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
"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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"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."
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.
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,
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.