On Feb 1, 5:46 pm, email@example.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
I think nuclear energy is safe and affordable...preferably when one
goes with the CANDU format. Even the Chernobyl type of reators are
reliable and safe. The accident there was a poorly thought-out test
procedure and not indicitive of the rest of their well-proven systems.
(Trying to catch station service off a spinning-down off-line
It is a typical hook the tree-huggers hang their hats on. Coal is no
good either, you can't dam water, and if you put up windmills, you end
up knocking spotted owls out of the sky.
Everybody has a fricking agenda.
There is a fabulous paper called The Health Hazard Of Not Going
Nuclear by Petr Beckmann (sp?) It was part of my studies and was a
motivator for my oldest daughter who is an operator at Darlington
Nuclear ( 4 x 850 MW) to get into the field.
This station is a work of engineering art.
So, yes, Mr. Miller, I agree with you.
PS. This will have to do till we get fusion ironed out.
| PS. This will have to do till we get fusion ironed out.
Fusion has been working fine for me! <vbg>
DeSoto, Iowa USA
I remember my dad telling me that when he was a kid (late 1930s), any time he
rode his bicycle around the neighborhood he'd wind up with soot all over his
forehead from all the coal furnaces. The air is much cleaner now than it was
I'll have a look at that -- thanks.
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
"Doug Miller" wrote:
> I remember my dad telling me that when he was a kid (late 1930s),
> rode his bicycle around the neighborhood he'd wind up with soot all
> forehead from all the coal furnaces. The air is much cleaner now
Mark Jerde wrote:
> Pittsburg, or someplace like that in the rust belt?
Actually it is Pittsburgh, but NBD.
As far as dirty air is concerned, have been told the the air in Los
Angeles during the early 1900's was worse than it is today.
Not nearly as many people, but back then, open burning of refuse by
individuals was quite common along with heating and cooking stoves,
smudge pots, etc.
Lets face it.
Man is the only animal on the planet that mucks up his own nest.
Man is the only animal that uses Usenet and the only one dumb enough to
confuse the opinions uttered here for fact beyond dispute. ;-)
(We're well over the 10,000 monkey mark and STILL nothing the likes of
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
I am recalling a graduate zoology class I took, Mammology. In the
class, there was a young woman in her mid twenties who was quite an
animal lover, moreso than I, although I must admit to liking the
buggers. She said something to the professor about how humans should
behave more like animals. When he asked in what way, she said that
humans are the only animals that hunt for pleasure, and don't
necessarily eat their prey, and said that animals are more "pure of
heart" and not intentionally cruel. He replied, "Not true - ever seen
a cat with a mouse?".
There is this idealization of animals that goes on. Having grown up
as something of an animal lover myself, I can understand it, at least
on the part of kids, and even young adults (who I still consider to be
kids). I still am an animal lover, but I realize that statements like
"Animals are pure of heart and loving, etc.", or "Man is the only
animal on the planet that mucks up his own nest" are just
idealizations for emotional reasons. Unfortunately, they cloud
reasoned debate. Anything done based upon emotions should first be
based upon logic, reason, true facts and real statistics.
Man is hardly the only animal to muck up his own nest. Certainly, we
have the capacity to make a bigger mess, but we really are also more
capable of cleaning our mess, and of altruism.
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.