Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

Page 3 of 16  
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in wrote:

not necessarily;it could mean an increasing pregnancy rate. (and to the people least likely to raise decent,law-abiding citizens)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Evidently, you do not know the difference between "accuracy" and "precision." But that's okay. I don't think the distinction was emphasized through the GED level.
In not every state was abortion illegal in 1973.
From the above referenced report: "For each year since 1969, CDC has compiled abortion data by state or area of occurrence. During 1973--1997, data were received from or estimated for 52 reporting areas in the United States: 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City. In 1998 and 1999, CDC compiled abortion data from 48 reporting areas. Alaska, California, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma did not report, and data for these states were not estimated. For 2000--2002, Oklahoma again reported these data, increasing the number of reporting areas to 49.
"A total of 854,122 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2002 from 49 reporting areas, representing a 0.1% increase from the 853,485 legal induced abortions reported by the same 49 reporting areas for 2001. The abortion ratio, defined as the number of abortions per 1,000 live births, was 246 in 2002, the same as reported for 2001. The abortion rate was 16 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years for 2002, the same as for 2001. For the same 48 reporting areas, the abortion rate remained relatively constant during 1997--2002."
These data are not from the "Right to Life" bunch nor from the pro-abortion people. These data are from the CDC, an organization which is chock-a-block full of epidemiologists and biological statisticians. They've been cranking numbers for over sixty years and have a pretty good track record for reliability.
My formal education is a tad beyond the GED level. In addition to a masters in math and attending law school, I graduated from the State Department's Foreign Service Academy and spent 9 months in Viet Nam (bummer). I also served (for a short time) as an AA to a United States Senator (double bummer). I've got a diploma from the DEA's Advanced Narcotics school, the FBI's Into to Bombs and Explosives, and spent 8 years as a deputy sheriff. I've translated the Bible into Morse Code and written the book "Toilet Tissue Origami - The Ultimate Book for the John."
If you want to match bits of paper - which really signify zilch - I'd be glad to give it a go.
On the other hand, if you just want to sling insults, I'm vulnerable on my affection for well-developed breasts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Probably the same things that prevent illegal aliens from being accurately reported and counted. It all depends on which side of the issue you embrace.
--
:)
JR

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

There can be no accurate numbers for the period prior to legalization.
I think 1,000 lives (and many others rendered sterile) IS significant.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form snipped-for-privacy@prodigy.net.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It all balances out. The members of the 54% kill themselves off through stupidity.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

The Stalinists on the left ceaselessly out themseles.
Joe's solution to serious political debate is to silence those who dare to disagree with him.
Yeah, I sure wat to live in a country governed by the principles of Joe and his ilk.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

Ain't the Quran wonnerful?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Perhaps not, but it DOES solve the problem of the rogue state. Just ask Libya.
--
JR

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

The whole attempt to link nuclear power and nuclear weapons is just a scam from the paranoid and ignorant anti nuke groups. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons have almost nothing to do with each other besides "nuclear" in the name. Nonsense kind of like trying to link Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (a.k.a. MRI) and nuclear weapons.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wrong. All experts on the subject agree that civilian nuclear projects are a potential source of dangerous material for the wrong kinds of people. The issue becomes one of trust, and we know how far that goes. Physically building the bomb itself isn't very complicated.
I'm not saying we should eliminate nuclear power generation, but if you believe it's a good idea, then logically, you forfeit the right to act surprised or annoyed when countries like Iran start rattling their swords.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Again more hype. Power reactors don't produce material useful for bomb making, and while conceptually building a bomb is simple, the devil is in the details and building one that actually functions is very difficult. The only potential from a power reactor is as a source of material for a "dirty bomb" and those are very overhyped.

I have no problem with Iran having power reactors, especially if they keep them open to inspection by outside agencies, something they have no reason not to do if they are only generating power. Heck they could put up web cams in the plants so the whole world can watch and it would have no effect on their ability to generate power.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

According to ALL experts, power plant fuel *can* be refined for weapon use, not just for dirty bombs. The problem with power plants in questionable countries is that there is now fuel where there was none before, unless illegally obtained.
"A close examination by the IAEA of the radioactive isotope content in the nuclear waste revealed that North Korea had extracted about 24 kilograms of Plutonium. North Korea was supposed to have produced 0.9 gram of Plutonium per megawatt every day over a 4-year period from 1987 to 1991. The 0.9 gram per day multiplied by 365 days by 4 years and by 30 megawatts equals to 39 kilograms. When the yearly operation ratio is presumed to be 60 percent, the actual amount was estimated at 60% of 39 kilograms, or some 23.4 kilograms. Since 20-kiloton standard nuclear warhead has 8 kilograms of critical mass, this amounts to mass of material of nuclear fission out of which about 3 nuclear warheads could be extracted."
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Klipstein wrote: ...

Plutonium is a result of all fission reactors. "Breeder" reactors differ only in the relative amounts as compared to "non-breeders".
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thank you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Perhaps it just takes longer to refine enough plutonium from the fuel used in certain types of reactors. Go do some research. www.fas.org might be a good starting point.
You may have noticed that whenever our government yells about rogue states trying to build a bomb, the focus is on centrifuges and refining the fuel, and never on the mechanics of assembling the bomb, which isn't so difficult.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Klipstein wrote:

If not a lie, certainly a leading omission of "the rest of the story". Pu is generated by neutron capture. As noted before, the real difference between a breeder reactor and an "ordinary" reactor is that the breeder includes material specifically for this capture and by that inclusion the overall fuel cycle ends up w/ more _total_ fissile material than was in the initial fuel loading -- hence the term breeder--it "bred" fuel. In a non-breeder, that extra material isn't there, so overall more fissile material is consumed than generated (or in some cases the "breeding ratio" might approach unity).
The initial commercial LWR fuel cycles in the US were designed with the thought we would have reprocessing facilities available to make use of what fissile Pu was produced, but under Carter the NRC was told to not consider the licensing application of GE for their proposed reprocessing plant, thus leaving us in the present mess of an "open" instead of "closed" fuel cycle and the problem of spent fuel storage. This decision was based on his (Carter's) apparent inability to distinguish intellectually between commercial and weapons-grade material and his overly optimistic hope that by setting the example in the US of not recycling would somehow be influential in other nations' decisions as to whether they would or would not reprocess fuel on their own. As is clear, it didn't do anything at all to discourage others and did quite a lot of harm to our own ability to efficiently use our own resources. We seem to do a lot of that sort of thing (draw weapon, shoot self in foot, that is).
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
says that's how India obtained their nuclear bombs.
So,I guess that exposes the anti-nukers for what they are.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.