:17 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Nuclear power On 20 Nov 2013, at 17:33, Chris de Morsella wrote: The more urgent sacrifice we have to do is to make cannabis legal, stop prohibition and the lies which go with it. We legalized Cannabis in the state of Washington Yes, I know, and I congratulate your for that. You show the path! Amsterdam Copenhagen (Christiania) showed the way earlier. I hope it works here (and in Colorado too) so that we can work out models for other states. and within a few months the state run stores selling it will begin opening. Already medical dispensaries are quite common, but these new stores will be able to sell to anyone of legal age. I just hope the feds will not come with tanks! They have indicated that they will not. There has been a fair amount of confusion and legal footsies between state level legal advisors and the Justice Dept. for example. The prospect of Washington state employees – as the workers in these state stores would be – becoming arrested for trafficking in a schedule I drug raised a lot of concerns and discussion locally. From what I read in the local press the indication from the feds is that they will not be rolling in with the tanks – or making arrests. It remains to be seen what actually happens. One problem we have with the American legal system is that a federal prosecutor can act without being directed to act by the administration that is in office. Recently one such federal prosecutor went on a crusade against medical dispensaries in Southern California – the region this individual was districted in. So until this insane prohibition – purely for the benefit of organized criminality is overthrown at the federal level everything remains vulnerable to a policy change rollback. I do not think that the feds have the stomach though to take on constituent state governments over this issue, but we shall see. You see the contradiction? 18 states have legalized medical cannabis
Re: Nuclear power
On 21 Nov 2013, at 17:47, Chris de Morsella wrote: You worry me a little bit I was joking with the tanks ... (Well I was hoping being joking ...). I do worry that some federal prosecutor (with jurisdiction in Washington or Colorado) will go on a personal Jihad or that a new federal administration will decide to impose its will on the states. That would be sad, to say the least. The schedule one notion is also an incredible aberration. A product is considered as being so dangerous that research on it is forbidden! Why not making nuclear bomb schedule one? Why not make physics and math schedule one? Also why for a product that has such a very low toxicity. THC is less toxic than vitamin C; Far less. I am not sure if THC is toxic at all. not one person has ever died from a Marijuana overdose. How many have died from acute alcohol poisoning? The justifications for the original decision were suspect from the beginning and based on shoddy research that has since been discredited. And yet the prohibition policy has rolled on decade after decade after decade. It has been known for decades that it was a failure and that the war on drugs has only succeeded in creating powerful global criminal organizations that have corrupted every dimension of life – perhaps that was the purpose of this irrational policy from the very beginning. I think that the evidences go in that direction. Either this is evidence for the terrible momentum of bad ideas or of something much more sinister working to preserve a status quo that is harmful for society because some narrow interests benefit from said policy. I'm afraid so. Those international treaties are a mystery for me. Also how quick all this happened. Prohibition seems to be an international criminal decisions at the start. That is what it seems like – the lockstep coordination, and the weird lockin of all these countries into this system and the evident fear or perhaps I should say reluctance of countries from Holland, to Denmark, Portugal, Switzerland, Mexico (which was considering ending the prohibition on drugs when I was living there)… of all these and more countries to take on this treaty system. International treaties are flouted with a surprising regularity by a lot of nations. I am curious why this particular system of treaties has such a grip on nations and why they seem to not want to cross that line. Why the fear? Good question. I hope you will legalize all drugs. In my country we get at last the official result of the Tadam Project, which has consisted in providing heroin legally to the heroine users (in the city of Liege). It is considered by the experts involved as an important success, but the government stopped it one year ago, and it will take time to approve it, and to decide to pursue it. Since the project has been stopped, already three heroin users have died. Most of the time it isn’t Heroin that kills the addicts; it is what it has been cut with by criminal gangs that are without scruples. Although it saddens me personally when I see a junkie – it is very much a waste of life (but excellent for dulling pain), I would far prefer that addicts could get --- at a reasonable price and quality – the heroin they need. And be able to inject their drug in a safe environment – again I believe they should pay some small fee for this too. Yes. most opiates are no bad for the health, but they can be strongly addictive. They are not expensive (when legal), and should be sold with medical prescription. Experience shows that the consumption go down once made legal. Just to prevents the spreading of AIDS, legalizing heroin (even if medically prescribed) is common sense. Exactly…. As well as all the street crime. Imagine how much more street crime there would be if alcoholics had to work up $100 or more in order to get their illegal bottle of bad beer, wine or rot gut liquor. If Heroin addicts could get a decent supply for a decent amount say around $20 (heavily taxed to cover health and recovery treatment) for a fix they would not be committing the street crime or prostituting themselves to earn the money they need for their fix. Same for cocaine. If it was affordable there would be no crack whores. Right. Prohibition is responsible also of the new development of new drugs, which are often dangerous erzats of illegal one. That is how crocodile (the worst possible products) made his apparition, after an attempt to clean a part of Russia from any trace of heroin. And crocodile is easy to make with stuff you can find in any groceries. This would have an immediate dramatic effect on street and property crime – a junkie needing to make $100 to $150 and up each and every day in order to support their habit and the organized criminals profiting off of them is a veritable street crime wave. I
Re: Nuclear power
How about alcoholic drinks? They may kill, put you in a frenzy, destroy your self-control and is addictive. How about GAMBLING? it destroys families and cause tragedies.Also addictive. How about tobacco? you don't kill anybody for having used it, except yourself and maybe people in your surrounding - costing tremendeous amounts of money to cure the damages. Highly addictive. All these bring in huge revenues for governemnts (and entrepreneurs) ... JM On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:17 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Nuclear power On 20 Nov 2013, at 17:33, Chris de Morsella wrote: The more urgent sacrifice we have to do is to make cannabis legal, stop prohibition and the lies which go with it. We legalized Cannabis in the state of Washington Yes, I know, and I congratulate your for that. You show the path! Amsterdam Copenhagen (Christiania) showed the way earlier. I hope it works here (and in Colorado too) so that we can work out models for other states. and within a few months the state run stores selling it will begin opening. Already medical dispensaries are quite common, but these new stores will be able to sell to anyone of legal age. I just hope the feds will not come with tanks! They have indicated that they will not. There has been a fair amount of confusion and legal footsies between state level legal advisors and the Justice Dept. for example. The prospect of Washington state employees – as the workers in these state stores would be – becoming arrested for trafficking in a schedule I drug raised a lot of concerns and discussion locally. From what I read in the local press the indication from the feds is that they will not be rolling in with the tanks – or making arrests. It remains to be seen what actually happens. One problem we have with the American legal system is that a federal prosecutor can act without being directed to act by the administration that is in office. Recently one such federal prosecutor went on a crusade against medical dispensaries in Southern California – the region this individual was districted in. So until this insane prohibition – purely for the benefit of organized criminality is overthrown at the federal level everything remains vulnerable to a policy change rollback. I do not think that the feds have the stomach though to take on constituent state governments over this issue, but we shall see. You see the contradiction? 18 states have legalized medical cannabis, and two states have legalized recreative cannabis, yet it is still schedule one at the federal level. Yes… see above. The schedule one notion is also an incredible aberration. A product is considered as being so dangerous that research on it is forbidden! Why not making nuclear bomb schedule one? Why not make physics and math schedule one? Also why for a product that has such a very low toxicity. THC is less toxic than vitamin C; not one person has ever died from a Marijuana overdose. How many have died from acute alcohol poisoning? The justifications for the original decision were suspect from the beginning and based on shoddy research that has since been discredited. And yet the prohibition policy has rolled on decade after decade after decade. It has been known for decades that it was a failure and that the war on drugs has only succeeded in creating powerful global criminal organizations that have corrupted every dimension of life – perhaps that was the purpose of this irrational policy from the very beginning. Washington and Colorado are the first states to make cannabis fully legal (I think). Even in The Netherlands cannabis is still illegal. It is tolerated, decriminalized, but still illegal. Decriminalization is a nonsense: it is de facto a contract between states and criminals. It is better than nothing, though, for some finite period of time. Agreed – though the tolerance of the Dutch (and also the Danes and Portuguese) showed how a different approach was possible. One reason these nations did not legalize is the international treaty obligations. Perhaps ignoring them was the best they could do in that time. Washington and Colorado are now pushing the envelope; I hope this busts the criminal blocking of a return to sanity. I hope you will legalize all drugs. In my country we get at last the official result of the Tadam Project, which has consisted in providing heroin legally to the heroine users (in the city of Liege). It is considered by the experts involved as an important success, but the government stopped it one year ago, and it will take time to approve it, and to decide to pursue it. Since the project has been stopped, already three
Re: Nuclear power
On 23 Nov 2013, at 00:40, John Mikes wrote: How about alcoholic drinks? They may kill, put you in a frenzy, destroy your self-control and is addictive. How about GAMBLING? it destroys families and cause tragedies.Also addictive. How about tobacco? you don't kill anybody for having used it, except yourself and maybe people in your surrounding - costing tremendeous amounts of money to cure the damages. Highly addictive. There is few doubt that alcohol and tobacco are the two hardest drugs known today. That is another bad consequence of prohibition: it makes the most dangerous drug legal, and it makes schedule one products which are not much toxic and non addictive, like cannabis, LSD, magic mushrooms, etc. In fact it makes the state into a drug dealers. Many legal medication are also toxic and addictive. Tobacco is the killer one on the planet. All these bring in huge revenues for governemnts (and entrepreneurs) ... Health should separate from the State, like the Church. Bruno JM On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:17 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power On 20 Nov 2013, at 17:33, Chris de Morsella wrote: The more urgent sacrifice we have to do is to make cannabis legal, stop prohibition and the lies which go with it. We legalized Cannabis in the state of Washington Yes, I know, and I congratulate your for that. You show the path! Amsterdam Copenhagen (Christiania) showed the way earlier. I hope it works here (and in Colorado too) so that we can work out models for other states. and within a few months the state run stores selling it will begin opening. Already medical dispensaries are quite common, but these new stores will be able to sell to anyone of legal age. I just hope the feds will not come with tanks! They have indicated that they will not. There has been a fair amount of confusion and legal footsies between state level legal advisors and the Justice Dept. for example. The prospect of Washington state employees – as the workers in these state stores would be – becoming arrested for trafficking in a schedule I drug raised a lot of concerns and discussion locally. From what I read in the local press the indication from the feds is that they will not be rolling in with the tanks – or making arrests. It remains to be seen what actually happens. One problem we have with the American legal system is that a federal prosecutor can act without being directed to act by the administration that is in office. Recently one such federal prosecutor went on a crusade against medical dispensaries in Southern California – the region this individual was districted in. So until this insane prohibition – purely for the benefit of organized criminality is overthrown at the federal level everything remains vulnerable to a policy change rollback. I do not think that the feds have the stomach though to take on constituent state governments over this issue, but we shall see. You see the contradiction? 18 states have legalized medical cannabis, and two states have legalized recreative cannabis, yet it is still schedule one at the federal level. Yes… see above. The schedule one notion is also an incredible aberration. A product is considered as being so dangerous that research on it is forbidden! Why not making nuclear bomb schedule one? Why not make physics and math schedule one? Also why for a product that has such a very low toxicity. THC is less toxic than vitamin C; not one person has ever died from a Marijuana overdose. How many have died from acute alcohol poisoning? The justifications for the original decision were suspect from the beginning and based on shoddy research that has since been discredited. And yet the prohibition policy has rolled on decade after decade after decade. It has been known for decades that it was a failure and that the war on drugs has only succeeded in creating powerful global criminal organizations that have corrupted every dimension of life – perhaps that was the purpose of this irrational policy from the very beginning. Washington and Colorado are the first states to make cannabis fully legal (I think). Even in The Netherlands cannabis is still illegal. It is tolerated, decriminalized, but still illegal. Decriminalization is a nonsense: it is de facto a contract between states and criminals. It is better than nothing, though, for some finite period of time. Agreed – though the tolerance of the Dutch (and also the Danes and Portuguese) showed how a different approach was possible. One reason these nations did not legalize is the international treaty obligations. Perhaps
Re: Nuclear power
On 21 Nov 2013, at 03:54, Chris de Morsella wrote: We legalized Cannabis in the state of Washington Yes, I know, and I congratulate your for that. You show the path! Amsterdam Copenhagen (Christiania) showed the way earlier. I hope it works here (and in Colorado too) so that we can work out models for other states. I hope so. and within a few months the state run stores selling it will begin opening. Already medical dispensaries are quite common, but these new stores will be able to sell to anyone of legal age. I just hope the feds will not come with tanks! They have indicated that they will not. There has been a fair amount of confusion and legal footsies between state level legal advisors and the Justice Dept. for example. The prospect of Washington state employees – as the workers in these state stores would be – becoming arrested for trafficking in a schedule I drug raised a lot of concerns and discussion locally. From what I read in the local press the indication from the feds is that they will not be rolling in with the tanks – or making arrests. It remains to be seen what actually happens. One problem we have with the American legal system is that a federal prosecutor can act without being directed to act by the administration that is in office. Recently one such federal prosecutor went on a crusade against medical dispensaries in Southern California – the region this individual was districted in. So until this insane prohibition – purely for the benefit of organized criminality is overthrown at the federal level everything remains vulnerable to a policy change rollback. I do not think that the feds have the stomach though to take on constituent state governments over this issue, but we shall see. You see the contradiction? 18 states have legalized medical cannabis, and two states have legalized recreative cannabis, yet it is still schedule one at the federal level. Yes… see above. You worry me a little bit I was joking with the tanks ... (Well I was hoping being joking ...). The schedule one notion is also an incredible aberration. A product is considered as being so dangerous that research on it is forbidden! Why not making nuclear bomb schedule one? Why not make physics and math schedule one? Also why for a product that has such a very low toxicity. THC is less toxic than vitamin C; not one person has ever died from a Marijuana overdose. How many have died from acute alcohol poisoning? The justifications for the original decision were suspect from the beginning and based on shoddy research that has since been discredited. And yet the prohibition policy has rolled on decade after decade after decade. It has been known for decades that it was a failure and that the war on drugs has only succeeded in creating powerful global criminal organizations that have corrupted every dimension of life – perhaps that was the purpose of this irrational policy from the very beginning. I think that the evidences go in that direction. Washington and Colorado are the first states to make cannabis fully legal (I think). Even in The Netherlands cannabis is still illegal. It is tolerated, decriminalized, but still illegal. Decriminalization is a nonsense: it is de facto a contract between states and criminals. It is better than nothing, though, for some finite period of time. Agreed – though the tolerance of the Dutch (and also the Danes and Portuguese) showed how a different approach was possible. One reason these nations did not legalize is the international treaty obligations. Perhaps ignoring them was the best they could do in that time. Washington and Colorado are now pushing the envelope; I hope this busts the criminal blocking of a return to sanity. Those international treaties are a mystery for me. Also how quick all this happened. Prohibition seems to be an international criminal decisions at the start. I hope you will legalize all drugs. In my country we get at last the official result of the Tadam Project, which has consisted in providing heroin legally to the heroine users (in the city of Liege). It is considered by the experts involved as an important success, but the government stopped it one year ago, and it will take time to approve it, and to decide to pursue it. Since the project has been stopped, already three heroin users have died. Most of the time it isn’t Heroin that kills the addicts; it is what it has been cut with by criminal gangs that are without scruples. Although it saddens me personally when I see a junkie – it is very much a waste of life (but excellent for dulling pain), I would far prefer that addicts could get --- at a reasonable price and quality – the heroin they need. And be able to inject their drug in a safe environment – again I believe they should pay some small fee for this too. Just to
RE: Nuclear power
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 1:31 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power On 21 Nov 2013, at 03:54, Chris de Morsella wrote: We legalized Cannabis in the state of Washington Yes, I know, and I congratulate your for that. You show the path! Amsterdam Copenhagen (Christiania) showed the way earlier. I hope it works here (and in Colorado too) so that we can work out models for other states. I hope so. You, me and a whole lot of other people as well J and within a few months the state run stores selling it will begin opening. Already medical dispensaries are quite common, but these new stores will be able to sell to anyone of legal age. I just hope the feds will not come with tanks! They have indicated that they will not. There has been a fair amount of confusion and legal footsies between state level legal advisors and the Justice Dept. for example. The prospect of Washington state employees - as the workers in these state stores would be - becoming arrested for trafficking in a schedule I drug raised a lot of concerns and discussion locally. From what I read in the local press the indication from the feds is that they will not be rolling in with the tanks - or making arrests. It remains to be seen what actually happens. One problem we have with the American legal system is that a federal prosecutor can act without being directed to act by the administration that is in office. Recently one such federal prosecutor went on a crusade against medical dispensaries in Southern California - the region this individual was districted in. So until this insane prohibition - purely for the benefit of organized criminality is overthrown at the federal level everything remains vulnerable to a policy change rollback. I do not think that the feds have the stomach though to take on constituent state governments over this issue, but we shall see. You see the contradiction? 18 states have legalized medical cannabis, and two states have legalized recreative cannabis, yet it is still schedule one at the federal level. Yes. see above. You worry me a little bit I was joking with the tanks ... (Well I was hoping being joking ...). I do worry that some federal prosecutor (with jurisdiction in Washington or Colorado) will go on a personal Jihad or that a new federal administration will decide to impose its will on the states. The schedule one notion is also an incredible aberration. A product is considered as being so dangerous that research on it is forbidden! Why not making nuclear bomb schedule one? Why not make physics and math schedule one? Also why for a product that has such a very low toxicity. THC is less toxic than vitamin C; not one person has ever died from a Marijuana overdose. How many have died from acute alcohol poisoning? The justifications for the original decision were suspect from the beginning and based on shoddy research that has since been discredited. And yet the prohibition policy has rolled on decade after decade after decade. It has been known for decades that it was a failure and that the war on drugs has only succeeded in creating powerful global criminal organizations that have corrupted every dimension of life - perhaps that was the purpose of this irrational policy from the very beginning. I think that the evidences go in that direction. Either this is evidence for the terrible momentum of bad ideas or of something much more sinister working to preserve a status quo that is harmful for society because some narrow interests benefit from said policy. Washington and Colorado are the first states to make cannabis fully legal (I think). Even in The Netherlands cannabis is still illegal. It is tolerated, decriminalized, but still illegal. Decriminalization is a nonsense: it is de facto a contract between states and criminals. It is better than nothing, though, for some finite period of time. Agreed - though the tolerance of the Dutch (and also the Danes and Portuguese) showed how a different approach was possible. One reason these nations did not legalize is the international treaty obligations. Perhaps ignoring them was the best they could do in that time. Washington and Colorado are now pushing the envelope; I hope this busts the criminal blocking of a return to sanity. Those international treaties are a mystery for me. Also how quick all this happened. Prohibition seems to be an international criminal decisions at the start. That is what it seems like - the lockstep coordination, and the weird lockin of all these countries into this system and the evident fear or perhaps I should say reluctance of countries from Holland, to Denmark, Portugal, Switzerland, Mexico (which was considering ending the prohibition on drugs when I was living
Re: Nuclear power
On 20 Nov 2013, at 01:11, LizR wrote: On 20 November 2013 10:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/19/2013 10:26 AM, John Clark wrote: Our grandparents didn't make huge sacrifices to their lifestyle to solve some vague I'm not a historian, but are you sure? Not even unintentionally? I'm not arguing, because I don't know, but our grand parents achieved a lot, and they changed the world repeatedly, so I'd be curious to know if this is true or not. My grand-grandfather make a huge sacrifice, by fighting in world war one, which was particularly inhuman and hard. Well, I guess he did not have much choice in the matter, but still... Also it's not obvious that we will have to make huge sacrifices to our lifestyes to fix climate change. (Indeed, emissions were reduced a lot in 2012 with economies on the upswing, according to the latest New Scientist.) But if we do, will they be less or more than the changes we may be forced to make by not fixing it, like for example death? The more urgent sacrifice we have to do is to make cannabis legal, stop prohibition and the lies which go with it. If you don't like smoking cannabis, still, do it for the political sanity of the world that you leave to your children and grandchildren. As long as we tolerate lies and misinformations on food and drugs, we will get lies in basically all political matters. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
My son - now 15 - did a project at school in which he advocated legalising cannabis. He had a lot of good arguments! (Some supplied by me :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: My son - now 15 - did a project at school in which he advocated legalising cannabis. He had a lot of good arguments! (Some supplied by me :) Good! I'm happy to read this. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Nuclear power
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 12:59 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power On 20 Nov 2013, at 01:11, LizR wrote: On 20 November 2013 10:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/19/2013 10:26 AM, John Clark wrote: Our grandparents didn't make huge sacrifices to their lifestyle to solve some vague I'm not a historian, but are you sure? Not even unintentionally? I'm not arguing, because I don't know, but our grand parents achieved a lot, and they changed the world repeatedly, so I'd be curious to know if this is true or not. My grand-grandfather make a huge sacrifice, by fighting in world war one, which was particularly inhuman and hard. Well, I guess he did not have much choice in the matter, but still... Also it's not obvious that we will have to make huge sacrifices to our lifestyes to fix climate change. (Indeed, emissions were reduced a lot in 2012 with economies on the upswing, according to the latest New Scientist.) But if we do, will they be less or more than the changes we may be forced to make by not fixing it, like for example death? The more urgent sacrifice we have to do is to make cannabis legal, stop prohibition and the lies which go with it. We legalized Cannabis in the state of Washington and within a few months the state run stores selling it will begin opening. Already medical dispensaries are quite common, but these new stores will be able to sell to anyone of legal age. Chris If you don't like smoking cannabis, still, do it for the political sanity of the world that you leave to your children and grandchildren. As long as we tolerate lies and misinformations on food and drugs, we will get lies in basically all political matters. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 20 Nov 2013, at 11:12, LizR wrote: My son - now 15 - did a project at school in which he advocated legalising cannabis. He had a lot of good arguments! (Some supplied by me :) Cool! But strictly speaking, there is no need of any argument. It is up to those wanting cannabis illegal to give arguments, and they have failed up to now, and this since the start. All arguments in favor of cannabis illegality have been shown to be pure propaganda with 0 evidences presented (and a lot of logic and statistic errors, or even plain lies). It is amazing how some scientist are quick in saying this or that is crackpot, but remain mute on the cannabis dangers. There are more evidences that water has memory, or that Obama is an alien coming from some galaxy nearby, than that cannabis has been dangerous for the health of someone, besides the fact that any abuse can be problematical, especially when a product is made illegal. The whole prohibition idea is a criminal crap. We believe today, both theoretically and empirically, that once a drug is repressed, its consumption augments *a lot*. That is normal, because its prohibition just creates a very lucrative (black) market, without neither price nor quality control, and offering the best means to target the children in the street. Prohibition makes no sense at all. The term drug has no meaning at all, except medication. A drug is only a medication made illegal, so that we can sell it at abnormal price, to all kids in all urban streets. It works very well, for the bandits and the criminals, in every countries. Prohibition is a democracy killer. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 20 Nov 2013, at 17:33, Chris de Morsella wrote: The more urgent sacrifice we have to do is to make cannabis legal, stop prohibition and the lies which go with it. We legalized Cannabis in the state of Washington Yes, I know, and I congratulate your for that. You show the path! and within a few months the state run stores selling it will begin opening. Already medical dispensaries are quite common, but these new stores will be able to sell to anyone of legal age. I just hope the feds will not come with tanks! You see the contradiction? 18 states have legalized medical cannabis, and two states have legalized recreative cannabis, yet it is still schedule one at the federal level. The schedule one notion is also an incredible aberration. A product is considered as being so dangerous that research on it is forbidden! Why not making nuclear bomb schedule one? Why not make physics and math schedule one? Washington and Colorado are the first states to make cannabis fully legal (I think). Even in The Netherlands cannabis is still illegal. It is tolerated, decriminalized, but still illegal. Decriminalization is a nonsense: it is de facto a contract between states and criminals. It is better than nothing, though, for some finite period of time. I hope you will legalize all drugs. In my country we get at last the official result of the Tadam Project, which has consisted in providing heroin legally to the heroine users (in the city of Liege). It is considered by the experts involved as an important success, but the government stopped it one year ago, and it will take time to approve it, and to decide to pursue it. Since the project has been stopped, already three heroin users have died. Bruno Chris If you don't like smoking cannabis, still, do it for the political sanity of the world that you leave to your children and grandchildren. As long as we tolerate lies and misinformations on food and drugs, we will get lies in basically all political matters. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: You've got to give it a number and a number we can have confidence in; pretty high is useless There are plenty of explicit estimates of the cost of sea level rise. That depends on how much the sea rises and how fast, and yes there are plenty of estimates of that and they're all over the map; the estimates from environmental organizations are consistently more pessimistic but that's not surprising, if there were not a very serious environmental problem they'd have to look for a new job. What we know for sure is that right now the sea is rising about one inch every 10 years, but that figure is unlikely to scare lots of people to give money to Greenpeace so they need to exaggerate to stay in business. Other costs are harder to predict: We don't even know if the net effect of global warming will be beneficial or harmful, it's not clear that the temperature that will maximize human happiness is the exact temperature we have now, after all plants grow better if there is more CO2 in the air and far more people freeze to death than die of heatstroke. How much will ocean acidification affect sea life and fishing? How will rain patterns changing affect agriculture? 42. If we could put a high confidence lower bound on the cost, say 90% confidence it will cost more than 10T$, do you think that would cause anyone to take action? or just bring up more doubts and obfuscation? If that's all the trouble global warming will cause the world in 50 years I'd vote for doubts and obfuscation! The GDP of just one country, the USA is about 17T$. because the cost of giving up fossil fuels before a replacement is found to the quality of life of 7 billion people on this planet will be pretty high too. That's spudboy's straw man. Straw man my ass! Nobody suggests giving up fossil fuel without replacement. The environmental groups do, they want all nuclear reactors shut down yesterday and massive reductions in fossil fuel which would cause millions to starve to death and push billions into poverty. The make vague noises about alternate energy sources but if somebody actually tries to build a wind farm or drill a geothermal well or put lots of solar cells in the desert the oppose that too. Global warming isn't vague. It's quite explicit. We don't know how much things will warm up and we don't even know if that warm up will be bad thing. I say let your grandchildren or great grandchildren worry about it, right now it's as if you demanded that the Wright Brothers solve the problem of airport congestion before they made their first flyer. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 21 November 2013 07:56, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: That's spudboy's straw man. Straw man my ass! Piñata! Oops, sorry, that's a straw ass... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Nuclear power
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:17 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power On 20 Nov 2013, at 17:33, Chris de Morsella wrote: The more urgent sacrifice we have to do is to make cannabis legal, stop prohibition and the lies which go with it. We legalized Cannabis in the state of Washington Yes, I know, and I congratulate your for that. You show the path! Amsterdam Copenhagen (Christiania) showed the way earlier. I hope it works here (and in Colorado too) so that we can work out models for other states. and within a few months the state run stores selling it will begin opening. Already medical dispensaries are quite common, but these new stores will be able to sell to anyone of legal age. I just hope the feds will not come with tanks! They have indicated that they will not. There has been a fair amount of confusion and legal footsies between state level legal advisors and the Justice Dept. for example. The prospect of Washington state employees - as the workers in these state stores would be - becoming arrested for trafficking in a schedule I drug raised a lot of concerns and discussion locally. From what I read in the local press the indication from the feds is that they will not be rolling in with the tanks - or making arrests. It remains to be seen what actually happens. One problem we have with the American legal system is that a federal prosecutor can act without being directed to act by the administration that is in office. Recently one such federal prosecutor went on a crusade against medical dispensaries in Southern California - the region this individual was districted in. So until this insane prohibition - purely for the benefit of organized criminality is overthrown at the federal level everything remains vulnerable to a policy change rollback. I do not think that the feds have the stomach though to take on constituent state governments over this issue, but we shall see. You see the contradiction? 18 states have legalized medical cannabis, and two states have legalized recreative cannabis, yet it is still schedule one at the federal level. Yes. see above. The schedule one notion is also an incredible aberration. A product is considered as being so dangerous that research on it is forbidden! Why not making nuclear bomb schedule one? Why not make physics and math schedule one? Also why for a product that has such a very low toxicity. THC is less toxic than vitamin C; not one person has ever died from a Marijuana overdose. How many have died from acute alcohol poisoning? The justifications for the original decision were suspect from the beginning and based on shoddy research that has since been discredited. And yet the prohibition policy has rolled on decade after decade after decade. It has been known for decades that it was a failure and that the war on drugs has only succeeded in creating powerful global criminal organizations that have corrupted every dimension of life - perhaps that was the purpose of this irrational policy from the very beginning. Washington and Colorado are the first states to make cannabis fully legal (I think). Even in The Netherlands cannabis is still illegal. It is tolerated, decriminalized, but still illegal. Decriminalization is a nonsense: it is de facto a contract between states and criminals. It is better than nothing, though, for some finite period of time. Agreed - though the tolerance of the Dutch (and also the Danes and Portuguese) showed how a different approach was possible. One reason these nations did not legalize is the international treaty obligations. Perhaps ignoring them was the best they could do in that time. Washington and Colorado are now pushing the envelope; I hope this busts the criminal blocking of a return to sanity. I hope you will legalize all drugs. In my country we get at last the official result of the Tadam Project, which has consisted in providing heroin legally to the heroine users (in the city of Liege). It is considered by the experts involved as an important success, but the government stopped it one year ago, and it will take time to approve it, and to decide to pursue it. Since the project has been stopped, already three heroin users have died. Most of the time it isn't Heroin that kills the addicts; it is what it has been cut with by criminal gangs that are without scruples. Although it saddens me personally when I see a junkie - it is very much a waste of life (but excellent for dulling pain), I would far prefer that addicts could get --- at a reasonable price and quality - the heroin they need. And be able to inject their drug in a safe environment - again I believe they should pay some small fee for this too. This would have an immediate dramatic effect on street and property crime
Re: Nuclear power
Excellent. Time to drag society into the 19th century on this front, and realise that Prohibition. Doesn't. Work. Regulation and taxes, safety campaigns, health warnings, and so on - those work. Prohibition doesn't, and should also be seen as a violation of human rights, because it forces anyone who wishes to use various narcotics to deal with criminals and put their lives at risk. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Nuclear power
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:08 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power Excellent. Time to drag society into the 19th century on this front, and realise that Prohibition. Doesn't. Work. Regulation and taxes, safety campaigns, health warnings, and so on - those work. Prohibition doesn't, and should also be seen as a violation of human rights, because it forces anyone who wishes to use various narcotics to deal with criminals and put their lives at risk. And I might add to risk being busted, charged, convicted and thrown in prison, quite possibly to be raped and brutalized; then after some number of years to be tossed back out onto the streets, a felon now with little prospects in life, quite possibly traumatized by the brutality of the US prison complex (America leads the world in per capita imprisonment rates. perhaps North Korea beats us, but our prison industrial complex is on a real roll here - on the taxpayers dime of course. Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Everybody has an opinion but nobody knows the true cost of CO2 emissions, and nobody will know for decades and perhaps centuries. That's ignoring the science that says it's going to be pretty high if we continue to increase it. You've got to give it a number and a number we can have confidence in; pretty high is useless because the cost of giving up fossil fuels before a replacement is found to the quality of life of 7 billion people on this planet will be pretty high too. And remember, it's much more expensive to spend a dollar now than spend a dollar in 50 years, so I believe that right now the best course of action regarding CO2 is to delay action. Our grandparents didn't make huge sacrifices to their lifestyle to solve some vague very long range problem that might not even turn out to be important so lets do the same. I say let your grandchildren solve their own damn problems just as we did, and besides, they will have much better tools to fix things if they need fixing than we do. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 11/19/2013 10:26 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Everybody has an opinion but nobody knows the true cost of CO2 emissions, and nobody will know for decades and perhaps centuries. That's ignoring the science that says it's going to be pretty high if we continue to increase it. You've got to give it a number and a number we can have confidence in; pretty high is useless There are plenty of explicit estimates of the cost of sea level rise. Other costs are harder to predict: How much will ocean acidification affect sea life and fishing? How will rain patterns changing affect agriculture? If we could put a high confidence lower bound on the cost, say 90% confidence it will cost more than 10T$, do you think that would cause anyone to take action? or just bring up more doubts and obfuscation? because the cost of giving up fossil fuels before a replacement is found to the quality of life of 7 billion people on this planet will be pretty high too. That's spudboy's straw man. Nobody suggests giving up fossil fuel without replacement. What is suggested in spending more money on replacements and taxing fossil fuel to pay for it. And remember, it's much more expensive to spend a dollar now than spend a dollar in 50 years, so I believe that right now the best course of action regarding CO2 is to delay action. Depends on what action you're talking about delaying. Fifty years is not far away in terms of developing commercial LFTRs or creating a more efficient DC electrical grid. Our grandparents didn't make huge sacrifices to their lifestyle to solve some vague Global warming isn't vague. It's quite explicit. It's just that local effects, beyond sea level rise, are hard to predict. very long range problem that might not even turn out to be important so lets do the same. I say let your grandchildren solve their own damn problems just as we did, and besides, they will have much better tools to fix things if they need fixing than we do. They won't have the tools unless somebody develops them. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
The acidification issue must be pursued. Is it or ain't it. As far as the climate goes, we have the pause. The pause may end or t may continue for centuries. It seems related to El Nino. It still leaves us empty-handed if we want to replace dirty with queen. We're speaking of terawatts here. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Nov 19, 2013 4:43 pm Subject: Re: Nuclear power On 11/19/2013 10:26 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote: Everybody has an opinion butnobody knows the true cost of CO2 emissions,and nobody will know for decades and perhapscenturies. That's ignoring the science that says it's going to be pretty high if we continue to increase it. You've got to give it a number and a number we can have confidence in; pretty high is useless There are plenty of explicit estimates of the cost of sea levelrise. Other costs are harder to predict: How much will oceanacidification affect sea life and fishing? How will rain patternschanging affect agriculture? If we could put a high confidencelower bound on the cost, say 90% confidence it will cost more than10T$, do you think that would cause anyone to take action? or justbring up more doubts and obfuscation? because the cost of giving up fossil fuels before a replacement is found to the quality of life of 7 billion people on this planet will be pretty high too. That's spudboy's straw man. Nobody suggests giving up fossil fuel without replacement. What is suggested in spending more money on replacements and taxing fossil fuel to pay for it. And remember, it's much more expensive to spend a dollar now than spend a dollar in 50 years, so I believe that right now the best course of action regarding CO2 is to delay action. Depends on what action you're talking about delaying. Fifty yearsis not far away in terms of developing commercial LFTRs or creatinga more efficient DC electrical grid. Our grandparents didn't make huge sacrifices to their lifestyle to solve some vague Global warming isn't vague. It's quite explicit. It's just thatlocal effects, beyond sea level rise, are hard to predict. very long range problem that might not even turn out to be important so lets do the same. I say let your grandchildren solve their own damn problems just as we did, and besides, they will have much better tools to fix things if they need fixing than we do. They won't have the tools unless somebody develops them. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 20 November 2013 10:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/19/2013 10:26 AM, John Clark wrote: Our grandparents didn't make huge sacrifices to their lifestyle to solve some vague I'm not a historian, but are you sure? Not even unintentionally? I'm not arguing, because I don't know, but our grand parents achieved a lot, and they changed the world repeatedly, so I'd be curious to know if this is true or not. Also it's not obvious that we will have to make huge sacrifices to our lifestyes to fix climate change. (Indeed, emissions were reduced a lot in 2012 with economies on the upswing, according to the latest New Scientist.) But if we do, will they be less or more than the changes we may be forced to make by not fixing it, like for example death? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Nuclear power
What pause in global warming? The pause that the skeptics hold so dear is a chimera, a statistical error. It is an artifact of not correctly weighting the very rapid rise in arctic mean temperatures as has been confirmed by a new study using satellite data to fill in the many large gaps in temperature data from the polar regions. Kevin Cowtan of York University and Robert Way of Ottawa University found a way of estimating Arctic temperatures from satellite readings, the so-called pause effectively disappeared and the global warming signal returned as strong as before. Time to give a rest to all this loose talk about a pause. Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 3:34 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power The acidification issue must be pursued. Is it or ain't it. As far as the climate goes, we have the pause. The pause may end or t may continue for centuries. It seems related to El Nino. It still leaves us empty-handed if we want to replace dirty with queen. We're speaking of terawatts here. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Nov 19, 2013 4:43 pm Subject: Re: Nuclear power On 11/19/2013 10:26 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Everybody has an opinion but nobody knows the true cost of CO2 emissions, and nobody will know for decades and perhaps centuries. That's ignoring the science that says it's going to be pretty high if we continue to increase it. You've got to give it a number and a number we can have confidence in; pretty high is useless There are plenty of explicit estimates of the cost of sea level rise. Other costs are harder to predict: How much will ocean acidification affect sea life and fishing? How will rain patterns changing affect agriculture? If we could put a high confidence lower bound on the cost, say 90% confidence it will cost more than 10T$, do you think that would cause anyone to take action? or just bring up more doubts and obfuscation? because the cost of giving up fossil fuels before a replacement is found to the quality of life of 7 billion people on this planet will be pretty high too. That's spudboy's straw man. Nobody suggests giving up fossil fuel without replacement. What is suggested in spending more money on replacements and taxing fossil fuel to pay for it. And remember, it's much more expensive to spend a dollar now than spend a dollar in 50 years, so I believe that right now the best course of action regarding CO2 is to delay action. Depends on what action you're talking about delaying. Fifty years is not far away in terms of developing commercial LFTRs or creating a more efficient DC electrical grid. Our grandparents didn't make huge sacrifices to their lifestyle to solve some vague Global warming isn't vague. It's quite explicit. It's just that local effects, beyond sea level rise, are hard to predict. very long range problem that might not even turn out to be important so lets do the same. I say let your grandchildren solve their own damn problems just as we did, and besides, they will have much better tools to fix things if they need fixing than we do. They won't have the tools unless somebody develops them. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
It is, unfortunately, just wishful thinking. Some people want to deny reality. In earlier ages they would be religious, I suppose, and would have denied that the Earth orbits the Sun. In earlier times, people were burned at the stake for causing cognitive dissonance; now we may see the world go up in flames instead (if predictions of a methane outgassing should come to pass - more than they already have, which is apparently already quite significant...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I can think of one thing that could dramatically not just slow but reverse the growth of photovoltaics, removing the tax incentives and subsidies. In effect government has been lying to the free market about the true cost to the economy of solar cells. Or the free market has been lying about the cost of CO2 emissions - essentially saying it's zero. Everybody has an opinion but nobody knows the true cost of CO2 emissions, and nobody will know for decades and perhaps centuries. I don't know what History's verdict will be but if it's your opinion that the cost of CO2 emissions is very high then logically you should be a big fan of nuclear power. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 11/18/2013 9:33 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I can think of one thing that could dramatically not just slow but reverse the growth of photovoltaics, removing the tax incentives and subsidies. In effect government has been lying to the free market about the true cost to the economy of solar cells. Or the free market has been lying about the cost of CO2 emissions - essentially saying it's zero. Everybody has an opinion but nobody knows the true cost of CO2 emissions, and nobody will know for decades and perhaps centuries. That's ignoring the science that says it's going to be pretty high if we continue to increase it. A small increase, such as we've produced now, wouldn't be a problem except for it's abruptness which will cause a lot of disruption and displacement as weather patterns change. In the long run it might even be advantageous for some places like Canada, Russia, Scandanvia, Greenland. But we're increasing CO2 production, not stopping it. I don't know what History's verdict will be but if it's your opinion that the cost of CO2 emissions is very high then logically you should be a big fan of nuclear power. I am a fan of nuclear power, although I'm a bigger fan of solar and wind where they are workable. In fact I'm the one who first posted about LFTRs on this list. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
Perhaps I am raising the technology bar, way too high, but I have suspected, that there is some sort of nuclear phenomena, be it fission or fusion, that is usable for human civilization-some laboratory phenomena, that never got looked at, because with all the focus on carbon fuel, renewable, fission and fusion, there's no desire to hunt beyond the things we know already works. Why go out for dinner if you're already full? But this is my guess none the less-something that we all have missed, or considered impractical. or, there's no need. Just speculation on my part. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Nov 17, 2013 1:17 am Subject: Re: Nuclear power On 16 November 2013 19:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/15/2013 8:36 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: First, I think maybe we disagree as to what constitutes a policestate. My definition of it is one in which the police caninvestigate and interrogate anyone at anytime on any suspicionwithout judicial warrant and enforce some political orthodoxy thatin turn supports their power. It has nothing to do with having verytight security around some particular installation (like nuclearweapons plants and ICBM silos). It wouldn't even be useful in protecting LFTR powerplants. Are you sure we don't already live in a police state (or rather several) ? Certainly that appeared (to me at least) to be what GWB was aiming for, and I'm not sure BO has changed course. And of course the UK and NZ and others are eagerly following suit... But apart from that, I agree - we don't need a police state to keep fissionable material out of the wrong hands, we need good security - something the nuclear industry has, however, been somewhat lacking in historically. (I assume Edge of Darkness was a documentary...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 4:12 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Doesn't Thorium 232 need plutonium to initiate a fertile reaction into a fissile one. That is converting Th232 into U233? Yes, a LFTR needs a sort of spark plug, a strong source of neutrons to get the cycle going. Only about 1000 pounds of Uranium enriched to 20% is required (90% would be needed for a bomb). After that initial start Uranium is never needed again, just more thorium. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: Perhaps you should read: The End of Cheap Uranium, by Dr Michael Dittmar, of the Institute of Particle Physics (at CERN), Dittmar wrote that in 2011, since then despite inflation the price of Uranium has gone down not up. Historically the reason almost all predictions that natural resource X will soon run out have turned out to be wrong is that as X becomes rarer it becomes more expensive and that increases the incentive to look for previously unknown reserves of X. Uranium is 40 times more common than silver (and Thorium is much more common than Uranium). Right now the biggest problem facing the Uranium industry is a glut not a shortage. Today Uranium costs about $36.50 a pound, the lowest price since late 2005. And even with today's inefficient non-breeding reactors one pound of unenriched natural Uranium produces as much energy as 16,000 pounds (8 tons) of coal. That's a lot of energy for just $36.50 and that is why high or low the cost of Uranium is a trivial part of the cost of operating a nuclear power plant. And at any rate I'm much more interested in Thorium than Uranium. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: A regular reactor produces lots of neutrons but a LFTR makes less of them, so it needs all that U233 to keep the chain reaction going, if you try stealing some the reactor will simply stop operating making the theft obvious. Agreed again – but again by the time it is realized it may be too late. Why would it be too late? It seems to me that a reactor immediately stopping and a city going dark would be a pretty effective burglar alarm, it would grab people's attention that something was wrong much better than just ringing a bell. No one has shown me any fundamental reason why this very rapid rate of growth in the PV sector will slow in the near term. I can think of one thing that could dramatically not just slow but reverse the growth of photovoltaics, removing the tax incentives and subsidies. In effect government has been lying to the free market about the true cost to the economy of solar cells. Someday it may be different, I hope so, but right now solar just can't compete against coal or oil or natural gas or nuclear unless government distorts reality, but this deception cannot continue indefinitely because as Richard Feynman said reality must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Nuclear power
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 9:31 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: A regular reactor produces lots of neutrons but a LFTR makes less of them, so it needs all that U233 to keep the chain reaction going, if you try stealing some the reactor will simply stop operating making the theft obvious. Agreed again - but again by the time it is realized it may be too late. Why would it be too late? It seems to me that a reactor immediately stopping and a city going dark would be a pretty effective burglar alarm, it would grab people's attention that something was wrong much better than just ringing a bell. Again you are assuming a centralized plant scenario serving an entire metro area. What if that metro area had twenty or small scale modular LFTR reactors sprinkled here and there - as is in fact the stated proposal of many of the new nuclear reactor ideas - including Terrapower backed by Bill Gates. You say it is a bad idea to have many small modular reactors sprinkled all over the place - which I agree is a terrible idea - and then you say don't do it. Where we differ is that I continue to consider the scenarios, which you exclude because they are clearly a bad idea, but bad ideas get deployed out into the world with a surprising regularity and just because something is a bad idea does not ensure that it will not - for other reasons say profit motive - become a fact on the ground. In a scenario with many small widely distributed LFTR plants how could they all be protected? No one has shown me any fundamental reason why this very rapid rate of growth in the PV sector will slow in the near term. I can think of one thing that could dramatically not just slow but reverse the growth of photovoltaics, removing the tax incentives and subsidies. In effect government has been lying to the free market about the true cost to the economy of solar cells. Someday it may be different, I hope so, but right now solar just can't compete against coal or oil or natural gas or nuclear unless government distorts reality, but this deception cannot continue indefinitely because as Richard Feynman said reality must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled. Sure it can. Solar easily beats nuclear, coal, oil and natural gas as the low cost supply of electricity when ALL subsidies for ALL energy systems are removed. If you complain about the subsidies that solar receives shouldn't you also address the huge in built subsidies enjoyed by these other energy systems: including special tax breaks, legal caps on liabilities (for both nuclear and oil sectors I know about - and very possibly also the gas and coal sectors as well), all the externalized costs of coal, oil and nuclear. By all means lets level the playing field and see what energy systems prevail. But in order to do so the playing field has to be transparently level and all thre energy systems must bake their true actual long term costs into the market price they need to charge. If coal had to charge the actual cost for burning the coal -even just factoring in all the downstream healthcare costs attributable to the mining, burning and the waste of burning coal, which is currently dumped onto the public in terms of raising all of our health care rates to cover the large expenses incurred in treating the many chronic illnesses of coal, coal would need to raise its market price to the point that it would no longer be the cost leader, but would be one of the most expensive supplies. Even the energy playing field, but complaining about subsidies for renewables, while failing to complain about subsidies for other energy sectors is to -- wittingly or unwittingly - participate in a big lie. The big lie being that nuclear, coal, gas and oil don't get any subsidies - or other benefits that amount to subsidies. Let me illustrate with one more example. Not a single nuclear power plant would be built or even a project started without the massive subsidy of the legal artifact that there is a very low cap on the maximum liability that a nuclear plant can occur - NO MATTER HOW MUCH DAMAGE it causes. Without this cap on their potential liability no nuclear project could afford to get insured. This is a subsidy. Because it confers an unfair competitive advantage to nuclear power; I would love to have a beautifully low cap on my liability in a traffic accident - it would sure lower my car insurance rates with regard to other drivers who had no cap on their liability. Our corporatist system is riddled with these special laws and tax loopholes and the fossil fuel sectors continue to enjoy the huge subsidy of being able to offload onto the commons most of their costs. So by all means - please - let's get rid of all
Re: Nuclear power
On 11/16/2013 1:12 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Doesn't Thorium 232 need plutonium to initiate a fertile reaction into a fissile one. No. It needs some seed of a neutron emitter to get the breeding cycle started, but U235 will work. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 11/16/2013 10:17 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 November 2013 19:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/15/2013 8:36 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: First, I think maybe we disagree as to what constitutes a police state. My definition of it is one in which the police can investigate and interrogate anyone at anytime on any suspicion without judicial warrant and enforce some political orthodoxy that in turn supports their power. It has nothing to do with having very tight security around some particular installation (like nuclear weapons plants and ICBM silos). It wouldn't even be useful in protecting LFTR powerplants. Are you sure we don't already live in a police state (or rather several) ? Certainly that appeared (to me at least) to be what GWB was aiming for, and I'm not sure BO has changed course. And of course the UK and NZ and others are eagerly following suit... Yes, I'm sure. We moved a little toward a police state with the war on drugs then the war on terrorists but we're not there yet and I don't see anything about protecting nuclear power plants that require it to get worse. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 18 November 2013 03:29, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Perhaps I am raising the technology bar, way too high, but I have suspected, that there is some sort of nuclear phenomena, be it fission or fusion, that is usable for human civilization-some laboratory phenomena, that never got looked at, because with all the focus on carbon fuel, renewable, fission and fusion, there's no desire to hunt beyond the things we know already works. Why go out for dinner if you're already full? But this is my guess none the less-something that we all have missed, or considered impractical. or, there's no need. Just speculation on my part. That would be the thorium reactors that have been mentioned recently. It sure ain't cold fusion. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 18 November 2013 11:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/16/2013 10:17 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 November 2013 19:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/15/2013 8:36 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: First, I think maybe we disagree as to what constitutes a police state. My definition of it is one in which the police can investigate and interrogate anyone at anytime on any suspicion without judicial warrant and enforce some political orthodoxy that in turn supports their power. It has nothing to do with having very tight security around some particular installation (like nuclear weapons plants and ICBM silos). It wouldn't even be useful in protecting LFTR powerplants. Are you sure we don't already live in a police state (or rather several) ? Certainly that appeared (to me at least) to be what GWB was aiming for, and I'm not sure BO has changed course. And of course the UK and NZ and others are eagerly following suit... Yes, I'm sure. We moved a little toward a police state with the war on drugs then the war on terrorists but we're not there yet and I don't see anything about protecting nuclear power plants that require it to get worse. I wasn't suggesting that. I was simply pointing out the irrelevancy of the police state argument when we're being quietly ushered towards one (ironically, it would seem the right wing are equally keen on this). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 11/17/2013 9:30 AM, John Clark wrote: I can think of one thing that could dramatically not just slow but reverse the growth of photovoltaics, removing the tax incentives and subsidies. In effect government has been lying to the free market about the true cost to the economy of solar cells. Or the free market has been lying about the cost of CO2 emissions - essentially saying it's zero. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
Cost-ways, I can see this. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Nov 15, 2013 7:37 pm Subject: Re: Nuclear power On 11/15/2013 4:11 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: What about thorium schemes Dr. Standish? Also, are things such as hydroelectric reservoirs built on the ocean, and lifting sea water as pumped storage workable, or is it an energy sink, where we expend more energy then we produce to accomplish this? My scheme would be to use Canadian Slowpoke reactive reactors, to lift ocean water, on to use billions of litres to drive turbines,as needed. Unworkable, or plausible? Well that reactor still depends on uranium from fuel and I don'tthink it's a breeder reactor. Also it's not clear whether they canbe scaled up to city-power size. Using pumped water storage hasworked well some places where there was a large elevated reservoiravailable. I don't think it's practical if you have build elevatedtankage. Brent -Original Message- From: Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: 15-Nov-2013 16:11:29 + Subject: Nuclear power On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 01:01:44PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2013 11:06 AM, John Clark wrote: Lets look at the disasters associated with various energy producing projects: In 1975 the Shimantan/Banqiao hydroelectric Dam in China failed and killed 171,000 people. In 1979 the Three Mile Island reactor melted down and killed nobody. In 1986 the Chernobyl nuclear plant melted down and killed 31 immediately and 4000 many decades later. In 1979 the Morvi hydroelectric Dam in India failed and killed 1500 people, In 1998 a oil pipeline in Nigeria exploded and killed 1078 people. In 1907 the Monongah Coal Mine in West Virginia exploded and killed well over 500 people. In 1944 a liquified natural gas factory exploded in Cleveland Ohio and killed 130 people. In 2011 the Fukushima nuclear power plant melted down and killed nobody. Not only that, coal mining releases a lot more radioctivity into the atmosphere than nuclear plants ever have. Brent For all the arguments pro and con nuclear fission, including an impassioned speech by a 16 year old last night to a UN Youth Voice competition, what never seems to be discussed is the elephant in the room of how much uranium resources we have. IIUC, if all fossil fuel power plants were replaced by conventional fission reactors, we'd burn through our uranium supplies in about 50 years flat. So fission reactors do not solve the problem. Of course there is fast breeder technology, but everbody is so shit scared about all the plutonium that would then appear on the market, making it incredibly easy for rogue states to construct nuclear weapons, that I don't see that happening any time soon either. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virusfound in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3629/6836 - Release Date: 11/14/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options
RE: Nuclear power
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 10:55 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power On 11/15/2013 8:36 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 7:52 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power On 11/15/2013 6:48 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: LFTR reactors would produce U233 - which is very nasty stuff. But they breed only what they consume, none of it is 'waste'. I realize this. From what I have read it seems that it should also be possible for LFTR reactor complexes to do their fuel re-processing on-site. Still preferable to the fast neutron U-238 breeder types that would create the plutonium economy, but it is very nasty stuff in the hands of the wrong people. How would the state prevent U233 from falling in the hands of the wrong people if these small LFTR reactors became widely deployed all over the world? The U-233 is contaminated with 0.13% U-232 which is an intense gamma ray source. Anybody taking material to make a bomb only has about 72hrs to live. Of course that wouldn't deter some people. My point exactly. The very intense gamma ray emissions of U-232 would make it a horrendous material in a dirty bomb, if molecular scale particles became fairly widely dispersed by chemical explosives. Technologically LFTR could be feasible, but what about the price we will most certainly have to pay in terms of living in a police state. First, I think maybe we disagree as to what constitutes a police state. My definition of it is one in which the police can investigate and interrogate anyone at anytime on any suspicion without judicial warrant and enforce some political orthodoxy that in turn supports their power. It has nothing to do with having very tight security around some particular installation (like nuclear weapons plants and ICBM silos). It wouldn't even be useful in protecting LFTR powerplants. That is not what I intend when I mention police state. Security around a dangerous facility is desirable. What I am referring to is the wholesale erosion of civil liberties and the wide scale practice of eavesdropping on electronic communications without a warrant. Can you think of any other way these deadly assets can be safeguarded and kept out of the wrong hands? The same way we safeguard nuclear weapons facilities and powerplants. You think U232 would make a good dirty bomb because it's so radioactive, but that's also a reason it would be very hard to steal, to move without detection, and to make into a dirty bomb. It would only exist in the liquid salt of the reactor. I am not saying that the LFTR would be worse than any other breeder nuclear power system - conventional single pass nuclear power is unsustainable and in fact the world will soon hit peak uranium (235) so I am not considering it in this discussion. Of course the current nuclear power system produces very large amounts of dangerous waste as compared to LFTR (or other breeder reactor types) But the fact is that it does exist. And the fact is that there are many nuclear power advocates (and companies such as Hitachi) that are designing small modular reactors that would be much harder to secure than a few centralized facilities. Some LFTR and other nuclear enthusiasts are all into the idea of small scale modular reactors (sometimes cleverly re-branded as batteries). The problem is not so much with the systems themselves, but with the risks that a highly dispersed proliferation of small poorly defended nuclear reactors will pose for the security of everyone. Any technology that provides such a huge power lever for small group of fanatics is not a technology I would recommend. On the fringe of the LFTR enthusiast crowd have you seen the design proposal for a thorium powered car.. Can you imagine the hazmat situation if one of these cars was involved in say a head on with a fully loaded 18-wheeler. I can imagine many unsafe and dumb things that can be done with technology. My general reaction is, Don't do that. Good advice, but unfortunately time after time humanity has in fact not followed your advice; hence my concerns. I am not concerned about the rational ideal human, but rather of the actual humans that actually do stupid things again and again. In order to protect these facilities and prevent U233 - and a lot of other by-products - from being turned into very very dirty bombs we will guarantee that we will live in a police state. How else could the entire sector be kept secure? That's just paranoia. Where have you been living for the last 12 years? Ever since the Patriot (and subsequent acts legalizing the unconstitutional) it has been downhill ride for civil rights. The erosion
Re: Nuclear power
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: For all the arguments pro and con nuclear fission, including an impassioned speech by a 16 year old last night to a UN Youth Voice competition, what never seems to be discussed is the elephant in the room of how much uranium resources we have.IIUC, if all fossil fuel power plants were replaced by conventional fission reactors, we'd burn through our uranium supplies in about 50 years flat. I don't know where you got that figure, I suspect that long ago in a galaxy far far away some tree hugger pulled it out of his ass and then repeated it so often on the internet that people started treating it as fact. At any rate if we're running out it's hard to figure out why today Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in 8 years. So fission reactors do not solve the problem. Of course there is fast breeder technology, but everbody is so shit scared about all the plutonium that would then appear on the market, making it incredibly easy for rogue states to construct nuclear weapons Uranium fast breeder scare the shit out of me too and for the same reason, I don't like Plutonium. But I do like Thorium reactors, in particular Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) . I think LFTR's are what fusion wanted to be but never achieved, despite tens of billions of dollars poured into it a fusion reactor has never produced one watt more power than was put into it. Certainly LFTR's are better than conventional nuclear fission. Consider the advantages: *Thorium is much more common than Uranium, almost twice as common as Tin in fact. And Thorium is easier to extract from its ore than Uranium. *A Thorium reactor burns up all the Thorium in it, 100%, so at current usage that element could supply our energy needs for many billions of years; A conventional light water reactor only burns .7% of the Uranium in it. We'll run out of Thorium in the Earth's crust about the same time that the sun will run out of Hydrogen. * To burn the remaining 99.3% of Uranium you'd have to use a exotic fast neutron breeder reactor, Thorium reactors use slow neutrons and so are inherently more stable because you have much more time to react if something goes wrong. Also breeders produce massive amounts of Plutonium which is a bad thing if you're worried about people making bombs. Thorium produces an insignificant amount of Plutonium. * Thorium does produce Uranium 233 and theoretically you could make a bomb out of that, but it would be contaminated with Uranium 232 which is a powerful gamma ray emitter which would make it suicidal to work with unless extraordinary precautions were taken, and even then the unexploded bomb would be so radioactive it would give away its presents if you tried to hide it, destroy its electronic firing circuits and degrade its chemical explosives. For these reasons even after 70 years no nation has a Uranium 233 bomb in its weapons inventory. *A Thorium reactor only produces about 1% as much waste as a conventional reactor and the stuff it does make is not as nasty, after about 5 years 87% of it would be safe and the remaining 13% in 300 years; a conventional reactor would take 100,000 years. *A Thorium reactor has an inherent safety feature, the fuel is in liquid form (Thorium dissolved in un-corrosive molten Fluoride salts) so if for whatever reason things get too hot the liquid expands and so the fuel gets less dense and the reaction slows down. *There is yet another fail safe device. At the bottom of the reactor is something called a freeze plug, fans blow on it to freeze it solid, if things get too hot the plug melts and the liquid drains out into a holding tank and the reaction stops; also if all electronic controls die due to a loss of electrical power the fans will stop the plug will melt and the reaction will stop. *Thorium reactors work at much higher temperatures than conventional reactors so you have better energy efficiency; in fact they are so hot the waste heat could be used to desalinate sea water or generate hydrogen fuel from water. * Although the liquid Fluoride salt is very hot it is not under pressure so that makes the plumbing of the thing much easier, and even if you did get a leak it would not be the utter disaster it would be in a conventional reactor; that is also why the containment building in common light water reactors need to be so much larger than the reactor itself. With Thorium nothing is under pressure and there is no danger of a disastrous phase change so the expensive containment building can be made much more compact. John K Clark that I don't see that happening any time soon either. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South
Re: Nuclear power
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: LFTR reactors would produce U233 – which is very nasty stuff. Yes but nasty can be your friend. Proliferation is a vastly smaller problem with a LFTR and its U-233 than with a conventional reactor and its Plutonium for a number of reasons: 1) Theoretically you can do it but it's hard to make a bomb with U-233, much harder than with Plutonium. As far as I know a U233 bomb was attempted only twice, in 1955 the USA set off a plutonium-U233 composite bomb, it was expected to produce 33 kilotons but only managed 22; and in 1998 India tried it but it was a complete flop, it produced a miniscule explosion of only 200 tons. 2) In a LFTR U-233 will always be contaminated with U232 which gives off such intense Gamma rays it would screw up the bomb electronics, be easy to detect, and probably killed the terrorist long before he was half finished making it. 3) The U233 is completely burned up inside the reactor where its hard to steal, unlike existing reactors where used fuel rods are shipped to reprocessing plants to extract the Plutonium. In one case the potential bomb making material needs to be shipped across the country, with a LFTR it never leaves the reactor building. 4) A regular reactor produces lots of neutrons but a LFTR makes less of them, so it needs all that U233 to keep the chain reaction going, if you try stealing some the reactor will simply stop operating making the theft obvious. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Nuclear power
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2013 10:44 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: For all the arguments pro and con nuclear fission, including an impassioned speech by a 16 year old last night to a UN Youth Voice competition, what never seems to be discussed is the elephant in the room of how much uranium resources we have.IIUC, if all fossil fuel power plants were replaced by conventional fission reactors, we'd burn through our uranium supplies in about 50 years flat. I don't know where you got that figure, I suspect that long ago in a galaxy far far away some tree hugger pulled it out of his ass and then repeated it so often on the internet that people started treating it as fact. At any rate if we're running out it's hard to figure out why today Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in 8 years. Perhaps you should read: The End of Cheap Uranium, by Dr Michael Dittmar, of the Institute of Particle Physics (at CERN), Historic data from many countries demonstrate that on average no more than 50-70% of the uranium in a deposit could be mined. An analysis of more recent data from Canada and Australia leads to a mining model with an average deposit extraction lifetime of 10± 2 years. This simple model provides an accurate description of the extractable amount of uranium forthe recent mining operations. Using this model for all larger existing and planned uranium mines up to 2030, a global uranium mining peak of at most 58± 4 ktons around the year 2015 is obtained. Thereafter we predict that uranium mine production will decline to at most 54± 5 ktons by 2025 and,with the decline steepening, to at most 41± 5 ktons around 2030. This amount will not be sufficient to fuel the existing and planned nuclear power plants during the next 10-20 years. In fact, we find that it will be difficult to avoid supply shortages even under a slow 1%/year worldwide nuclear energy phase-out scenario up to 2025. We thus suggest that a worldwide nuclear energy phase-out is in order. If such a slow global phase-out is not voluntarily effected, the end of the present cheap uranium supply situation will be unavoidable. The result will be that some countries will simply be unable to afford sufficient uranium fuel at that point, which implies involuntary and perhaps chaotic nuclear phase-outs in those countries involving brownouts, blackouts, and worse Read the entire report it: http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/pdf/cheap_uranium.pdf Can you successfully dispute his findings? Or is it easier to ignore the data. Chris So fission reactors do not solve the problem. Of course there is fast breeder technology, but everbody is so shit scared about all the plutonium that would then appear on the market, making it incredibly easy for rogue states to construct nuclear weapons Uranium fast breeder scare the shit out of me too and for the same reason, I don't like Plutonium. But I do like Thorium reactors, in particular Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) . I think LFTR's are what fusion wanted to be but never achieved, despite tens of billions of dollars poured into it a fusion reactor has never produced one watt more power than was put into it. Certainly LFTR's are better than conventional nuclear fission. Consider the advantages: *Thorium is much more common than Uranium, almost twice as common as Tin in fact. And Thorium is easier to extract from its ore than Uranium. *A Thorium reactor burns up all the Thorium in it, 100%, so at current usage that element could supply our energy needs for many billions of years; A conventional light water reactor only burns .7% of the Uranium in it. We'll run out of Thorium in the Earth's crust about the same time that the sun will run out of Hydrogen. * To burn the remaining 99.3% of Uranium you'd have to use a exotic fast neutron breeder reactor, Thorium reactors use slow neutrons and so are inherently more stable because you have much more time to react if something goes wrong. Also breeders produce massive amounts of Plutonium which is a bad thing if you're worried about people making bombs. Thorium produces an insignificant amount of Plutonium. * Thorium does produce Uranium 233 and theoretically you could make a bomb out of that, but it would be contaminated with Uranium 232 which is a powerful gamma ray emitter which would make it suicidal to work with unless extraordinary precautions were taken, and even then the unexploded bomb would be so radioactive it would give away its presents if you tried to hide it, destroy its electronic firing circuits and degrade its chemical explosives. For these reasons even after 70 years no nation has a Uranium 233 bomb in its weapons inventory. *A Thorium reactor only produces about 1% as much waste
RE: Nuclear power
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2013 10:53 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: LFTR reactors would produce U233 - which is very nasty stuff. Yes but nasty can be your friend. Proliferation is a vastly smaller problem with a LFTR and its U-233 than with a conventional reactor and its Plutonium for a number of reasons: 1) Theoretically you can do it but it's hard to make a bomb with U-233, much harder than with Plutonium. As far as I know a U233 bomb was attempted only twice, in 1955 the USA set off a plutonium-U233 composite bomb, it was expected to produce 33 kilotons but only managed 22; and in 1998 India tried it but it was a complete flop, it produced a miniscule explosion of only 200 tons. Yes, Agreed, I have read that as well. And repeating myself again - of all the Gen IV breeder reactor proposals LFTR is the one that makes the most sense to me and seems to have the best long term safety profile. Much better -- IMO -- than the Plutonium economy of the other breeder types that are using U-238 as the fertile material. 2) In a LFTR U-233 will always be contaminated with U232 which gives off such intense Gamma rays it would screw up the bomb electronics, be easy to detect, and probably killed the terrorist long before he was half finished making it. The insane individuals doing the bad act might not care if they get a death sentence form the intense gamma ray flux of the U-232 - (or they could force other people to work with it perhaps not telling them they will most certainly be dead within hours.) There are very insane and bad people in this world who do not act in the same way as rational people. A dirty bomb is not that hard to make if one has the material. 3) The U233 is completely burned up inside the reactor where its hard to steal, unlike existing reactors where used fuel rods are shipped to reprocessing plants to extract the Plutonium. In one case the potential bomb making material needs to be shipped across the country, with a LFTR it never leaves the reactor building. Agreed. One of the principal reasons I believe the LFTR technology is superior. 4) A regular reactor produces lots of neutrons but a LFTR makes less of them, so it needs all that U233 to keep the chain reaction going, if you try stealing some the reactor will simply stop operating making the theft obvious. Agreed again - but again by the time it is realized it may be too late. Especially if those who propose widely scattering small scale 30 MW or so LFTRs all over the place get their way. This problem could be mitigated by keeping facilities relatively centralized - even if they are composed of smaller scale modular units. LFTR seems superior to the other breeder proposals - such as those using liquid sodium metal as a coolant (not a good idea IMO). I like LFTR passive safety features and would argue that any future reactor types should have inherent passive safety features and not relay on active coolant circulation for example as the current reactors do. However all of this may be a moot point in ten years. Solar PV is scaling out so rapidly and is starting to reach significant levels of penetration already - nearing a deployed global capacity of 50 GW and based on current decadal moving averages scaling out to a TW of deployed capacity in ten years and to 20 TW in twenty years. No one has shown me any fundamental reason why this very rapid rate of growth in the PV sector will slow in the near term. As solar PV scales out to the TW levels of deployed capacity - and it's per dollar per watt of capacity figure continues to fall to lower and lower levels - it will become the cost leader for generating electricity, beating out coal and every other form of generating capacity. Chris John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
Russell wrote: *For all the arguments pro and con nuclear fission, including animpassioned speech by a 16 year old last night to a UN Youth Voicecompetition, what never seems to be discussed is the elephant in theroom of how much uranium resources we have. IIUC, if all fossil fuelpower plants were replaced by conventional fission reactors, we'd burnthrough our uranium supplies in about 50 years flat. So fissionreactors do not solve the problem. Of course there is fast breedertechnology, but everbody is so shit scared about all the plutonium thatwould then appear on the market, making it incredibly easy for roguestates to construct nuclear weapons, that I don't see that happeningany time soon either.* Cheers I keep 'preaching' the benefits of applying geothermic heat *AND *F U S I O N nukes (both to be finalized by RD). To whine about the inadequacies of the 'available (or not so available?) others is not helping. Hydro is shaky by climat warming, Wind may be as well, solar panels would cover most of the planet, so why not concentrate on what is feasible? I have in mind (and published on the internet several times) a better geotherm than implemented in NZ lately. If we (humans) survive we will need much much more energy than today's staple. John M On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 01:01:44PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2013 11:06 AM, John Clark wrote: Lets look at the disasters associated with various energy producing projects: In 1975 the Shimantan/Banqiao hydroelectric Dam in China failed and killed 171,000 people. In 1979 the Three Mile Island reactor melted down and killed nobody. In 1986 the Chernobyl nuclear plant melted down and killed 31 immediately and 4000 many decades later. In 1979 the Morvi hydroelectric Dam in India failed and killed 1500 people, In 1998 a oil pipeline in Nigeria exploded and killed 1078 people. In 1907 the Monongah Coal Mine in West Virginia exploded and killed well over 500 people. In 1944 a liquified natural gas factory exploded in Cleveland Ohio and killed 130 people. In 2011 the Fukushima nuclear power plant melted down and killed nobody. Not only that, coal mining releases a lot more radioctivity into the atmosphere than nuclear plants ever have. Brent For all the arguments pro and con nuclear fission, including an impassioned speech by a 16 year old last night to a UN Youth Voice competition, what never seems to be discussed is the elephant in the room of how much uranium resources we have. IIUC, if all fossil fuel power plants were replaced by conventional fission reactors, we'd burn through our uranium supplies in about 50 years flat. So fission reactors do not solve the problem. Of course there is fast breeder technology, but everbody is so shit scared about all the plutonium that would then appear on the market, making it incredibly easy for rogue states to construct nuclear weapons, that I don't see that happening any time soon either. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Nuclear power
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Mikes Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:24 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power Russell wrote: For all the arguments pro and con nuclear fission, including an impassioned speech by a 16 year old last night to a UN Youth Voice competition, what never seems to be discussed is the elephant in the room of how much uranium resources we have. IIUC, if all fossil fuel power plants were replaced by conventional fission reactors, we'd burn through our uranium supplies in about 50 years flat. So fission reactors do not solve the problem. Of course there is fast breeder technology, but everbody is so shit scared about all the plutonium that would then appear on the market, making it incredibly easy for rogue states to construct nuclear weapons, that I don't see that happening any time soon either. Cheers I keep 'preaching' the benefits of applying geothermic heat AND F U S I O N nukes (both to be finalized by RD). To whine about the inadequacies of the 'available (or not so available?) others is not helping. Hydro is shaky by climat warming, Wind may be as well, solar panels would cover most of the planet, so why not concentrate on what is feasible? How do you compute that - the solar flux at earth orbit is above 1,300 w/m^2. One square km of area in somewhere such as Nevada gets about a GW of solar flux, a square area 100km on a side in the desert SW of the US would receive a solar flux of 10 TW. If just 20% of this flux was harvested that very small area compared with the size of the planet would have the potential of outputting 2TW of power. The amount of surface that would need to be covered by solar cells is very small compared to the available area of rooftops and road surfaces. Why not embed solar PV right into the roads we drive on - it actually makes a lot of sense in many areas. There is a super-abundance of available solar area and we would only need to harvest a miniscule fraction of the total available high quality solar regions in order to produce many TW of output. Chris I have in mind (and published on the internet several times) a better geotherm than implemented in NZ lately. If we (humans) survive we will need much much more energy than today's staple. John M On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 01:01:44PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2013 11:06 AM, John Clark wrote: Lets look at the disasters associated with various energy producing projects: In 1975 the Shimantan/Banqiao hydroelectric Dam in China failed and killed 171,000 people. In 1979 the Three Mile Island reactor melted down and killed nobody. In 1986 the Chernobyl nuclear plant melted down and killed 31 immediately and 4000 many decades later. In 1979 the Morvi hydroelectric Dam in India failed and killed 1500 people, In 1998 a oil pipeline in Nigeria exploded and killed 1078 people. In 1907 the Monongah Coal Mine in West Virginia exploded and killed well over 500 people. In 1944 a liquified natural gas factory exploded in Cleveland Ohio and killed 130 people. In 2011 the Fukushima nuclear power plant melted down and killed nobody. Not only that, coal mining releases a lot more radioctivity into the atmosphere than nuclear plants ever have. Brent For all the arguments pro and con nuclear fission, including an impassioned speech by a 16 year old last night to a UN Youth Voice competition, what never seems to be discussed is the elephant in the room of how much uranium resources we have. IIUC, if all fossil fuel power plants were replaced by conventional fission reactors, we'd burn through our uranium supplies in about 50 years flat. So fission reactors do not solve the problem. Of course there is fast breeder technology, but everbody is so shit scared about all the plutonium that would then appear on the market, making it incredibly easy for rogue states to construct nuclear weapons, that I don't see that happening any time soon either. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options
Re: Nuclear power
Doesn't Thorium 232 need plutonium to initiate a fertile reaction into a fissile one. That is converting Th232 into U233? I have read of Rubbia's proposal for subcritical reactions driven by a proton or laser beam. I have zero idea if it is workable. The abundance of thorium is unassailable when compared to u235. I am at the point to think if the human species has time enough, and we may not ( I view nuclear war as far more likely then AGW), the we should pursue all kinds of dark horses to see if they will pay off? -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Nov 16, 2013 1:44 pm Subject: Re: Nuclear power On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: For all the arguments pro and con nuclear fission, including an impassioned speech by a 16 year old last night to a UN Youth Voice competition, what never seems to be discussed is the elephant in the room of how much uranium resources we have.IIUC, if all fossil fuel power plants were replaced by conventional fission reactors, we'd burn through our uranium supplies in about 50 years flat. I don't know where you got that figure, I suspect that long ago in a galaxy far far away some tree hugger pulled it out of his ass and then repeated it so often on the internet that people started treating it as fact. At any rate if we're running out it's hard to figure out why today Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in 8 years. So fission reactors do not solve the problem. Of course there is fast breeder technology, but everbody is so shit scared about all the plutonium that would then appear on the market, making it incredibly easy for rogue states to construct nuclear weapons Uranium fast breeder scare the shit out of me too and for the same reason, I don't like Plutonium. But I do like Thorium reactors, in particular Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) . I think LFTR's are what fusion wanted to be but never achieved, despite tens of billions of dollars poured into it a fusion reactor has never produced one watt more power than was put into it. Certainly LFTR's are better than conventional nuclear fission. Consider the advantages: *Thorium is much more common than Uranium, almost twice as common as Tin in fact. And Thorium is easier to extract from its ore than Uranium. *A Thorium reactor burns up all the Thorium in it, 100%, so at current usage that element could supply our energy needs for many billions of years; A conventional light water reactor only burns .7% of the Uranium in it. We'll run out of Thorium in the Earth's crust about the same time that the sun will run out of Hydrogen. * To burn the remaining 99.3% of Uranium you'd have to use a exotic fast neutron breeder reactor, Thorium reactors use slow neutrons and so are inherently more stable because you have much more time to react if something goes wrong. Also breeders produce massive amounts of Plutonium which is a bad thing if you're worried about people making bombs. Thorium produces an insignificant amount of Plutonium. * Thorium does produce Uranium 233 and theoretically you could make a bomb out of that, but it would be contaminated with Uranium 232 which is a powerful gamma ray emitter which would make it suicidal to work with unless extraordinary precautions were taken, and even then the unexploded bomb would be so radioactive it would give away its presents if you tried to hide it, destroy its electronic firing circuits and degrade its chemical explosives. For these reasons even after 70 years no nation has a Uranium 233 bomb in its weapons inventory. *A Thorium reactor only produces about 1% as much waste as a conventional reactor and the stuff it does make is not as nasty, after about 5 years 87% of it would be safe and the remaining 13% in 300 years; a conventional reactor would take 100,000 years. *A Thorium reactor has an inherent safety feature, the fuel is in liquid form (Thorium dissolved in un-corrosive molten Fluoride salts) so if for whatever reason things get too hot the liquid expands and so the fuel gets less dense and the reaction slows down. *There is yet another fail safe device. At the bottom of the reactor is something called a freeze plug, fans blow on it to freeze it solid, if things get too hot the plug melts and the liquid drains out into a holding tank and the reaction stops; also if all electronic controls die due to a loss of electrical power the fans will stop the plug will melt and the reaction will stop. *Thorium reactors work at much higher temperatures than conventional reactors so you have better energy efficiency; in fact they are so hot the waste heat could be used to desalinate sea water or generate hydrogen fuel from water. * Although the liquid Fluoride salt is very hot it is not under pressure so that makes the plumbing of the thing much easier
Re: Nuclear power
On 16 November 2013 19:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/15/2013 8:36 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: First, I think maybe we disagree as to what constitutes a police state. My definition of it is one in which the police can investigate and interrogate anyone at anytime on any suspicion without judicial warrant and enforce some political orthodoxy that in turn supports their power. It has nothing to do with having very tight security around some particular installation (like nuclear weapons plants and ICBM silos). It wouldn't even be useful in protecting LFTR powerplants. Are you sure we don't already live in a police state (or rather several) ? Certainly that appeared (to me at least) to be what GWB was aiming for, and I'm not sure BO has changed course. And of course the UK and NZ and others are eagerly following suit... But apart from that, I agree - we don't need a police state to keep fissionable material out of the wrong hands, we need good security - something the nuclear industry has, however, been somewhat lacking in historically. (I assume Edge of Darkness was a documentary...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 17 November 2013 07:30, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: That is not what I intend when I mention police state. Security around a dangerous facility is desirable. What I am referring to is the wholesale erosion of civil liberties and the wide scale practice of eavesdropping on electronic communications without a warrant. It's a bit late to lock the stable door on that one. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 17 November 2013 07:44, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: For all the arguments pro and con nuclear fission, including an impassioned speech by a 16 year old last night to a UN Youth Voice competition, what never seems to be discussed is the elephant in the room of how much uranium resources we have.IIUC, if all fossil fuel power plants were replaced by conventional fission reactors, we'd burn through our uranium supplies in about 50 years flat. I don't know where you got that figure, I suspect that long ago in a galaxy far far away some tree hugger pulled it out of his ass and then repeated it so often on the internet that people started treating it as fact. At any rate if we're running out it's hard to figure out why today Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in 8 years. So fission reactors do not solve the problem. Of course there is fast breeder technology, but everbody is so shit scared about all the plutonium that would then appear on the market, making it incredibly easy for rogue states to construct nuclear weapons Uranium fast breeder scare the shit out of me too and for the same reason, I don't like Plutonium. But I do like Thorium reactors, in particular Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) . I think LFTR's are what fusion wanted to be but never achieved, despite tens of billions of dollars poured into it a fusion reactor has never produced one watt more power than was put into it. Certainly LFTR's are better than conventional nuclear fission. Consider the advantages: *Thorium is much more common than Uranium, almost twice as common as Tin in fact. And Thorium is easier to extract from its ore than Uranium. *A Thorium reactor burns up all the Thorium in it, 100%, so at current usage that element could supply our energy needs for many billions of years; A conventional light water reactor only burns .7% of the Uranium in it. We'll run out of Thorium in the Earth's crust about the same time that the sun will run out of Hydrogen. * To burn the remaining 99.3% of Uranium you'd have to use a exotic fast neutron breeder reactor, Thorium reactors use slow neutrons and so are inherently more stable because you have much more time to react if something goes wrong. Also breeders produce massive amounts of Plutonium which is a bad thing if you're worried about people making bombs. Thorium produces an insignificant amount of Plutonium. * Thorium does produce Uranium 233 and theoretically you could make a bomb out of that, but it would be contaminated with Uranium 232 which is a powerful gamma ray emitter which would make it suicidal to work with unless extraordinary precautions were taken, and even then the unexploded bomb would be so radioactive it would give away its presents if you tried to hide it, destroy its electronic firing circuits and degrade its chemical explosives. For these reasons even after 70 years no nation has a Uranium 233 bomb in its weapons inventory. *A Thorium reactor only produces about 1% as much waste as a conventional reactor and the stuff it does make is not as nasty, after about 5 years 87% of it would be safe and the remaining 13% in 300 years; a conventional reactor would take 100,000 years. *A Thorium reactor has an inherent safety feature, the fuel is in liquid form (Thorium dissolved in un-corrosive molten Fluoride salts) so if for whatever reason things get too hot the liquid expands and so the fuel gets less dense and the reaction slows down. *There is yet another fail safe device. At the bottom of the reactor is something called a freeze plug, fans blow on it to freeze it solid, if things get too hot the plug melts and the liquid drains out into a holding tank and the reaction stops; also if all electronic controls die due to a loss of electrical power the fans will stop the plug will melt and the reaction will stop. *Thorium reactors work at much higher temperatures than conventional reactors so you have better energy efficiency; in fact they are so hot the waste heat could be used to desalinate sea water or generate hydrogen fuel from water. * Although the liquid Fluoride salt is very hot it is not under pressure so that makes the plumbing of the thing much easier, and even if you did get a leak it would not be the utter disaster it would be in a conventional reactor; that is also why the containment building in common light water reactors need to be so much larger than the reactor itself. With Thorium nothing is under pressure and there is no danger of a disastrous phase change so the expensive containment building can be made much more compact. John K Clark I believe another plus point is that they can't go supercritical and melt down. Unless I have been misinformed, it's impossible to have a China syndrome (or Madrid syndrome in NZ :-) with a thorium reactor. -- You received
Re: Nuclear power
I'm glad I brought up the subject of thorium reactors, I have learned a lot more about them than I knew previously (most of it good). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
The resources are always the FIRST thing I think about, which is why I advocate subcritical reactors (well, it's one reason). Luckily we have a lot of thorium, or so I'm reliably informed, which is what subcritical reactors use. On 16 November 2013 10:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 01:01:44PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2013 11:06 AM, John Clark wrote: Lets look at the disasters associated with various energy producing projects: In 1975 the Shimantan/Banqiao hydroelectric Dam in China failed and killed 171,000 people. In 1979 the Three Mile Island reactor melted down and killed nobody. In 1986 the Chernobyl nuclear plant melted down and killed 31 immediately and 4000 many decades later. In 1979 the Morvi hydroelectric Dam in India failed and killed 1500 people, In 1998 a oil pipeline in Nigeria exploded and killed 1078 people. In 1907 the Monongah Coal Mine in West Virginia exploded and killed well over 500 people. In 1944 a liquified natural gas factory exploded in Cleveland Ohio and killed 130 people. In 2011 the Fukushima nuclear power plant melted down and killed nobody. Not only that, coal mining releases a lot more radioctivity into the atmosphere than nuclear plants ever have. Brent For all the arguments pro and con nuclear fission, including an impassioned speech by a 16 year old last night to a UN Youth Voice competition, what never seems to be discussed is the elephant in the room of how much uranium resources we have. IIUC, if all fossil fuel power plants were replaced by conventional fission reactors, we'd burn through our uranium supplies in about 50 years flat. So fission reactors do not solve the problem. Of course there is fast breeder technology, but everbody is so shit scared about all the plutonium that would then appear on the market, making it incredibly easy for rogue states to construct nuclear weapons, that I don't see that happening any time soon either. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 11/15/2013 4:11 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: What about thorium schemes Dr. Standish? Also, are things such as hydroelectric reservoirs built on the ocean, and lifting sea water as pumped storage workable, or is it an energy sink, where we expend more energy then we produce to accomplish this? My scheme would be to use Canadian Slowpoke reactive reactors, to lift ocean water, on to use billions of litres to drive turbines,as needed. Unworkable, or plausible? Well that reactor still depends on uranium from fuel and I don't think it's a breeder reactor. Also it's not clear whether they can be scaled up to city-power size. Using pumped water storage has worked well some places where there was a large elevated reservoir available. I don't think it's practical if you have build elevated tankage. Brent -Original Message- From: Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: 15-Nov-2013 16:11:29 + Subject: Nuclear power On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 01:01:44PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2013 11:06 AM, John Clark wrote: Lets look at the disasters associated with various energy producing projects: In 1975 the Shimantan/Banqiao hydroelectric Dam in China failed and killed 171,000 people. In 1979 the Three Mile Island reactor melted down and killed nobody. In 1986 the Chernobyl nuclear plant melted down and killed 31 immediately and 4000 many decades later. In 1979 the Morvi hydroelectric Dam in India failed and killed 1500 people, In 1998 a oil pipeline in Nigeria exploded and killed 1078 people. In 1907 the Monongah Coal Mine in West Virginia exploded and killed well over 500 people. In 1944 a liquified natural gas factory exploded in Cleveland Ohio and killed 130 people. In 2011 the Fukushima nuclear power plant melted down and killed nobody. Not only that, coal mining releases a lot more radioctivity into the atmosphere than nuclear plants ever have. Brent For all the arguments pro and con nuclear fission, including an impassioned speech by a 16 year old last night to a UN Youth Voice competition, what never seems to be discussed is the elephant in the room of how much uranium resources we have. IIUC, if all fossil fuel power plants were replaced by conventional fission reactors, we'd burn through our uranium supplies in about 50 years flat. So fission reactors do not solve the problem. Of course there is fast breeder technology, but everbody is so shit scared about all the plutonium that would then appear on the market, making it incredibly easy for rogue states to construct nuclear weapons, that I don't see that happening any time soon either. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of mathematicshpco...@hpcoders.com.au mailto:hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Waleshttp://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toeverything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email toeverything-l...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3629/6836 - Release Date: 11/14/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Nuclear power
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 1:21 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power The resources are always the FIRST thing I think about, which is why I advocate subcritical reactors (well, it's one reason). Luckily we have a lot of thorium, or so I'm reliably informed, which is what subcritical reactors use. LFTR reactors would produce U233 - which is very nasty stuff. Still preferable to the fast neutron U-238 breeder types that would create the plutonium economy, but it is very nasty stuff in the hands of the wrong people. How would the state prevent U233 from falling in the hands of the wrong people if these small LFTR reactors became widely deployed all over the world? In order to protect these facilities and prevent U233 - and a lot of other by-products - from being turned into very very dirty bombs we will guarantee that we will live in a police state. How else could the entire sector be kept secure? If a terrorist steals some solar panels - what harm can they accomplish? Chris On 16 November 2013 10:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 01:01:44PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2013 11:06 AM, John Clark wrote: Lets look at the disasters associated with various energy producing projects: In 1975 the Shimantan/Banqiao hydroelectric Dam in China failed and killed 171,000 people. In 1979 the Three Mile Island reactor melted down and killed nobody. In 1986 the Chernobyl nuclear plant melted down and killed 31 immediately and 4000 many decades later. In 1979 the Morvi hydroelectric Dam in India failed and killed 1500 people, In 1998 a oil pipeline in Nigeria exploded and killed 1078 people. In 1907 the Monongah Coal Mine in West Virginia exploded and killed well over 500 people. In 1944 a liquified natural gas factory exploded in Cleveland Ohio and killed 130 people. In 2011 the Fukushima nuclear power plant melted down and killed nobody. Not only that, coal mining releases a lot more radioctivity into the atmosphere than nuclear plants ever have. Brent For all the arguments pro and con nuclear fission, including an impassioned speech by a 16 year old last night to a UN Youth Voice competition, what never seems to be discussed is the elephant in the room of how much uranium resources we have. IIUC, if all fossil fuel power plants were replaced by conventional fission reactors, we'd burn through our uranium supplies in about 50 years flat. So fission reactors do not solve the problem. Of course there is fast breeder technology, but everbody is so shit scared about all the plutonium that would then appear on the market, making it incredibly easy for rogue states to construct nuclear weapons, that I don't see that happening any time soon either. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Nuclear power
-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 1:37 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power On 11/15/2013 1:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 01:01:44PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2013 11:06 AM, John Clark wrote: Lets look at the disasters associated with various energy producing projects: In 1975 the Shimantan/Banqiao hydroelectric Dam in China failed and killed 171,000 people. In 1979 the Three Mile Island reactor melted down and killed nobody. In 1986 the Chernobyl nuclear plant melted down and killed 31 immediately and 4000 many decades later. In 1979 the Morvi hydroelectric Dam in India failed and killed 1500 people, In 1998 a oil pipeline in Nigeria exploded and killed 1078 people. In 1907 the Monongah Coal Mine in West Virginia exploded and killed well over 500 people. In 1944 a liquified natural gas factory exploded in Cleveland Ohio and killed 130 people. In 2011 the Fukushima nuclear power plant melted down and killed nobody. Not only that, coal mining releases a lot more radioctivity into the atmosphere than nuclear plants ever have. Brent For all the arguments pro and con nuclear fission, including an impassioned speech by a 16 year old last night to a UN Youth Voice competition, what never seems to be discussed is the elephant in the room of how much uranium resources we have. IIUC, if all fossil fuel power plants were replaced by conventional fission reactors, we'd burn through our uranium supplies in about 50 years flat. So fission reactors do not solve the problem. Of course there is fast breeder technology, but everbody is so shit scared about all the plutonium that would then appear on the market, making it incredibly easy for rogue states to construct nuclear weapons, that I don't see that happening any time soon either. That's why we need liquid salt thorium reactors. There's enough thorium for a thousand years. Of course they depend on breeding, but they don't produce significant plutonium. See attached. But they do produce U233. In fact, it is the U233 that breeds the fertile thorium (transmuting some of it into U233 -- forget the precise series) As I think I have already said in an earlier exchange -- of all the GenIV reactor types I have looked at LFTR is the one that seems best to me. However U233 is truly very nasty stuff and LFTR breeders breed it. If the U233 can be kept contained and burned up in the LFTR -- fine, but if it falls into the wrong hands it is a very dirty problem and could be fashioned into mass panic inducing and extremely costly to cleanup dirty bombs. This needs to be considered and the societal consequences -- what kind of world would come out of it -- need to be understood. Would we require an endless secret security state in order to keep these stockpiles and the entire logistical tail of the rep-processing of the thorium saturated liquid fluoride salts central to the LFTR economy safe. Chris Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 11/15/2013 6:48 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: LFTR reactors would produce U233 -- which is very nasty stuff. But they breed only what they consume, none of it is 'waste'. Still preferable to the fast neutron U-238 breeder types that would create the plutonium economy, but it is very nasty stuff in the hands of the wrong people. How would the state prevent U233 from falling in the hands of the wrong people if these small LFTR reactors became widely deployed all over the world? The U-233 is contaminated with 0.13% U-232 which is an intense gamma ray source. Anybody taking material to make a bomb only has about 72hrs to live. Of course that wouldn't deter some people. In order to protect these facilities and prevent U233 -- and a lot of other by-products -- from being turned into very very dirty bombs we will guarantee that we will live in a police state. How else could the entire sector be kept secure? Naah. We have reactors now that are more susceptible to making dirty bombs and it doesn't require a police state to protect them. France gets most of its power from nukes. What police state we have is too busy keeping people from smoking pot, drinking and driving, and emigrating. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Nuclear power
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 7:52 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power On 11/15/2013 6:48 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: LFTR reactors would produce U233 - which is very nasty stuff. But they breed only what they consume, none of it is 'waste'. I realize this. From what I have read it seems that it should also be possible for LFTR reactor complexes to do their fuel re-processing on-site. Still preferable to the fast neutron U-238 breeder types that would create the plutonium economy, but it is very nasty stuff in the hands of the wrong people. How would the state prevent U233 from falling in the hands of the wrong people if these small LFTR reactors became widely deployed all over the world? The U-233 is contaminated with 0.13% U-232 which is an intense gamma ray source. Anybody taking material to make a bomb only has about 72hrs to live. Of course that wouldn't deter some people. My point exactly. The very intense gamma ray emissions of U-232 would make it a horrendous material in a dirty bomb, if molecular scale particles became fairly widely dispersed by chemical explosives. Technologically LFTR could be feasible, but what about the price we will most certainly have to pay in terms of living in a police state. Can you think of any other way these deadly assets can be safeguarded and kept out of the wrong hands? Some LFTR and other nuclear enthusiasts are all into the idea of small scale modular reactors (sometimes cleverly re-branded as batteries). The problem is not so much with the systems themselves, but with the risks that a highly dispersed proliferation of small poorly defended nuclear reactors will pose for the security of everyone. Any technology that provides such a huge power lever for small group of fanatics is not a technology I would recommend. On the fringe of the LFTR enthusiast crowd have you seen the design proposal for a thorium powered car.. Can you imagine the hazmat situation if one of these cars was involved in say a head on with a fully loaded 18-wheeler. In order to protect these facilities and prevent U233 - and a lot of other by-products - from being turned into very very dirty bombs we will guarantee that we will live in a police state. How else could the entire sector be kept secure? Naah. We have reactors now that are more susceptible to making dirty bombs and it doesn't require a police state to protect them. France gets most of its power from nukes. What police state we have is too busy keeping people from smoking pot, drinking and driving, and emigrating. That is not entirely true. I agree with you - and am shocked and appalled at how little protection - these plants use off the shelf industrial controllers that can be (and have been) hacked into for example, to control vital systems. But the number of plants is really quite small. Many nuclear proponents are speaking about 30 MW or so scale plants that would be proliferated everywhere. This is a qualitatively different landscape than a few central facilities. Chris Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 11/15/2013 8:36 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: *From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *meekerdb *Sent:* Friday, November 15, 2013 7:52 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Nuclear power On 11/15/2013 6:48 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: LFTR reactors would produce U233 -- which is very nasty stuff. But they breed only what they consume, none of it is 'waste'. I realize this. From what I have read it seems that it should also be possible for LFTR reactor complexes to do their fuel re-processing on--site. Still preferable to the fast neutron U-238 breeder types that would create the plutonium economy, but it is very nasty stuff in the hands of the wrong people. How would the state prevent U233 from falling in the hands of the wrong people if these small LFTR reactors became widely deployed all over the world? The U-233 is contaminated with 0.13% U-232 which is an intense gamma ray source. Anybody taking material to make a bomb only has about 72hrs to live. Of course that wouldn't deter some people. My point exactly. The very intense gamma ray emissions of U-232 would make it a horrendous material in a dirty bomb, if molecular scale particles became fairly widely dispersed by chemical explosives. Technologically LFTR could be feasible, but what about the price we will most certainly have to pay in terms of living in a police state. First, I think maybe we disagree as to what constitutes a police state. My definition of it is one in which the police can investigate and interrogate anyone at anytime on any suspicion without judicial warrant and enforce some political orthodoxy that in turn supports their power. It has nothing to do with having very tight security around some particular installation (like nuclear weapons plants and ICBM silos). It wouldn't even be useful in protecting LFTR powerplants. Can you think of any other way these deadly assets can be safeguarded and kept out of the wrong hands? The same way we safeguard nuclear weapons facilities and powerplants. You think U232 would make a good dirty bomb because it's so radioactive, but that's also a reason it would be very hard to steal, to move without detection, and to make into a dirty bomb. It would only exist in the liquid salt of the reactor. Some LFTR and other nuclear enthusiasts are all into the idea of small scale modular reactors (sometimes cleverly re-branded as batteries). The problem is not so much with the systems themselves, but with the risks that a highly dispersed proliferation of small poorly defended nuclear reactors will pose for the security of everyone. Any technology that provides such a huge power lever for small group of fanatics is not a technology I would recommend. On the fringe of the LFTR enthusiast crowd have you seen the design proposal for a thorium powered car Can you imagine the hazmat situation if one of these cars was involved in say a head on with a fully loaded 18-wheeler. I can imagine many unsafe and dumb things that can be done with technology. My general reaction is, Don't do that. In order to protect these facilities and prevent U233 -- and a lot of other by-products -- from being turned into very very dirty bombs we will guarantee that we will live in a police state. How else could the entire sector be kept secure? That's just paranoia. Naah. We have reactors now that are more susceptible to making dirty bombs and it doesn't require a police state to protect them. France gets most of its power from nukes. What police state we have is too busy keeping people from smoking pot, drinking and driving, and emigrating. That is not entirely true. I agree with you -- and am shocked and appalled at how little protection -- these plants use off the shelf industrial controllers that can be (and have been) hacked into for example, to control vital systems. But the number of plants is really quite small. There are 437 in 32 countries and 68 more under construction. Many nuclear proponents are speaking about 30 MW or so scale plants that would be proliferated everywhere. This is a qualitatively different landscape than a few central facilities. Don't do that. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
