OT: Please send this link to everyone one your mailing list

Page 11 of 12  


Nuclear reactions produce heat, not steam.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nuclear reactions produce neutrons. Neutron capture causes fission, which releases a large amount of energy, some of which is heat, some is ionizing radiation, some of which is more neutrons (which sustains the reaction).
The heat is captured and used to generate steam.
Some nuclear batteries and radioisotope thermal generators use a solid state means to convert the heat to electricity bypassing the thermal cycle.
Most civilian reactors use water as a medium to harness the heat energy and feed the resulting steam into standard generators.
Military reactors often use liquid sodium instead.
The remnants of the fuel capsule are radiotoxic and highly radioactive, but can be reprocessed into more fuel (either through standard reprocessing such as that used by France and Japan (and the US Prior to 1980), or through the new fusion-fission hybrid technology developed in Texas).
Thorium fuel cycles can be designed such that the resulting waste cannot be used for explosive devices even with reprocessing.
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CW wrote:

And their own set of very unpleasant reaction products, which, fortunately, are produced in manageable quantities.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Fine, for the AR among us, I should have specified that nuclear reactions produce heat and from the heat, steam is produced.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

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

Not to overdo the AR aspect, but I make a living by using such heat directly - without producing any steam at all. <g>
Just this morning I was contemplating how pleasant it would be to travel a bit closer to the reaction so as to allow my skin to be discolored by the radiation and the ache to be baked from my knee...
http://www.sunshinenevis.com /
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote:

Well, no surfside here (our beach is about 400 miles deep :-) ), however, today we had the windows open and I got kind of warm putting filler into the woodpecker holes on the shop. Still have about half a crop of the oranges on the tree as well.
I feel for ya'll, I spend a bit of time on the yesterday's tractors web pages with photo ads. Seeing some of those pictures with the tractors buried up to their hubs in snow and the shadows from evening sky just screams cold. I remember those scenes from real life while growing up in Colorado.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Limiting the Feds to their Constitutionally mandated role would : enable each State to do what made sense locally.
Why do you, and others who I've seen with similar beliefs, think that the state level is the local level? I find the ubiquitous federal/nonfederal dictotomy very puzzling.
Why not restrict or eliminate state power while you're at it, and give the majority of power to the counties? Or hell, to each separate town? That way, one town can decide how much to spend on its roads, and if you don't like the way they build them, move to another town.
Or, since towns are kinda big, neighborhoods?
    -- Andy Barss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andrew Barss wrote:

That's the way it works now for roads - for the most part. Interstates by the Feds, state highways by the states, county roads by the counties, city roads by the cities and many housing developments pay for and maintain their own roads.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andrew Barss wrote:

It has something to do with the fomative law of the land - the U.S. Constitution, which document makes exactly three distinctions: Federal, State, and The People.
Moving power back to the States would be imperfect but at least it would be something wherein the citizens would actually have:
a) More probability of having a voice in the decisions made. b) The ability to move to the state that best matched their own values and interest.
But we can't have that, can we?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
:> Or, since towns are kinda big, neighborhoods? :> :>     -- Andy Barss
: It has something to do with the fomative law of the land - : the U.S. Constitution, which document makes exactly three : distinctions: Federal, State, and The People.
: Moving power back to the States would be imperfect but at least it : would be something wherein the citizens would actually have:
: a) More probability of having a voice in the decisions made. : b) The ability to move to the state that best matched their : own values and interest.
Not a convincing argument. But I do understand you hold to it very, uh, fervently.
    -- Andy Barss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andrew Barss wrote:

I hold it in the absence of a better alternative ... though I am open to better alternatives always.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Correct. The car insurance company - a private institution - and I entered into a private agreement as to each of our respective responsibilities.

Of course not. The transaction was private, voluntary, and spelled out from the beginning. Either party has the perfect right to terminate the agreement as they see fit. Well ... I have that right. The various government regulatory and legislative bodies - doing the bidding of the various moochers in the state - have imposed fairly draconian rules concerning just when, where, and how the insurance company can step away from the agreement.

I do not question your *legal* right to do this. I question your *moral* right to do it.

OK, hold on a moment. You're buying into Upscale's foaming rants. I will summarize what I think in this matter:
1) If you are forced to participate in a government mandated insurance system, it is not fraudulent to collect the benefits thereof. I have no problem with Upscale, you or anyone else therefore taking benefits from a system that is required by law and that you *have* to pay into.
2) What I do have a problem with is *defending* such forced government action as moral, "doing good", or any of the other appellations given theft by its defenders. Honest people should seek to remove such acts of government force from their lives, not defend theft because they happen to personally benefit from them. The family member I mentioned in a previous post that currently is in need of medical care would certainly benefit directly if the U.S. forced Bill Gates to pay $10B into the system "because he can afford it." This would not make such an action moral or OK.
3) As to car insurance. The Communists here in the People's Republic of IL require car insurance by law. They do not, however, require you to buy it *from* the government nor do they tax everyone around the state to pay for it. You're simply required to carry car insurance - at your own expense - if you wish to drive on public roads. That's very different than making, say, Richie Rich pay into a state run car insurance program that I then get to use at a discounted rate because I am not rich.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Funny, your dozens of repeated accusations of "thief" denote a legal infringement. As usual, you're still a liar.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

A "thief" is a person who steals or supports stealing. Stealing is both a legal and moral construct. So is coveting and lying. cf The Ten Commandments for one of the earlier prohibitions on all three. Most other religions also object to them on *moral* grounds. In fact, all legal systems are a codification of some kind of moral code, religious or otherwise. Clearer now?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Nice guy;
Several years ago I read a news article where in it was reported that the Premier of Alberta proudly reported that the BACK LOG of patients requiring heart bypass operations was down to ONLY 400. This was a 50 percent improvement over the list only a couple of years previous.
This is why my mother's fellow country men/women come to the US for their critical operations.
Both my wife and myself have had open heart operations. Hers was a triple bypass and I had a valve repair. Both of us would be long dead and buried in Alberta.
This is one reason why a great many of us in the USA are against National Health Insurance of any kind.
The only problem I have with the US system is that to many Insurance Companies have a tendency to refuse expensive procedures that they consider experimental because only a couple operations have occurred and have no track records.
Dave N
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Comparing Alberta to the rest of Canada is like saying that all of the USA is like Illinois... wait...lemme rephrase that..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

To be honest I can't compare Alberta with Illinois. Haven't been to Alberta but I have been to Illinois. There can't be any comparison.
Dave N
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well hell, Timbit lives there right? That drops the state several notches from the get go.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Grumble, he ain't in charge.
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No one has ever claimed that the system was perfect, but it's far better than the alternative. I'd say your mother's friends have the best of both worlds. They can use the Canadian healthcare system when they choose to, or they can decide to pay for medical assistance in the US.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.