RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, kirk wrote: ARGH! U238 is not U235 and weapons grade is 60%U235 minimum. 15% is reactor fuel. The initial report I had read stated that they thought it was enriched to 15%. My mistake. Of course, the report now is that it was not uranium at all. See http://www.boston.com/dailynews/273/world/Turkish_atomic_energy_institut:.shtml Also, the weight initially given was wrong - the media had reported the mass of the entire package, which was primarily a lead container, as 35 pounds. The actual item inside which was first believed to be enriched uranium was only 5 ounces. Shielding is expressed in % attenuation. Gamma is not Alpha or Beta. How thick a layer to drop gamma fluence to what level? You are making assertions without factual data. U238 goes by the monniker depleted uranium-- for a reason. Depleted uranium is almost entirely U-238 (U-235's natural occurence is 0.7% of uranium in the ground. Depleted uranium has less U-235 than that. Anything with greater than 0.7% U-235 is enriched). The initial report I had read called it enriched uranium, not weapons grade. If you continue to think Arabs are brain dead twits anxious to enter paradise with the first suicide mission at hand they are going to eat your lunch. Keep thinking happy thoughts if that's what it takes--but it will cost you. Oh well. I don't think all Arabs are brain dead twits anxious to do a suicide run - but I'm not ignorant enough to pretend that there aren't radical extremists that are quite eager to do so. As for me just believing what I'm told - nothing could be further from the truth. But, I also don't instantly disbelieve everything the government says, which you apparently do. My point with this thread was to dispute your claim that there's no way someone could be carrying uranium in their car under the seat, not to say that well since the media reported it it must be true. Let me guess - you also agree with those who claim that there's no way a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/02, and that the US government staged the entire thing? Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
Let me guess - you also agree with those who claim that there's no way a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/02, and that the US government staged the entire thing? You lose your guess. But if you think our hands are clean you are are mistaken. I don't think you realize how structured the world already is. Of course, the report now is that it was not uranium at all. LOL-- yes, once it was pointed out by many the story was BS the handlers revised it. What's the saying? Let's run it up the flag pole and see if they salute it Next justification will be we have it on good authority he has suitcase nukes and we had best invade and remove them. I notice you didn't defend ANFO cutting pillars. Perhaps you know something about explosives and brisance. Invasion of pipelineistan soon. What a circus. Kirk -Original Message- From: Michael S Briggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:54 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, kirk wrote: ARGH! U238 is not U235 and weapons grade is 60%U235 minimum. 15% is reactor fuel. The initial report I had read stated that they thought it was enriched to 15%. My mistake. Of course, the report now is that it was not uranium at all. See http://www.boston.com/dailynews/273/world/Turkish_atomic_energy_institut:.sh tml Also, the weight initially given was wrong - the media had reported the mass of the entire package, which was primarily a lead container, as 35 pounds. The actual item inside which was first believed to be enriched uranium was only 5 ounces. Shielding is expressed in % attenuation. Gamma is not Alpha or Beta. How thick a layer to drop gamma fluence to what level? You are making assertions without factual data. U238 goes by the monniker depleted uranium-- for a reason. Depleted uranium is almost entirely U-238 (U-235's natural occurence is 0.7% of uranium in the ground. Depleted uranium has less U-235 than that. Anything with greater than 0.7% U-235 is enriched). The initial report I had read called it enriched uranium, not weapons grade. If you continue to think Arabs are brain dead twits anxious to enter paradise with the first suicide mission at hand they are going to eat your lunch. Keep thinking happy thoughts if that's what it takes--but it will cost you. Oh well. I don't think all Arabs are brain dead twits anxious to do a suicide run - but I'm not ignorant enough to pretend that there aren't radical extremists that are quite eager to do so. As for me just believing what I'm told - nothing could be further from the truth. But, I also don't instantly disbelieve everything the government says, which you apparently do. My point with this thread was to dispute your claim that there's no way someone could be carrying uranium in their car under the seat, not to say that well since the media reported it it must be true. Let me guess - you also agree with those who claim that there's no way a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/02, and that the US government staged the entire thing? Mike Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.393 / Virus Database: 223 - Release Date: 9/30/2002 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: So what? There are Americans who would like to overthrow the Bush regime too, and by force, and with the same stated aims. The difference is that the majority of Iraqis want Hussein out. Again, how do you know that? It's nothing but hearsay. Check with the numerous groups started by Iraqis aimed at bringing a real democracy to the country. And even if they did, what does that have to do with the US? It's simply none of your business. So, we should have intervened in Tibet, but we shouldn't intervene in Iraq? Why? When should the rest of the world intervene when a dictator is allowing people within his own country to starve to death, killing those who disagree with them, and could pose a threat to the rest of the world? Should we never intervene? Then, should we also not send millions of tons of food to people starving around the world? None of our business, right? It's one way or the other - isolationism, or being involved in world affairs. The western world has screwed up in the past - primarily from allowing tyrants to come to power, or stay in power. My feeling is that the UN should act together to help bring democracy to the entire world, using force to overthrow tyrants when necessary. We shouldn't just say it's none of our business if he wants to kill his own people. I agree - I don't think we should ever give any aid to any country that doesn't guarantee all of its citizens basic civil/human rights (freedom of speech, religion, etc.). We have made huge mistakes in our dealings in the middle east. We supported Hussein in his war on Iran because we decided Iran was the lesser of two evils - primarily because Iran attacked Kuwaiti oil tankers. Supporting someone because they are slightly less evil than someone else is ridiculous. I don't think evil has anything to do with it either way, it's entirely pragmatic who gets supported and who doesn't. I doubt Big Oil saw the loss of Kuwaiti oil tankers in terms of evil, nor anything to do with such issues as civil/human rights, freedom of speech and religion. Didn't make for nice numbers. The coup against Mossadeq also had nothing to do with those things, just numbers, and billions of barrels. As I've said, I agree that oil interests have played too large a role in the international policies of essentially ALL first world countries - including the US, but also pretty much all of Europe, Asia, etc. But, we have also been actively involved when oil was not at all involved. As for Iraq, Saddam was never a puppet of the US, as other countries (especially France and the USSR) played a far greater role in supporting him against Iran. Did we come to the aid of South Korea because of oil? Did we come to the aid of Vietnam because of oil? How much oil do we get by giving millions of tons of food to starving people around the world? As for getting involved in Iraq in 1991 - had the UN not booted Iraq out of Kuwait, it's not inconceivable that Saddam would have sent his forces into Saudi Arabia. He takes over Saudi Arabia, and suddenly he's in control of about 2/3 of the world's oil supplies. You can pretend that the only reason we didn't want that to happen was to protect Big Oil's interests, but that is a huge oversimplification. Letting one tyrant be in control of the majority of the world's oil would be a VERY bad thing, particularly when that tyrant is someone who has shown he likes dropping chemical weapons on villages of people he doesn't like. A big reason why oil has played a large role in the international affairs of EVERY developed nation (not just the US) is because of its strategic importance. As long as essentially all of our cars, trucks, planes, etc. run on oil, that is going to be the case. If you think it's just about protecting the money of oil companies, then you are ignoring the more important issue. But, at the same time, when the leader of a country effectively declares war on Americans, and offers rewards to anyone who kills an American, it would be ridiculous to just pretend he'll leave us alone if we leave him alone. Live and let live only works when BOTH groups involved use that approach. But you haven't, have you? How many Middle Easterners would think the US has ever shown that attitude there? In some countries not many, because they're subjected to anti-US, anti-Israel propaganda from their state run media. If you put your faith in media that labels all jews as monkeys and all americans as infidels, that's the view you're going to end up with. I have a friend who works for an international aid organization removing landmines from countries. He recently spent almost a month in Afghanistan, removing landmines from previous wars. Almost all of the populace there is VERY pro-US, because they're incredibly thankful that we booted the Taliban out. Of course, the rest of the middle east (and muc of the world) calls us
RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, kirk wrote: Of course, the report now is that it was not uranium at all. LOL-- yes, once it was pointed out by many the story was BS the handlers revised it. What's the saying? Let's run it up the flag pole and see if they salute it Next justification will be we have it on good authority he has suitcase nukes and we had best invade and remove them. No, what it's saying is that the media can't report things properly, and/or the officials in Turkey who initially reported it to the media didn't know what they're talking about. Just take a look at some of the initial reports that came out on 9/28, http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/28/turkey.uranium/index.html (this is the one that I first read, and was why I wasn't thinking weapons grade uranium. It clearly says: Turkish officials said they did not know whether the uranium was refined weapons-grade material or naturally occurring uranium, which would have to be refined before it could be used in a weapon. However, they said they did not believe the material posed a radiation danger. Of course, most of the rest of the media ignored that and just started claiming it was weapons grade uranium. Or, the initial BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2286597.stm Which initially said: At first officers announced gave the quantity as 15 kilograms (34.5 pounds) but later explained that this included the weight of a lead container., and gave the actual weight of the suspect material as 100 grams (of course, this report left out the statement by the Turkish officials that they weren't sure yet if it was weapons grade or what). As the story spread from newspaper to newspaper, TV, etc., the fact that the initial weight given (15 kg) included the lead container, and the statement by the Turkish officials that they didn't know if it was weapons grade uranium or what, were left out. The media not being smart enough to get things straight does not add up to a conspiracy. I notice you didn't defend ANFO cutting pillars. Perhaps you know something about explosives and brisance. I've never looked into the Oklahoma City bombing. It's entirely possible that explosives were also put on the columns. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I don't believe that JFK was killed by one gunmen. That doesn't mean there aren't people trying to smuggle radioactive material to make nuclear weapons to use in acts of terrorism. Invasion of pipelineistan soon. What a circus. Go to Afghanistan and see what the average citizen there thinks of the US. Despite the anti-US propaganda, Afghanis like us, because we have helped them far more than all those who claim that the US is a bully for what we have done there. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
Do the math. Discovery is better than me saying one thing or another. BTW I was a radiation hardness and susceptibility engineer when I still worked in the business. Shielding was what I had to determine among other things. Anyone who buys a 15kilo story under a car seat is a babe in the woods. Kirk -Original Message- From: Bryan Fullerton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 3:58 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT And you dont think the government has experts in physics? - Original Message - From: kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 9:27 AM Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT OK, so what is the gamma fluence from a 15%U235 pencil 15 kilos and 2 or so feet long? Remember effective half life decreases as sample increases since U235 is neutron sensitive. Is 15% hot enough for a bomb or just a reactor? Since it fit under a car seat what is the max diameter? Allow for Uranium load and you are left with a cylinder how thick? Halve that for wall thickness. Also we saw it was free of mounting, just something stuffed under a seat. It supposedly contained 15kilos of uranium. How many kilos can the Hulk slide under a seat? 100? so 85 kilos for lead in this case. How big would that be? Lead is about 11.4 grams per CC--uranium 19grams or so dependent on isotope ratio. What is the volume of 15 kilos of U? was long, not spherical. What is total weight? You still believe? The arrested person was a valuable member to their movement. Not just any mule. A mad dog member perhaps but valuable to them. Do you put assets on suicide runs or would you use a mule? Nope. Nice story but. . . And what does you would like that mean? My vested interest is the truth. Physics is the argument. Kirk -Original Message- From: Bryan Fullerton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 3:47 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT Oh you would like that wouldn't you. Problem is you failed to completly read the article. I read it on msn.com hm or was it yahoo.. anyway it was in a lead container hidden under the seat of a taxi. If the government was going to pull something like that they would not be so stupid. The CIA has experts that know how that stuff works alot better then you or me I would wager. Besides we know government well enough to know that if they were involved they would most likly stage it as a demonstration and set it up like the bad guys didnt know how to handle it by haveing it leak and kill a bunch of bad guys and or innocents. Now if you had said that the cab driver was a member of biofuels group and was working on a way to power his vehicle with enriched uranium then I might have believed. LOL Besides there is already enough evidence in just his character profile to know that he is trying to do it. This guy likes to kill people and preferably not one or two at a time. His idea of an afternoon of fun is to kill a whole family at least. maybe even part of his own. No evidence of any guilt or a real reason necessary. Read the human rights reports that have come out of that area. statements from the few people who have escaped over the last 12 years or so. Not a guy I would want to even know. Bryan - Original Message - From: Marc de Piolenc [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel List biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 1:42 AM Subject: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up I have just posted this on your forum, BBC Talking Point and I doubt whether it will be printed as it would be an embarrassment; Was the Enriched uranium found in Turkey real or was it a part of a ploy to lend credence to claims that Iraq is building an atomic bomb? Would 15 Kilograms of weapons grade uranium be put on show and be photographed by journalists when the radiation from it would not only be deadly but would fog photographic films and cause wonderful sparklies in a digital camera due to the radiation exiting the sensor and corrupting the memory, CMOS devices in all modern equipment are very susceptible to radiation! Why not ask an expert what would happen to anybody who was close to that much enriched uranium! Fissionables are not highly radioactive (nuclear reactors would not be controllable if they were), and it is perfectly possible and safe to stand at a reasonable distance from highly enriched uranium. Spontaneous radioactivity is stronger in a lump of plutonium because of inevitable contamination by a radioactive isotope of that metal, but even that would be tolerable at a distance of a few meters. Of course, the whole show could still be a setup, but the fact
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
Kirk, I still expect reasonable explanation as to your conveyance to Mr. George Reisman that my divergence of opinions with Mr. Falk were somehow a critique of his. Please refer to the thread Re: [biofuel] FW: The Great Power-Shortage Myth Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:14 AM Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT Do the math. Discovery is better than me saying one thing or another. BTW I was a radiation hardness and susceptibility engineer when I still worked in the business. Shielding was what I had to determine among other things. Anyone who buys a 15kilo story under a car seat is a babe in the woods. Kirk -Original Message- From: Bryan Fullerton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 3:58 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT And you dont think the government has experts in physics? - Original Message - From: kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 9:27 AM Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT OK, so what is the gamma fluence from a 15%U235 pencil 15 kilos and 2 or so feet long? Remember effective half life decreases as sample increases since U235 is neutron sensitive. Is 15% hot enough for a bomb or just a reactor? Since it fit under a car seat what is the max diameter? Allow for Uranium load and you are left with a cylinder how thick? Halve that for wall thickness. Also we saw it was free of mounting, just something stuffed under a seat. It supposedly contained 15kilos of uranium. How many kilos can the Hulk slide under a seat? 100? so 85 kilos for lead in this case. How big would that be? Lead is about 11.4 grams per CC--uranium 19grams or so dependent on isotope ratio. What is the volume of 15 kilos of U? was long, not spherical. What is total weight? You still believe? The arrested person was a valuable member to their movement. Not just any mule. A mad dog member perhaps but valuable to them. Do you put assets on suicide runs or would you use a mule? Nope. Nice story but. . . And what does you would like that mean? My vested interest is the truth. Physics is the argument. Kirk -Original Message- From: Bryan Fullerton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 3:47 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT Oh you would like that wouldn't you. Problem is you failed to completly read the article. I read it on msn.com hm or was it yahoo.. anyway it was in a lead container hidden under the seat of a taxi. If the government was going to pull something like that they would not be so stupid. The CIA has experts that know how that stuff works alot better then you or me I would wager. Besides we know government well enough to know that if they were involved they would most likly stage it as a demonstration and set it up like the bad guys didnt know how to handle it by haveing it leak and kill a bunch of bad guys and or innocents. Now if you had said that the cab driver was a member of biofuels group and was working on a way to power his vehicle with enriched uranium then I might have believed. LOL Besides there is already enough evidence in just his character profile to know that he is trying to do it. This guy likes to kill people and preferably not one or two at a time. His idea of an afternoon of fun is to kill a whole family at least. maybe even part of his own. No evidence of any guilt or a real reason necessary. Read the human rights reports that have come out of that area. statements from the few people who have escaped over the last 12 years or so. Not a guy I would want to even know. Bryan - Original Message - From: Marc de Piolenc [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel List biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 1:42 AM Subject: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up I have just posted this on your forum, BBC Talking Point and I doubt whether it will be printed as it would be an embarrassment; Was the Enriched uranium found in Turkey real or was it a part of a ploy to lend credence to claims that Iraq is building an atomic bomb? Would 15 Kilograms of weapons grade uranium be put on show and be photographed by journalists when the radiation from it would not only be deadly but would fog photographic films and cause wonderful sparklies in a digital camera due to the radiation exiting the sensor and corrupting the memory, CMOS devices in all modern equipment are very susceptible to radiation! Why not ask
RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
15,000 grams, so that's 15,000/19=790 cubic centimeters. So, if it was 2 feet long (24 inches, at 2.54 cm per inch, so 61 cm long), then the cross-sectional area must be 790/61=13 cm^2. So, assuming it's a cylinder, the radius would be slightly more than 2 cm, or a diameter of 4 cm (a little over 1.5 inches). Yeah, that would be tough to fit under a seat. (sarcasm) You wouldn't be sarcastic for long with no shielding. You left shielding out in your eagerness to stuff it under the seat. Kirk -Original Message- From: Michael S Briggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:37 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT - Original Message - From: kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, so what is the gamma fluence from a 15%U235 pencil 15 kilos and 2 or so feet long? Remember effective half life decreases as sample increases since U235 is neutron sensitive. Is 15% hot enough for a bomb or just a reactor? You wouldn't make a bomb with it still in 15% concentration, but there would be enough U-235 in there to make one (you just need to separate it out, which can be done with those centrifuges Saddam recently purchased). Since it fit under a car seat what is the max diameter? Allow for Uranium load and you are left with a cylinder how thick? Halve that for wall thickness. Also we saw it was free of mounting, just something stuffed under a seat. It supposedly contained 15kilos of uranium. How many kilos can the Hulk slide under a seat? 100? so 85 kilos for lead in this case. How big would that be? Lead is about 11.4 grams per CC--uranium 19grams or so dependent on isotope ratio. What is the volume of 15 kilos of U? was long, not spherical. 15,000 grams, so that's 15,000/19=790 cubic centimeters. So, if it was 2 feet long (24 inches, at 2.54 cm per inch, so 61 cm long), then the cross-sectional area must be 790/61=13 cm^2. So, assuming it's a cylinder, the radius would be slightly more than 2 cm, or a diameter of 4 cm (a little over 1.5 inches). Yeah, that would be tough to fit under a seat. (sarcasm) What is total weight? You still believe? What, you ask some silly rhetorical questions, and that's supposed to constitute evidence that it was a fabrication? The arrested person was a valuable member to their movement. Not just any mule. A mad dog member perhaps but valuable to them. Do you put assets on suicide runs or would you use a mule? Why was it a suicide run? Nope. Nice story but. . . And what does you would like that mean? My vested interest is the truth. Physics is the argument. I fail to see how the laws of physics give any indication that the story isn't exactly what happened, or at least what could have happened. Sure, it's mighty tempting to believe that everything the US government does is malicious. But there are countries far worse, and even though there are some ignorant and self-centered people in the US government, ours is still far and away the best form of government around. Would 15 Kilograms of weapons grade uranium be put on show and be photographed by journalists when the radiation from it would not only be deadly but would fog photographic films and cause wonderful sparklies in a digital camera due to the radiation exiting the sensor and corrupting the memory, CMOS devices in all modern equipment are very susceptible to radiation! The radiation from it would NOT be deadly, and would NOT significantly fog photographic film in the short amount of time it would be exposed to a relatively small x-ray source, at the distance photographers would be allowed to take photos from. Sure, if you brought the film very close it would expose it relatively quickly, but how likely is it that media personnel would be allowed to get close enough to it to snatch it? (yes, x-rays can travel a ways, but they would be travelling outwards in 4 pi radians (every which way), so the further away you are, the lower the density of x-rays, and considering it's a fairly small x-ray source to begin with). Why not ask an expert what would happen to anybody who was close to that much enriched uranium! Why didn't whoever wrote this ask an expert? Perhaps he knows a bit about nuclear physics, but if he does, it's clearly being clouded by an over-eagerness to believe that the US government lies about everything, and that everyone else in the world is friendly and would rather snuggle with kittens than kill the US infidels and find their way to heaven as a martyr? Fissionables are not highly radioactive (nuclear reactors would not be controllable if they were), and it is perfectly possible and safe to stand at a reasonable distance from highly enriched uranium. Spontaneous radioactivity is stronger in a lump of plutonium because of inevitable contamination by a radioactive isotope of that metal, but even that would
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
Todd wrote: Oh shit!!! Isn't this close to the same stuff that Bernard Cohen was willing to eat a gram of in front of national media? Didn't Reagan offer to store it under his desk in the Oval Office? What's your worry? Now please...and I do mean PLEASE tell me, after you've belched irradiated gaswhat the hell does this have to do with biofuels or their ability to displace sub-vinyl, sub-cutaneous or any other placements of radioactive feedstocks? Or have I simply stumbled upon a subsidiary internet branch of the National Enquirer? George Schlicten(doom) It's about oil, thus not strictly off-topic - though Iraq isn't a topic I expect a calm, objective debate on, no way there won't be flame wars. To throw the fat in the fire, so to speak - from another list today (posted by an American): It [using WVO as fuel] also helps decrease the need for the US to attack other nations like Iraq so they can steal their oil. Aneed any excuse will do, it seems. How does this something-or-other under a car seat compare with Kennedy's rather clearcut movies of Russian missiles headed for Cuba? (And war was averted that time.) Not quite as convincing, somehow, this and other evidence of Iraqi - or rather Saddamite (Satan personified) - WMDs. Re Blair's Iraq Dossier: If he [Blair] wanted to prove that Saddam had nuclear weapons or was within an ace of getting and using them, or was planning to launch a chemical or biological assault on another country, he would have needed something more than this... What the document entirely fails to do - and possibly could never have done - is show that Saddam Hussein is a current threat, or what his future intentions are... And Mr Dalyell makes a powerful point when he says that Saddam must know that if he ever uses a nuclear device he would be instantly 'flattened.' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2277826.stm Blair's case for the prosecution Now what does all that remind me of? Weak. If there were a smoking gun we'd definitely know all about it beyond any doubt. Just oil. And politics. The two hopelessly confused as ever, when it comes to the US. Keith - Original Message - From: kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:42 AM Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT 15,000 grams, so that's 15,000/19=790 cubic centimeters. So, if it was 2 feet long (24 inches, at 2.54 cm per inch, so 61 cm long), then the cross-sectional area must be 790/61=13 cm^2. So, assuming it's a cylinder, the radius would be slightly more than 2 cm, or a diameter of 4 cm (a little over 1.5 inches). Yeah, that would be tough to fit under a seat. (sarcasm) You wouldn't be sarcastic for long with no shielding. You left shielding out in your eagerness to stuff it under the seat. Kirk -Original Message- From: Michael S Briggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:37 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT - Original Message - From: kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, so what is the gamma fluence from a 15%U235 pencil 15 kilos and 2 or so feet long? Remember effective half life decreases as sample increases since U235 is neutron sensitive. Is 15% hot enough for a bomb or just a reactor? You wouldn't make a bomb with it still in 15% concentration, but there would be enough U-235 in there to make one (you just need to separate it out, which can be done with those centrifuges Saddam recently purchased). etc etc Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: Now what does all that remind me of? Weak. If there were a smoking gun we'd definitely know all about it beyond any doubt. Just oil. And politics. The two hopelessly confused as ever, when it comes to the US. I agree with you about oil and politics being hopelessly intertwined, and that oil (along with political gain) does have too much to do with our current motivation towards going after Iraq. But, there ARE other valid reasons as well. Do you know anyone from Iraq? I work with a physicist who fled Iraq with his family years ago to escape. He, along with many other Iraqis, want Saddam ousted from power, and a true democratic government established. His regime is a regime of terror - not only threatening Israel and the US, but also neighboring countries, and killing large numbers of people within Iraq because of their ethnicity, religion, or just to test some weapons. If Germany had large oil reserves, then back in 1941 would you have been saying that we shouldn't get involved militarily in what was going on in Europe, because our motivation must be based strictly on oil, since there is oil there? The fact is, some people are just plain evil (malicious, egocentric, and dangerous). Personally, I don't think our first priority right now should be going after Saddam. It should be securing the cold war era nukes and fissionable material (that are relatively poorly guarded) in the countries of the former Soviet Union, to try to prevent the MANY countries/organizations that want to get their hands on it from doing so. We should help Russia and the other countries build their economies, in exchange for letting us glassify all the fissionable material that's just sitting around. Mike - Michael S. Briggs Never judge a man until you've UNH Physics Department walked a mile in his shoes. Then (603) 862-2828 when you do judge him, you'll be a mile away and you'll have his shoes. --- Keith - Original Message - From: kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:42 AM Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT 15,000 grams, so that's 15,000/19=790 cubic centimeters. So, if it was 2 feet long (24 inches, at 2.54 cm per inch, so 61 cm long), then the cross-sectional area must be 790/61=13 cm^2. So, assuming it's a cylinder, the radius would be slightly more than 2 cm, or a diameter of 4 cm (a little over 1.5 inches). Yeah, that would be tough to fit under a seat. (sarcasm) You wouldn't be sarcastic for long with no shielding. You left shielding out in your eagerness to stuff it under the seat. Kirk -Original Message- From: Michael S Briggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:37 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT - Original Message - From: kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, so what is the gamma fluence from a 15%U235 pencil 15 kilos and 2 or so feet long? Remember effective half life decreases as sample increases since U235 is neutron sensitive. Is 15% hot enough for a bomb or just a reactor? You wouldn't make a bomb with it still in 15% concentration, but there would be enough U-235 in there to make one (you just need to separate it out, which can be done with those centrifuges Saddam recently purchased). etc etc Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:13, you wrote: Personally, I don't think our first priority right now should be going after Saddam. It should be securing the cold war era nukes and fissionable material (that are relatively poorly guarded) in the countries of the former Soviet Union, to try to prevent the MANY countries/organizations that want to get their hands on it from doing so. We should help Russia and the other countries build their economies, in exchange for letting us glassify all the fissionable material that's just sitting around. Mike I think all fissionable material should be glassified, including all the material in the US. Our govt is talking about putting a tax levy to fund the war - I am trying to think of a way to not have to give it to them. (I admit it - I dont like Saddam, the Israeli political system, Geo Bush et al, our weak Prime Minister Little John Howard - but I don't think Saddam is the serious threat that the powers that be say he is.) My 2c worth, Doug Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
At 09:13 AM 10/1/2002 -0400, you wrote: On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: Now what does all that remind me of? Weak. If there were a smoking gun we'd definitely know all about it beyond any doubt. Just oil. And politics. The two hopelessly confused as ever, when it comes to the US. I agree with you about oil and politics being hopelessly intertwined, and that oil (along with political gain) does have too much to do with our current motivation towards going after Iraq. But, there ARE other valid reasons as well. Do you know anyone from Iraq? I work with a physicist who fled Iraq with his family years ago to escape. He, along with many other Iraqis, want Saddam ousted from power, and a true democratic government established. His regime is a regime of terror - not only threatening Israel and the US, but also neighboring countries, and killing large numbers of people within Iraq because of their ethnicity, religion, or just to test some weapons. If Germany had large oil reserves, then back in 1941 would you have been saying that we shouldn't get involved militarily in what was going on in Europe, because our motivation must be based strictly on oil, since there is oil there? You said so also and it was a courageous president who helped Europe, behind the back of the congress and senate. Not until Japan attacked you because of ? (yes oil), you got involved in the second world war. It might also be a surprise to you that Soviet lost 100 on every allied soldier killed and that US contributed with 10% of the allied forces. But after the war my generation benefited from great entertainment and a fantastic time, we enjoyed very much all the war movies that showed US single handed winning the second world war in Europe. It was the great production capacity of US and the oil, that saved Europe and we are always in debt to US. Because it saved Europe in the end, not Hollywood heroes. US have been a great friend to Europe, that is for sure. I am not saying this because I am against US in any way, I am on the record of being very positive and worked many years with US. I am saying this because it is the truth and must be said. The fact is, some people are just plain evil (malicious, egocentric, and dangerous). Personally, I don't think our first priority right now should be going after Saddam. It should be securing the cold war era nukes and fissionable material (that are relatively poorly guarded) in the countries of the former Soviet Union, to try to prevent the MANY countries/organizations that want to get their hands on it from doing so. We should help Russia and the other countries build their economies, in exchange for letting us glassify all the fissionable material that's just sitting around. Mike - Michael S. Briggs Never judge a man until you've UNH Physics Department walked a mile in his shoes. Then (603) 862-2828 when you do judge him, you'll be a mile away and you'll have his shoes. --- Keith - Original Message - From: kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:42 AM Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT 15,000 grams, so that's 15,000/19=790 cubic centimeters. So, if it was 2 feet long (24 inches, at 2.54 cm per inch, so 61 cm long), then the cross-sectional area must be 790/61=13 cm^2. So, assuming it's a cylinder, the radius would be slightly more than 2 cm, or a diameter of 4 cm (a little over 1.5 inches). Yeah, that would be tough to fit under a seat. (sarcasm) You wouldn't be sarcastic for long with no shielding. You left shielding out in your eagerness to stuff it under the seat. Kirk -Original Message- From: Michael S Briggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:37 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT - Original Message - From: kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, so what is the gamma fluence from a 15%U235 pencil 15 kilos and 2 or so feet long? Remember effective half life decreases as sample increases since U235 is neutron sensitive. Is 15% hot enough for a bomb or just a reactor? You wouldn't make a bomb with it still in 15% concentration, but there would be enough U-235 in there to make one (you just need to separate it out, which can be done with those centrifuges Saddam recently purchased). etc etc Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send
RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, kirk wrote: 15,000 grams, so that's 15,000/19=790 cubic centimeters. So, if it was 2 feet long (24 inches, at 2.54 cm per inch, so 61 cm long), then the cross-sectional area must be 790/61=13 cm^2. So, assuming it's a cylinder, the radius would be slightly more than 2 cm, or a diameter of 4 cm (a little over 1.5 inches). Yeah, that would be tough to fit under a seat. (sarcasm) You wouldn't be sarcastic for long with no shielding. You left shielding out in your eagerness to stuff it under the seat. Uranium enriched to 15% U-235 isn't all that radioactive. 85% of the material is U-238 - I've held a large bar of U-238 in my hand. A layer of lead would stop the x-rays from the U-235, and you could drop the entire thing in some water to help block the neutrons. Of course, why bother doing that when most terrorists would eagerly die for their cause? Why is any shielding necessary to protect someone who wants to die for his cause, particularly when the material to be shielded from isn't all that radioactive? That's a big factor that many people seem to keep forgetting - logic goes flying out the window when you're dealing with people who WANT to die for their cause. Prior to 9/11/01, everyone felt that if somebody hijacks an airplane, you should just do what the hijackers ask, because previously hijackers had almost always just landed the plane somewhere else - after all, they didn't want to die themselves, right? Why would extremists who eagerly fly planes into buildings be concerned about shielding themselves from some mildly radioactive material, especially when smuggling that material would allow them to kill millions of infidels? Mike - Michael S. Briggs Never judge a man until you've UNH Physics Department walked a mile in his shoes. Then (603) 862-2828 when you do judge him, you'll be a mile away and you'll have his shoes. --- Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
Go live in Iraq then. While you are there tell one of his elite guard that you dont like the way he dresses.. see how long you last.. - Original Message - From: Doug Foskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:00 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:13, you wrote: Personally, I don't think our first priority right now should be going after Saddam. It should be securing the cold war era nukes and fissionable material (that are relatively poorly guarded) in the countries of the former Soviet Union, to try to prevent the MANY countries/organizations that want to get their hands on it from doing so. We should help Russia and the other countries build their economies, in exchange for letting us glassify all the fissionable material that's just sitting around. Mike I think all fissionable material should be glassified, including all the material in the US. Our govt is talking about putting a tax levy to fund the war - I am trying to think of a way to not have to give it to them. (I admit it - I dont like Saddam, the Israeli political system, Geo Bush et al, our weak Prime Minister Little John Howard - but I don't think Saddam is the serious threat that the powers that be say he is.) My 2c worth, Doug Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
I think that this song pretty much puts it all together.LOL kris From: ozregeneration Date: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:00 am The famous Vietnam War protest anthem written and performed by Country Joe McDonald at the historic Woodstock concert in 1969, has been re-released with updated lyrics to serve the rapidly growing anti-Iraqi War movement. http://www.healingcelebrations.com/iraqiwarsong.htm http://www.healingcelebrations.com/ra/isong.ram MUSICAL LYRICS: Come on all of you dumbed down men. The son of a Bush needs your help again. He's got himself in a terrorist jam. When daddy sent chemicals off to old Sadam, so Roll up your sleeves for vaccines in your arm, They don't tell you that their doing you harm! And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for Most know it's the same old scam, next stop is old Bhagdad. And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates Well, we've got no mind to question why, whoopee we're all gonna die Now prepare yourselves generals for the big blast India and Pakistan are heating up fast Why you should go out and kill Afghans is Cause the only good Taliban is one that's dead. They say global peace can only be won When they blast us all to kingdom come And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for The clueless just don't give a damn, where the hell is Pakistan? And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates With Prozak minds we don't care to know why, whoopee we're all gonna die. Now come on wall street don't be slow, why man this is war so go-go. There's plenty of big fortunes to be made, by supplying the Chinese with the tools of its trade. Just hope and pray that if they start the bombing, they drop them on Osama Bin Laden. And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for Most know it's the same old scam, Wag-the-dog at old Sadam. And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates Well, we've got no time to wonder why, whoopee we're all gonna die. So come on mothers throughout the land pack your boys off to old Bhagdad come on fathers don't hesitate send your girls too before their wedding date Be the first ones on your block to have your kids come home in a box And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for The clueless just don't give a damn, about the oil in Afghanistan And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates Well, Rockefeller says the population's too high, and half of us need to die. So come on all of you dumbed down men, The son of a Bush needs your help again, He's got us all in a terrible jam. Ousting daddy's partner old Sadam, So don't roll up your sleeves for any shots in your arm. It's just smarter to stay on the farm. __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Hakan Falk wrote: If Germany had large oil reserves, then back in 1941 would you have been saying that we shouldn't get involved militarily in what was going on in Europe, because our motivation must be based strictly on oil, since there is oil there? You said so also and it was a courageous president who helped Europe, behind the back of the congress and senate. Not until Japan attacked you because of ? (yes oil), you got involved in the second world war. It might We were involved before then, but not with our own personnel. We had already sent large amounts of weapons to Great Britain (including 50 destroyer battleships), in exchange for letting us lease military bases to set up military outposts. also be a surprise to you that Soviet lost 100 on every allied soldier killed and Yup, that was unfortunate. Of course, that number (I think the Soviet Union lost 25 million people roughly) also includes a very large number of non-military personnel. And, it should be added that initially the Soviet Union had signed an agreement with Germany to be partially on their side, when the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east on September 17, 1939. Germany then turned on the Soviets, and attacked them about 18 months later. that US contributed with 10% of the allied forces. But after the war my generation benefited from great entertainment and a fantastic time, we enjoyed very much all the war movies that showed US single handed winning the second world war in Europe. Hollywood producers do not represent the sentiment of the American public. They make their living by either making stories up, or glorifying (improving upon) historical occurrences. I'd say that without the help of the US, it is not unlikely to believe that today much of Europe would be called Germany and be covered by flags with swastikas. However, that is not the same as saying that we single-handedly won the war - rather that we played a role that was integral in defetaing the axis powers (both in terms of materials - oil, weapons, etc., as well as in military personnel). Our naval and air forces made a huge impact. The UN Secutiry Council was created to make sure that such a thing never occurs again, when a tyrant is allowed to invade and conquer countries at his own whim, while other countries sit idly by thinking well, he hasn't invaded us yet, so we're not going to do anything. If in 1939, the US, the Soviets, Britain, and France immediately agreed to attack Germany after Hitler sent his forces into Poland, how many millions of lives would have been saved? Thus, the UN Security Council NEEDS to take action when another tyrant starts invading countries at his own whim, and killing people within his own country that he doesn't like. We can't just sit idly by and say well, he hasn't directly invaded our territory yet, so we're not going to do anything. Unless we learn the errors of our past, we are doomed to repeat them. The UN should model its actions on the policies of Winston Chirchill and FDR - in particular, FDR's Four Freedoms Speech, and acting together to create such a world (i.e. his speech to congress on January 6, 1941 calling for congress to act to help establish a world founded on freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. But we're veering a bit off topic now. :) Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
- Original Message - From: Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 09:41 Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Hakan Falk wrote: also be a surprise to you that Soviet lost 100 on every allied soldier killed and Yup, that was unfortunate. Of course, that number (I think the Soviet Union lost 25 million people roughly) also includes a very large number of non-military personnel. Don't forget the Soviet Union would send in a battalion of men with maybe 2 dozen pistols, a dozen rifles, and 1 or 2 tanks ( if the battalion was lucky ) because they had a bad weapon shortage ( this almost lost them the war ), the rest of the men were expected to pick up the weapons of there fallen comrades and captured enemy weapons. Tactics like this, lead to mass combat fatalities. If I remember right, the Soviet Union and Germany did not sign the Geneva Convention regarding each others solders, so prisoners were treated worse than other wise and many died for this reason alone. Greg H. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:13, you wrote: Personally, I don't think our first priority right now should be going after Saddam. It should be securing the cold war era nukes and fissionable material (that are relatively poorly guarded) in the countries of the former Soviet Union, to try to prevent the MANY countries/organizations that want to get their hands on it from doing so. We should help Russia and the other countries build their economies, in exchange for letting us glassify all the fissionable material that's just sitting around. Mike I think all fissionable material should be glassified, including all the material in the US. Our govt is talking about putting a tax levy to fund the war - I am trying to think of a way to not have to give it to them. (I admit it - I dont like Saddam, the Israeli political system, Geo Bush et al, our weak Prime Minister Little John Howard - but I don't think Saddam is the serious threat that the powers that be say he is.) My 2c worth, Doug That's worth more than 2c, Doug - especially two Australians cents! Keith Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
Michael S. Briggs wrote: On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: Now what does all that remind me of? Weak. If there were a smoking gun we'd definitely know all about it beyond any doubt. Just oil. And politics. The two hopelessly confused as ever, when it comes to the US. I agree with you about oil and politics being hopelessly intertwined, and that oil (along with political gain) does have too much to do with our current motivation towards going after Iraq. But, there ARE other valid reasons as well. Do you know anyone from Iraq? Yes. I work with a physicist who fled Iraq with his family years ago to escape. He, along with many other Iraqis, want Saddam ousted from power, and a true democratic government established. So what? There are Americans who would like to overthrow the Bush regime too, and by force, and with the same stated aims. His regime is a regime of terror - not only threatening Israel and the US, but also neighboring countries, and killing large numbers of people within Iraq because of their ethnicity, religion, or just to test some weapons. The US has supported many brutal disctatorships in the past which did just that - ah, but he's *our* dictator. And indeed, included among them for quite a long time was Saddam Hussein, just as brutal then as he is now. Times change, eh? Yesterday's freedom fighter, tomorrow's terrorist. If Germany had large oil reserves, then back in 1941 would you have been saying that we shouldn't get involved militarily in what was going on in Europe, because our motivation must be based strictly on oil, since there is oil there? Are you quite certain you really want to ask me that, Mike? Because, frankly, it doesn't say very much for you. Anyway, I've never said US motivations in the Middle East are strictly based on oil, and I've argued with those who have said that - just as much as with those who've claimed they're not based on oil at all. The fact is, some people are just plain evil (malicious, egocentric, and dangerous). That doesn't bother the US much, if at all. Evil's a bit emotive, but malicious, egocentric, and dangerous, sure: Pinochet, Mobutu, Savimbi, Marcos, Suharto... hey, what a long list, such nice fellers. Sharon. You're backing Musharraf in Pakistan now, a military dictator rolling back freedoms, allegedly sponsoring terrorist action in Indian Kashmir. You backed a right bunch of bloodthirty murderers in Afghanistan. If you declared war on Iraq over Kuwait, then why not on China over Tibet, or on Indonesia over East Timor? The US was deeply involved in the Indonesian genocide in the 60s, about a million Chinese killed. And so on and on. Whether leaders are malicious, egocentric, and dangerous just doesn't figure at all, it's whose side they're on, whose interests they serve, and that's all. Personally, I don't think our first priority right now should be going after Saddam. Going after Saddam, taking him out... don't you feel a little uneasy about this depiction of Iraq as Saddam, an entire nation and people reduced to one ultra-demonized man? When you see someone talking of Saddam you know what's coming next: calls for a righteous war. Saddam Hussein is not a maniacal monster, only the war-hungry in the US and Britain etc see him that way. He's not exactly a nice guy, you wouldn't want your sister to marry him, he's certainly most brutal, but no more so than many other brutish dictators around the world the US has propped up over the last 50 years, not as bad as some, smarter than most. There's no evidence he's mad, nor even remotely irrational, nor demonic. He had a go-ahead from the US to invade Kuwait (April Glaspie). And he knows very well that using any WMDs he may have would get him rubbed right out very fast, and even short of that it would lose him his major victory so far - the withering of support for the US. It would unite the whole world against him. He's not dumb. He's no threat. So how much does this next war really have to do with a rogue nation which allegedly has WMDs (of which there's no proof), and if they do have them, so what, or with the so-called war on terrorism, or with Big Oil interests, or with US elections and domestic popularity polls? It doesn't have much if anything to do with your other valid reasons. It should be securing the cold war era nukes and fissionable material (that are relatively poorly guarded) in the countries of the former Soviet Union, to try to prevent the MANY countries/organizations that want to get their hands on it from doing so. We should help Russia and the other countries build their economies, in exchange for letting us glassify all the fissionable material that's just sitting around. The IMF reduced Russia's economy by 50%, something never before achieved in peacetime (and claims it as a success). This has done a great deal to make Russia's nuclear material very much less secure. The US has reduced its funding for Russia
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
At 11:41 AM 10/1/2002 -0400, you wrote: On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Hakan Falk wrote: If Germany had large oil reserves, then back in 1941 would you have been saying that we shouldn't get involved militarily in what was going on in Europe, because our motivation must be based strictly on oil, since there is oil there? You said so also and it was a courageous president who helped Europe, behind the back of the congress and senate. Not until Japan attacked you because of ? (yes oil), you got involved in the second world war. It might We were involved before then, but not with our own personnel. We had already sent large amounts of weapons to Great Britain (including 50 destroyer battleships), in exchange for letting us lease military bases to set up military outposts. Exactly what I said, your president did that on his own initiative with the outposts as an excuse. This because he could do it without the approval of the congress and senate. It was no political or popular support in US at the time, since the major attitude was isolationistic. also be a surprise to you that Soviet lost 100 on every allied soldier killed and Yup, that was unfortunate. Of course, that number (I think the Soviet Union lost 25 million people roughly) 5 million soldiers against 500,000 soldiers for the western alliance. Not including civilian casualties. It is actually one to ten for Soviet Union and I made a mistake on the keyboard before. also includes a very large number of non-military personnel. And, it should be added that initially the Soviet Union had signed an agreement with Germany to be partially on their side, when the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east on September 17, 1939. Germany then turned on the Soviets, and attacked them about 18 months later. It always puzzled me that UK and France started the second world war by declaring war with Germany and not Soviet Union, based on the treaty with Poland they should have. After all, Germany took the German one third of Poland that was allocated to Poland by the peace in first world war and Soviet Union the other two thirds. But if you read Mein Kampf you realize that Hitlers real enemies was Communism/Zionism and maybe the events following Poland was unexpected and he had reasons to believe that Britain/France would stay on the sidelines. My parents was voluntaries in Finland (nurse and surgeon), 1939 they fought against Germany/Soviet Union and 1942 Germany helped Finland against Soviet Union. After the second peace treaty with Soviet Union the Finish had to throw out the Germans by force. that US contributed with 10% of the allied forces. But after the war my generation benefited from great entertainment and a fantastic time, we enjoyed very much all the war movies that showed US single handed winning the second world war in Europe. Hollywood producers do not represent the sentiment of the American public. They make their living by either making stories up, or glorifying (improving upon) historical occurrences. I'd say that without the help of the US, it is not unlikely to believe that today much of Europe would be called Germany and be covered by flags with swastikas. I already agreed with that and it was mainly the general US population with workers and the manufacturing that made the difference. The US troops was also a very important contribution, but slightly over valued by Hollywood as engaged in the war efforts and the continuing Cold War. However, that is not the same as saying that we single-handedly won the war - rather that we played a role that was integral in defetaing the axis powers (both in terms of materials - oil, weapons, etc., as well as in military personnel). Our naval and air forces made a huge impact. Naval in the sense of production of transportation with convoy defender ships was huge and crucial. Air force in the sense of huge development and production of bombers for preparation before and after the invasion. The lonely defense by Britain's air and navy after the retreat from the mainland, was the hugest and most heroic fight in the second world war, supported by the US president not the US law makers. The UN Secutiry Council was created to make sure that such a thing never occurs again, when a tyrant is allowed to invade and conquer countries at his own whim, while other countries sit idly by thinking well, he hasn't invaded us yet, so we're not going to do anything. If in 1939, the US, the Soviets, Britain, and France immediately agreed to attack Germany after Hitler sent his forces into Poland, how many millions of lives would have been saved? Britain and France actually did do it and tried to provoke Germany to attack the Mignot Line of defense. US was not involved and declared politically that they were not interested. Soviet Union was on Germany's side by agreement. As response, Germany bypassed the Mignot Line trough Netherlands and Belgium,
RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
ARGH! U238 is not U235 and weapons grade is 60%U235 minimum. 15% is reactor fuel. Shielding is expressed in % attenuation. Gamma is not Alpha or Beta. How thick a layer to drop gamma fluence to what level? You are making assertions without factual data. U238 goes by the monniker depleted uranium-- for a reason. Your some lead, some water scenario shows you have not researched the parameters at all and are willing to accept any BS as long as it comes from a source you like. Why don't you ask a blaster if ANFO can cut concrete columns from out in the street as in Okla City. Any licensed blaster should do.Most miners could tell you as well. It seems most people accept that fabrication as well. If you continue to think Arabs are brain dead twits anxious to enter paradise with the first suicide mission at hand they are going to eat your lunch. Keep thinking happy thoughts if that's what it takes--but it will cost you. Oh well. Kirk -Original Message- From: Michael S Briggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 8:27 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, kirk wrote: 15,000 grams, so that's 15,000/19=790 cubic centimeters. So, if it was 2 feet long (24 inches, at 2.54 cm per inch, so 61 cm long), then the cross-sectional area must be 790/61=13 cm^2. So, assuming it's a cylinder, the radius would be slightly more than 2 cm, or a diameter of 4 cm (a little over 1.5 inches). Yeah, that would be tough to fit under a seat. (sarcasm) You wouldn't be sarcastic for long with no shielding. You left shielding out in your eagerness to stuff it under the seat. Uranium enriched to 15% U-235 isn't all that radioactive. 85% of the material is U-238 - I've held a large bar of U-238 in my hand. A layer of lead would stop the x-rays from the U-235, and you could drop the entire thing in some water to help block the neutrons. Of course, why bother doing that when most terrorists would eagerly die for their cause? Why is any shielding necessary to protect someone who wants to die for his cause, particularly when the material to be shielded from isn't all that radioactive? That's a big factor that many people seem to keep forgetting - logic goes flying out the window when you're dealing with people who WANT to die for their cause. Prior to 9/11/01, everyone felt that if somebody hijacks an airplane, you should just do what the hijackers ask, because previously hijackers had almost always just landed the plane somewhere else - after all, they didn't want to die themselves, right? Why would extremists who eagerly fly planes into buildings be concerned about shielding themselves from some mildly radioactive material, especially when smuggling that material would allow them to kill millions of infidels? Mike - Michael S. Briggs Never judge a man until you've UNH Physics Department walked a mile in his shoes. Then (603) 862-2828 when you do judge him, you'll be a mile away and you'll have his shoes. --- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 9/19/2002 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: So what? There are Americans who would like to overthrow the Bush regime too, and by force, and with the same stated aims. The difference is that the majority of Iraqis want Hussein out. The US has supported many brutal disctatorships in the past which did just that - ah, but he's *our* dictator. And indeed, included among them for quite a long time was Saddam Hussein, just as brutal then as he is now. Times change, eh? Yesterday's freedom fighter, tomorrow's terrorist. I agree - I don't think we should ever give any aid to any country that doesn't guarantee all of its citizens basic civil/human rights (freedom of speech, religion, etc.). We have made huge mistakes in our dealings in the middle east. We supported Hussein in his war on Iran because we decided Iran was the lesser of two evils - primarily because Iran attacked Kuwaiti oil tankers. Supporting someone because they are slightly less evil than someone else is ridiculous. But, at the same time, when the leader of a country effectively declares war on Americans, and offers rewards to anyone who kills an American, it would be ridiculous to just pretend he'll leave us alone if we leave him alone. Live and let live only works when BOTH groups involved use that approach. If Germany had large oil reserves, then back in 1941 would you have been saying that we shouldn't get involved militarily in what was going on in Europe, because our motivation must be based strictly on oil, since there is oil there? Are you quite certain you really want to ask me that, Mike? Because, frankly, it doesn't say very much for you. Anyway, I've never said US Why? Anyway, I've never said US motivations in the Middle East are strictly based on oil, and I've argued with those who have said that - just as much as with those who've claimed they're not based on oil at all. That was just my point. The fact is, some people are just plain evil (malicious, egocentric, and dangerous). That doesn't bother the US much, if at all. Evil's a bit emotive, but malicious, egocentric, and dangerous, sure: Pinochet, Mobutu, Savimbi, Marcos, Suharto... hey, what a long list, such nice fellers. Sharon. You're backing Musharraf in Pakistan now, a military dictator rolling back freedoms, allegedly sponsoring terrorist action in Indian Kashmir. I think it's ridiculous that we back Musharraf. Back to the issue of backing the lesser of two evils - not a good policy. I also don't like Sharon, but he is the elected leader of a democratic country. That's a big difference between a self-appointed dictator. You backed a right bunch of bloodthirty murderers in Afghanistan. Who, the Northern Alliance? I agree, we shouldn't have backed them at all. But, everytime there's any mention of sending US soldiers to take out a leader so we can help the people establish a democracy, people start screaming that we have no right to send troops in, to take out a leader, etc. etc.. So, instead we end up supporting an opposition group, which is a horrible way to do it. The model we follow for ANY military involvement around the world should be what we did with Germany and Japan in WWII - defeat the dictator, and follow MacArthur's plan for establishing a democracy in its place. But, the UN is totally opposed to that. They'd rather leave a tyrant in power and put sanctions on the country, which just leads to the populace starving. Oh yeah, that's more humane. If you declared war on Iraq over Kuwait, then why not on China over Tibet, or on Indonesia over East Timor? The US was deeply We can't get involved in EVERY problem around the world. How about this - why is it that the same people who wanted the US to take military action against China for invading Tibet criticize the US for taking military action in other similar cases (Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Bosnia, Somalia, etc.)? We had agreements to protect those countries, and came to their aid when they were attacked. People then scream that we shouldn't try to play international policemen. But the same people then yell at us for not stepping in when other countries are attacked. So, which is it - are we bad because we come to the aid of some countries in need, or are we bad because we don't come to the aid of every country that's in need? Why isn't some of the blame placed on the people who are actually committing the atrocities in the first place, rather than the US for not stopping them all the time? (and then blaming us for when we do, saying it's none of our business) Did all of the free Tibet protesters ever wonder if perhaps the US would have been more likely to do something if we didn't get criticized (by the same people, and much of the world) every time we involved ourselves in other similar world affairs? And so on and on. Whether leaders are malicious, egocentric, and dangerous just doesn't figure at all, it's whose side they're on, whose interests they serve, and
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
Mike Probably Sigh... would be the best response. On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: So what? There are Americans who would like to overthrow the Bush regime too, and by force, and with the same stated aims. The difference is that the majority of Iraqis want Hussein out. Again, how do you know that? It's nothing but hearsay. And even if they did, what does that have to do with the US? It's simply none of your business. The US has supported many brutal disctatorships in the past which did just that - ah, but he's *our* dictator. And indeed, included among them for quite a long time was Saddam Hussein, just as brutal then as he is now. Times change, eh? Yesterday's freedom fighter, tomorrow's terrorist. I agree - I don't think we should ever give any aid to any country that doesn't guarantee all of its citizens basic civil/human rights (freedom of speech, religion, etc.). We have made huge mistakes in our dealings in the middle east. We supported Hussein in his war on Iran because we decided Iran was the lesser of two evils - primarily because Iran attacked Kuwaiti oil tankers. Supporting someone because they are slightly less evil than someone else is ridiculous. I don't think evil has anything to do with it either way, it's entirely pragmatic who gets supported and who doesn't. I doubt Big Oil saw the loss of Kuwaiti oil tankers in terms of evil, nor anything to do with such issues as civil/human rights, freedom of speech and religion. Didn't make for nice numbers. The coup against Mossadeq also had nothing to do with those things, just numbers, and billions of barrels. But, at the same time, when the leader of a country effectively declares war on Americans, and offers rewards to anyone who kills an American, it would be ridiculous to just pretend he'll leave us alone if we leave him alone. Live and let live only works when BOTH groups involved use that approach. But you haven't, have you? How many Middle Easterners would think the US has ever shown that attitude there? If Germany had large oil reserves, then back in 1941 would you have been saying that we shouldn't get involved militarily in what was going on in Europe, because our motivation must be based strictly on oil, since there is oil there? Are you quite certain you really want to ask me that, Mike? Because, frankly, it doesn't say very much for you. Anyway, I've never said US Why? If you insist. Because it's a spurious comparison, historically and in all other ways, there is nothing in common between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Hitler's Germany; because oil played nothing remotely like the role then that it does now - as Hakan noted, it was a major issue in Japan's entering the war, but oil in today's Middle East is a completely different ball-game; and because of Godwin's Law - ie, it's a loaded question, and that reflects badly on you. Anyway, I've never said US motivations in the Middle East are strictly based on oil, and I've argued with those who have said that - just as much as with those who've claimed they're not based on oil at all. That was just my point. No, it was my point, and you agreed with it, then changed it for the sake of this Germany question. The fact is, some people are just plain evil (malicious, egocentric, and dangerous). That doesn't bother the US much, if at all. Evil's a bit emotive, but malicious, egocentric, and dangerous, sure: Pinochet, Mobutu, Savimbi, Marcos, Suharto... hey, what a long list, such nice fellers. Sharon. You're backing Musharraf in Pakistan now, a military dictator rolling back freedoms, allegedly sponsoring terrorist action in Indian Kashmir. I think it's ridiculous that we back Musharraf. Back to the issue of backing the lesser of two evils - not a good policy. I also don't like Sharon, but he is the elected leader of a democratic country. That's a big difference between a self-appointed dictator. That also has nothing to do with it, US foreign policy doesn't care if leaders are democratically elected or not. Allende was democratically elected. The US seems rather to prefer dictators, less complicated. You backed a right bunch of bloodthirty murderers in Afghanistan. Who, the Northern Alliance? I agree, we shouldn't have backed them at all. But, everytime there's any mention of sending US soldiers to take out a leader so we can help the people establish a democracy, Sheesh!!! You are deluded. Go and study your history! people start screaming that we have no right to send troops in, to take out a leader, etc. etc.. So, instead we end up supporting an opposition group, which is a horrible way to do it. The model we follow for ANY military involvement around the world should be what we did with Germany and Japan in WWII - defeat the dictator, and follow MacArthur's plan for establishing a democracy in its place. But, the UN is totally opposed to that. They'd rather leave a tyrant in power and
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
And you dont think the government has experts in physics? - Original Message - From: kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 9:27 AM Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT OK, so what is the gamma fluence from a 15%U235 pencil 15 kilos and 2 or so feet long? Remember effective half life decreases as sample increases since U235 is neutron sensitive. Is 15% hot enough for a bomb or just a reactor? Since it fit under a car seat what is the max diameter? Allow for Uranium load and you are left with a cylinder how thick? Halve that for wall thickness. Also we saw it was free of mounting, just something stuffed under a seat. It supposedly contained 15kilos of uranium. How many kilos can the Hulk slide under a seat? 100? so 85 kilos for lead in this case. How big would that be? Lead is about 11.4 grams per CC--uranium 19grams or so dependent on isotope ratio. What is the volume of 15 kilos of U? was long, not spherical. What is total weight? You still believe? The arrested person was a valuable member to their movement. Not just any mule. A mad dog member perhaps but valuable to them. Do you put assets on suicide runs or would you use a mule? Nope. Nice story but. . . And what does you would like that mean? My vested interest is the truth. Physics is the argument. Kirk -Original Message- From: Bryan Fullerton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 3:47 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT Oh you would like that wouldn't you. Problem is you failed to completly read the article. I read it on msn.com hm or was it yahoo.. anyway it was in a lead container hidden under the seat of a taxi. If the government was going to pull something like that they would not be so stupid. The CIA has experts that know how that stuff works alot better then you or me I would wager. Besides we know government well enough to know that if they were involved they would most likly stage it as a demonstration and set it up like the bad guys didnt know how to handle it by haveing it leak and kill a bunch of bad guys and or innocents. Now if you had said that the cab driver was a member of biofuels group and was working on a way to power his vehicle with enriched uranium then I might have believed. LOL Besides there is already enough evidence in just his character profile to know that he is trying to do it. This guy likes to kill people and preferably not one or two at a time. His idea of an afternoon of fun is to kill a whole family at least. maybe even part of his own. No evidence of any guilt or a real reason necessary. Read the human rights reports that have come out of that area. statements from the few people who have escaped over the last 12 years or so. Not a guy I would want to even know. Bryan - Original Message - From: Marc de Piolenc [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel List biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 1:42 AM Subject: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up I have just posted this on your forum, BBC Talking Point and I doubt whether it will be printed as it would be an embarrassment; Was the Enriched uranium found in Turkey real or was it a part of a ploy to lend credence to claims that Iraq is building an atomic bomb? Would 15 Kilograms of weapons grade uranium be put on show and be photographed by journalists when the radiation from it would not only be deadly but would fog photographic films and cause wonderful sparklies in a digital camera due to the radiation exiting the sensor and corrupting the memory, CMOS devices in all modern equipment are very susceptible to radiation! Why not ask an expert what would happen to anybody who was close to that much enriched uranium! Fissionables are not highly radioactive (nuclear reactors would not be controllable if they were), and it is perfectly possible and safe to stand at a reasonable distance from highly enriched uranium. Spontaneous radioactivity is stronger in a lump of plutonium because of inevitable contamination by a radioactive isotope of that metal, but even that would be tolerable at a distance of a few meters. Of course, the whole show could still be a setup, but the fact that journalists were able to take pictures without getting radiation sickness proves nothing. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
- Original Message - From: kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, so what is the gamma fluence from a 15%U235 pencil 15 kilos and 2 or so feet long? Remember effective half life decreases as sample increases since U235 is neutron sensitive. Is 15% hot enough for a bomb or just a reactor? You wouldn't make a bomb with it still in 15% concentration, but there would be enough U-235 in there to make one (you just need to separate it out, which can be done with those centrifuges Saddam recently purchased). Since it fit under a car seat what is the max diameter? Allow for Uranium load and you are left with a cylinder how thick? Halve that for wall thickness. Also we saw it was free of mounting, just something stuffed under a seat. It supposedly contained 15kilos of uranium. How many kilos can the Hulk slide under a seat? 100? so 85 kilos for lead in this case. How big would that be? Lead is about 11.4 grams per CC--uranium 19grams or so dependent on isotope ratio. What is the volume of 15 kilos of U? was long, not spherical. 15,000 grams, so that's 15,000/19=790 cubic centimeters. So, if it was 2 feet long (24 inches, at 2.54 cm per inch, so 61 cm long), then the cross-sectional area must be 790/61=13 cm^2. So, assuming it's a cylinder, the radius would be slightly more than 2 cm, or a diameter of 4 cm (a little over 1.5 inches). Yeah, that would be tough to fit under a seat. (sarcasm) What is total weight? You still believe? What, you ask some silly rhetorical questions, and that's supposed to constitute evidence that it was a fabrication? The arrested person was a valuable member to their movement. Not just any mule. A mad dog member perhaps but valuable to them. Do you put assets on suicide runs or would you use a mule? Why was it a suicide run? Nope. Nice story but. . . And what does you would like that mean? My vested interest is the truth. Physics is the argument. I fail to see how the laws of physics give any indication that the story isn't exactly what happened, or at least what could have happened. Sure, it's mighty tempting to believe that everything the US government does is malicious. But there are countries far worse, and even though there are some ignorant and self-centered people in the US government, ours is still far and away the best form of government around. Would 15 Kilograms of weapons grade uranium be put on show and be photographed by journalists when the radiation from it would not only be deadly but would fog photographic films and cause wonderful sparklies in a digital camera due to the radiation exiting the sensor and corrupting the memory, CMOS devices in all modern equipment are very susceptible to radiation! The radiation from it would NOT be deadly, and would NOT significantly fog photographic film in the short amount of time it would be exposed to a relatively small x-ray source, at the distance photographers would be allowed to take photos from. Sure, if you brought the film very close it would expose it relatively quickly, but how likely is it that media personnel would be allowed to get close enough to it to snatch it? (yes, x-rays can travel a ways, but they would be travelling outwards in 4 pi radians (every which way), so the further away you are, the lower the density of x-rays, and considering it's a fairly small x-ray source to begin with). Why not ask an expert what would happen to anybody who was close to that much enriched uranium! Why didn't whoever wrote this ask an expert? Perhaps he knows a bit about nuclear physics, but if he does, it's clearly being clouded by an over-eagerness to believe that the US government lies about everything, and that everyone else in the world is friendly and would rather snuggle with kittens than kill the US infidels and find their way to heaven as a martyr? Fissionables are not highly radioactive (nuclear reactors would not be controllable if they were), and it is perfectly possible and safe to stand at a reasonable distance from highly enriched uranium. Spontaneous radioactivity is stronger in a lump of plutonium because of inevitable contamination by a radioactive isotope of that metal, but even that would be tolerable at a distance of a few meters. Exactly. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up I have just posted this on your forum, BBC Talking Point and I doubt whether it will be printed as it would be an embarrassment; Was the Enriched uranium found in Turkey real or was it a part of a ploy to lend credence to claims that Iraq is building an atomic bomb? Would 15 Kilograms of weapons grade uranium be put on show and be photographed by journalists when the radiation from it would not only be deadly but would fog photographic films and cause wonderful sparklies in a digital camera due to the radiation exiting the sensor and corrupting the memory, CMOS devices in all modern equipment are very susceptible to radiation! Why not ask an expert what would happen to anybody who was close to that much enriched uranium! Fissionables are not highly radioactive (nuclear reactors would not be controllable if they were), and it is perfectly possible and safe to stand at a reasonable distance from highly enriched uranium. Spontaneous radioactivity is stronger in a lump of plutonium because of inevitable contamination by a radioactive isotope of that metal, but even that would be tolerable at a distance of a few meters. Of course, the whole show could still be a setup, but the fact that journalists were able to take pictures without getting radiation sickness proves nothing. Marc de Piolenc Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
Oh you would like that wouldn't you. Problem is you failed to completly read the article. I read it on msn.com hm or was it yahoo.. anyway it was in a lead container hidden under the seat of a taxi. If the government was going to pull something like that they would not be so stupid. The CIA has experts that know how that stuff works alot better then you or me I would wager. Besides we know government well enough to know that if they were involved they would most likly stage it as a demonstration and set it up like the bad guys didnt know how to handle it by haveing it leak and kill a bunch of bad guys and or innocents. Now if you had said that the cab driver was a member of biofuels group and was working on a way to power his vehicle with enriched uranium then I might have believed. LOL Besides there is already enough evidence in just his character profile to know that he is trying to do it. This guy likes to kill people and preferably not one or two at a time. His idea of an afternoon of fun is to kill a whole family at least. maybe even part of his own. No evidence of any guilt or a real reason necessary. Read the human rights reports that have come out of that area. statements from the few people who have escaped over the last 12 years or so. Not a guy I would want to even know. Bryan - Original Message - From: Marc de Piolenc [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel List biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 1:42 AM Subject: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up I have just posted this on your forum, BBC Talking Point and I doubt whether it will be printed as it would be an embarrassment; Was the Enriched uranium found in Turkey real or was it a part of a ploy to lend credence to claims that Iraq is building an atomic bomb? Would 15 Kilograms of weapons grade uranium be put on show and be photographed by journalists when the radiation from it would not only be deadly but would fog photographic films and cause wonderful sparklies in a digital camera due to the radiation exiting the sensor and corrupting the memory, CMOS devices in all modern equipment are very susceptible to radiation! Why not ask an expert what would happen to anybody who was close to that much enriched uranium! Fissionables are not highly radioactive (nuclear reactors would not be controllable if they were), and it is perfectly possible and safe to stand at a reasonable distance from highly enriched uranium. Spontaneous radioactivity is stronger in a lump of plutonium because of inevitable contamination by a radioactive isotope of that metal, but even that would be tolerable at a distance of a few meters. Of course, the whole show could still be a setup, but the fact that journalists were able to take pictures without getting radiation sickness proves nothing. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
OK, so what is the gamma fluence from a 15%U235 pencil 15 kilos and 2 or so feet long? Remember effective half life decreases as sample increases since U235 is neutron sensitive. Is 15% hot enough for a bomb or just a reactor? Since it fit under a car seat what is the max diameter? Allow for Uranium load and you are left with a cylinder how thick? Halve that for wall thickness. Also we saw it was free of mounting, just something stuffed under a seat. It supposedly contained 15kilos of uranium. How many kilos can the Hulk slide under a seat? 100? so 85 kilos for lead in this case. How big would that be? Lead is about 11.4 grams per CC--uranium 19grams or so dependent on isotope ratio. What is the volume of 15 kilos of U? was long, not spherical. What is total weight? You still believe? The arrested person was a valuable member to their movement. Not just any mule. A mad dog member perhaps but valuable to them. Do you put assets on suicide runs or would you use a mule? Nope. Nice story but. . . And what does you would like that mean? My vested interest is the truth. Physics is the argument. Kirk -Original Message- From: Bryan Fullerton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 3:47 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT Oh you would like that wouldn't you. Problem is you failed to completly read the article. I read it on msn.com hm or was it yahoo.. anyway it was in a lead container hidden under the seat of a taxi. If the government was going to pull something like that they would not be so stupid. The CIA has experts that know how that stuff works alot better then you or me I would wager. Besides we know government well enough to know that if they were involved they would most likly stage it as a demonstration and set it up like the bad guys didnt know how to handle it by haveing it leak and kill a bunch of bad guys and or innocents. Now if you had said that the cab driver was a member of biofuels group and was working on a way to power his vehicle with enriched uranium then I might have believed. LOL Besides there is already enough evidence in just his character profile to know that he is trying to do it. This guy likes to kill people and preferably not one or two at a time. His idea of an afternoon of fun is to kill a whole family at least. maybe even part of his own. No evidence of any guilt or a real reason necessary. Read the human rights reports that have come out of that area. statements from the few people who have escaped over the last 12 years or so. Not a guy I would want to even know. Bryan - Original Message - From: Marc de Piolenc [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel List biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 1:42 AM Subject: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up I have just posted this on your forum, BBC Talking Point and I doubt whether it will be printed as it would be an embarrassment; Was the Enriched uranium found in Turkey real or was it a part of a ploy to lend credence to claims that Iraq is building an atomic bomb? Would 15 Kilograms of weapons grade uranium be put on show and be photographed by journalists when the radiation from it would not only be deadly but would fog photographic films and cause wonderful sparklies in a digital camera due to the radiation exiting the sensor and corrupting the memory, CMOS devices in all modern equipment are very susceptible to radiation! Why not ask an expert what would happen to anybody who was close to that much enriched uranium! Fissionables are not highly radioactive (nuclear reactors would not be controllable if they were), and it is perfectly possible and safe to stand at a reasonable distance from highly enriched uranium. Spontaneous radioactivity is stronger in a lump of plutonium because of inevitable contamination by a radioactive isotope of that metal, but even that would be tolerable at a distance of a few meters. Of course, the whole show could still be a setup, but the fact that journalists were able to take pictures without getting radiation sickness proves nothing. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 9/19/2002 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
Kirk: I started as a nuclear engineer on US Navy Submarines in 1963. I have been involved in the nuclear business every since. Along the way I represented the US on a six nation board that grew out of the Chernobyl accident. Don't be swayed by people writing about the quality, quantity or enrichment of any fissionable material that gets picked up on the black market. It's all usable in making weapons. The seizure in Turkey was just an indicator of how much is moving around. When you have as much oil money as Iraq does and its kept from the people of Iraq to be used by one person in his quest for weapons of mass destruction there are people around the world that will sell him what he wants. The have for over 10 years and will continue. Richard [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
