Apollo 11 Lunar landing - 40th aniversary

mikey4 wrote:

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
mikey4 wrote:
" But such disposal, while possible, does not actually exist.

http://www.srs.gov/general/programs/...tion/index.htm

Educate yourself Ray.

You first. That proess doesn't deal with spent nuclear fuel.
In the future it would be good if you actually read the "evidence"
that you provide.

Why? you don't

It seems that you have the abilities of a 12-year-old when it comes to
reasoned debate. So far all of your arguments can be summed up as
"oh yeah?"

--
Ray Fischer

In message
s.com, frank writes
, if not on 28 March 1979 then at the very least on 26
April 1986.

Well, we can do three possible things: 1: We can die of global warming. 2:
We can go back to being cave men and use no power at all, 3: We can develop
and use nuclear power. So, which one do you want?

Nuclear power is a non starter.

It works, and works well, in lots of countries.

Lots of reasons. Cost, the insurance
liability is not available. There's a real history of incompetent
management in the US.

That is possibly true

And disposal of nuclear waste.

Not a problem... the Uk has been doing it for years. We have a re-
processing plant.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Chris H" wrote in message news:SdSSxtAwY$bKFAJs@p
haedsys.demon.co.uk...
In message , Jürgen Exner
writes
"Atheist Chaplain" wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
You do know that the rest of the world points and laughs at what
passes for
"Health care" in the US, the "Richest" country in the world is too tight
fisted to bother about actually looking after its less fortunate
citizens,
not very "civilized" now is it.

Well, there are numerous other reasons why people are starting to
distinguish between industrialized and civilized and refuse to call the
US the latter. Health care is just peanuts in that bucket.

jue


Most of the world does not regard the US as "civilised"
It also tends to see the US in the same light as N.Korea, china etc.

Since the recent depression started the US is not that industrialised
either.....

Ahhhhh.....Pardon me, Chris, but I don't think you are qualified to
tell us just what the, "rest of the world" thinks about the US......I
doubt seriously if they think of us as being in the same light as, "N.
Korea and China, etc." This may be what, "Chris H" thinks, but not the
rest of the world.

You don't get out much do you....

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

And which is cleaner, coal, which is mostly carbon and whose combustion
product is mostly CO2, or oil, which contains a lot of hydrogen and whose
combustion product is mostly water?

The biggest combustion product from burning refined gasoline is CO2.
Water is way, way down the list.

It seems you don't know how to do the arithmetic, so let me try to

You're not smart enough to be condescending.

Not necessary to be particularly smart when arguing with someone who
knows so little :-)

And yet I still know more than do you.

So how come everything you've said so far about the chemistry of
hydrocarbon combustion has been wrong in very elementary ways?

It hasn't been. You're a dishonest idiot.

I've already explained why each of the few claims you've made so far
has been wrong. If you didn't understand then checking wikipedia for
"hydrocarbon combustion" "Avogadro's Law" and "atomic weight"
should help you out.

In a hydrocarbon molecule there is
always more than twice as much hydrogen as carbon.

Not by weight. One carbon atom weighs six times as much as a hydrogen
atom.

Oh dear. I had no idea your problem was so serious. You are so far

So you're just some stupid asshole.

And the person who claimed that a carbon atom weighs six times as
much as a hydrogen atom isn't stupid? :-)

It's a useful aproximation, moron.

Do you really think 6 is a useful approximation to 11.9, or are you
confusing atomic number with atomic weight? :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems DRS wrote:
"Chris H" wrote in message

In message 4a6ffc56$0$9720$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, DRS writes

[...]

Two accidents due in large part to poor design is not an argument
against nuclear per se. Any fair dinkum analysis of the non-carbon
emitting power sources inevitably bring nuclear into the equation.
Just ask the Germans and the Danes where they get their electricity
when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.
And the French.....

The trouble is that whilst the US is good at making Nuclear weapons it
is not very good at making nuclear power stations. 3 mile island
could very easily have been a Chernobyl.

No, it couldn't. No Western reactor uses positive feedback designs.

A nuclear chain reaction of the kind used in nuclear power stations is
inherently a positive feedback process.

--
Chris Malcolm

"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems DRS
wrote:
"Chris H" wrote in message


[...]

The trouble is that whilst the US is good at making Nuclear weapons
it is not very good at making nuclear power stations. 3 mile
island could very easily have been a Chernobyl.

No, it couldn't. No Western reactor uses positive feedback designs.

A nuclear chain reaction of the kind used in nuclear power stations is
inherently a positive feedback process.

Which is not what I was talking about and you should know it. The
Chernbobyl nuclear power plant used graphite-tipped control rods. When the
core overheated and the water coolant flashed into steam that graphite
*increased* the nuclear reaction rate as the control rods were inserted. As
the core got hotter more water flashed, etc. It was a positive feedback
loop not possible with Western designs.

In message 4a7179c1$0$9740$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, DRS writes
"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems DRS
wrote:
"Chris H" wrote in message


[...]

The trouble is that whilst the US is good at making Nuclear weapons
it is not very good at making nuclear power stations. 3 mile
island could very easily have been a Chernobyl.

No, it couldn't. No Western reactor uses positive feedback designs.

A nuclear chain reaction of the kind used in nuclear power stations is
inherently a positive feedback process.

Which is not what I was talking about and you should know it. The
Chernbobyl nuclear power plant used graphite-tipped control rods. When the
core overheated and the water coolant flashed into steam that graphite
*increased* the nuclear reaction rate as the control rods were inserted. As
the core got hotter more water flashed, etc. It was a positive feedback
loop not possible with Western designs.

But different failures are. 3 mile island could have been much worse. As
it was the press blew it up into something worse that it actually was

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris H wrote:
In message 4a7179c1$0$9740$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, DRS writes
"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems DRS
wrote:
"Chris H" wrote in message


[...]

The trouble is that whilst the US is good at making Nuclear
weapons it is not very good at making nuclear power stations. 3
mile island could very easily have been a Chernobyl.

No, it couldn't. No Western reactor uses positive feedback
designs.

A nuclear chain reaction of the kind used in nuclear power stations
is inherently a positive feedback process.

Which is not what I was talking about and you should know it. The
Chernbobyl nuclear power plant used graphite-tipped control rods.
When the core overheated and the water coolant flashed into steam
that graphite *increased* the nuclear reaction rate as the control
rods were inserted. As the core got hotter more water flashed, etc.
It was a positive feedback loop not possible with Western designs.

But different failures are. 3 mile island could have been much worse.
As it was the press blew it up into something worse that it actually
was

It could have been much worse but not because of "positive feedback". Nine
seconds into the incident the rods went in and the fission reaction was shut
down. The major problems were the result of an operator mistakenly turning
off two of the primary coolant pumps an hour or so into the incident.

By the way, a fission reactor only operates on "positive feedback" when it
is run at a level above criticality, below criticality there is no "positive
feedback".

Chris Malcolm wrote:

In a hydrocarbon molecule there is
always more than twice as much hydrogen as carbon.

Incorrect! In a SATURATED hydrocarbon that is true. Not
in UNsaturated ones. It is true that gasoline is saturated.

Coal is very very highly unsaturated.

Doug McDonald

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
mikey4 wrote:

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
.. .
mikey4 wrote:
" But such disposal, while possible, does not actually exist.

http://www.srs.gov/general/programs/...tion/index.htm

Educate yourself Ray.

You first. That proess doesn't deal with spent nuclear fuel.
In the future it would be good if you actually read the "evidence"
that you provide.

Why? you don't

It seems that you have the abilities of a 12-year-old when it comes to
reasoned debate. So far all of your arguments can be summed up as
"oh yeah?"

Ray you are one to talk with the crap you sling, calling people liars,
etc.;your responses come in at the kindergarten level.
You said to me "That proess doesn't deal with spent nuclear fuel. In the
future it would be good if you actually read the "evidence" that you
provide."
The process is used for spent fuel. And no I am not going to provide you
with the many links to "back up my statement. If you want the facts *you*
look them up for yourself assuming mommy will let you have the computer.
Like I have said before, you are a sad angry old man who can only call
people names and accuse them of being a thief. The only thing worse than a
putz with a computer is a schmuck with a computer and most of the time you
fall into both categories.