|
What great lines...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. They NEED to be regulated. Yes, but the regulations prevent building. When there are 1-200 different agencies that have to give approval, and then the enviro lawsuits without merit. These all lead to uneconomical plants. No they don't. Georgia Power is building one right now! And there are at least two in Florida being built, and more on the drawing board. |
What great lines...
"NotNow" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "NotNow" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. They NEED to be regulated. Yes, but the regulations prevent building. When there are 1-200 different agencies that have to give approval, and then the enviro lawsuits without merit. These all lead to uneconomical plants. No they don't. Georgia Power is building one right now! And there are at least two in Florida being built, and more on the drawing board. They may have a better license structure in Georgia and Florida. But lots of the cost of nuke is the permiting process. |
What great lines...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:26:51 -0700, Calif Bill wrote:
The capitol costs are out of whack because of the government rules. 15-20 years to get all the approvals and build. Then you have to get a license to run the plant. Can not get a license until after construction is finished. One of the killers for Seabrook (i think that is the one). Cumo opposed the license and the rate payers are still paying for a finished nuke plant that never operated. Also a reason rates are inflated with nuclear. Seabrook is in New Hampshire. There were protests, but at least one of it's reactors is operational. Shoreham was the plant you are thinking of. It was built on Long Island, but never used. For what it's worth, the government approval process has been streamlined, somewhat, but frankly, if *any* project needs government oversight, it's the building and operation of nuclear power plants. |
What great lines...
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:26:51 -0700, Calif Bill wrote: The capitol costs are out of whack because of the government rules. 15-20 years to get all the approvals and build. Then you have to get a license to run the plant. Can not get a license until after construction is finished. One of the killers for Seabrook (i think that is the one). Cumo opposed the license and the rate payers are still paying for a finished nuke plant that never operated. Also a reason rates are inflated with nuclear. Seabrook is in New Hampshire. There were protests, but at least one of it's reactors is operational. Shoreham was the plant you are thinking of. It was built on Long Island, but never used. For what it's worth, the government approval process has been streamlined, somewhat, but frankly, if *any* project needs government oversight, it's the building and operation of nuclear power plants. There is government oversight and then there are 200 different governmental agencies with conflicting rules. |
What great lines...
thunder wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:26:51 -0700, Calif Bill wrote: The capitol costs are out of whack because of the government rules. 15-20 years to get all the approvals and build. Then you have to get a license to run the plant. Can not get a license until after construction is finished. One of the killers for Seabrook (i think that is the one). Cumo opposed the license and the rate payers are still paying for a finished nuke plant that never operated. Also a reason rates are inflated with nuclear. Seabrook is in New Hampshire. There were protests, but at least one of it's reactors is operational. Shoreham was the plant you are thinking of. It was built on Long Island, but never used. For what it's worth, the government approval process has been streamlined, somewhat, but frankly, if *any* project needs government oversight, it's the building and operation of nuclear power plants. No one has said there should be no regulations, only reasonable regulations the same as any other industry that handles toxic, flammable, or hazardous materials, To have the things we have to day there are many companies handling these materials daily. I believe I read that the French can permit a nuclear plant, and have it in operation in 5 years. I know a chemical plant that uses several hundred thousand gallons of Benzene, IPA,Toluene and other solvents can be permitted and in operation in about three years. There is no excuse for taking 10 to 20 years for a nuclear power plant as it does in the US. One of the biggest jokes I know of is the people who consider the pharmaceutical industry, with several tons of Ethylene oxide (a compressed gas used for sterilization) as safe industry, and protest against the chemical company with a couple of hundred gallons of solvent. Personally if it goes I will take the solvent, as that magnitude of compressed gas would level the plant and surrounded area if it exploded. |
What great lines...
Don White wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. |
What great lines...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:09:24 -0300, "Don White"
wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Hey genius, you folks are the ones saying we're all going to drown in this century from global warming. In 10 thousand years, we could probably figure out what to do with what little waste actually comes from today's nuclear power technology. Do some reading. Or, get back on the tit and stfu. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
What great lines...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:19:45 -0400, NotNow wrote:
CalifBill wrote: "Don White" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax. How much waste do you think they have to store? He's dumb. Doesn't understand the concept apparently. He's probably thinking that a nuke plant spits out spent rods like a Wile E. Coyote fireworks factory! I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
What great lines...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:42:53 -0400, NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:39:17 -0400, NotNow wrote: Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. Now just convince the liberals in power to get on the bandwagon. It's *really* hard to think they take manmade global warming seriously when they don't give a high priority to the best treatment available. Makes it sound like they just want your money. -- John H And I suppose that the conservative politicians DON'T want my money? For nuclear power, certainly. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
What great lines...
"Just John II" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:09:24 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Hey genius, you folks are the ones saying we're all going to drown in this century from global warming. In 10 thousand years, we could probably figure out what to do with what little waste actually comes from today's nuclear power technology. Do some reading. Or, get back on the tit and stfu. -- John H In your case, it would be 'get back on the dick and stfu'. |
What great lines...
D wrote:
Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. |
What great lines...
Just John II wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:09:24 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Hey genius, you folks are the ones saying we're all going to drown in this century from global warming. John, who said that? In 10 thousand years, we could probably figure out what to do with what little waste actually comes from today's nuclear power technology. Do some reading. A lot less waste than we are generating with coal and oil fired power plants! Or, get back on the tit and stfu. -- There you go!!! That way he wouldn't look like such an idiot! |
What great lines...
"NotNow" wrote in message ... D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. You simple minded moron. Can't remember Three Mile Island? http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html |
What great lines...
"Don White" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. You simple minded moron. Can't remember Three Mile Island? http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html Yup, and it released much less radiation than a 1/2 day of the radiation that coal fired plants release. And 3 mile had a couple problems. The idiot who shut down the cooling was an affirmative action hire. Not hired because he was capable. I am not saying minorities can not do the job, but hire a competant minority. Lots of those. And the French build every plant the same. Exactly the same layout, same controls. So anybody trained in any plant can go to another plant. Even the bathrooms are located the same. I think the most we ever build the same was 2. |
What great lines...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. You simple minded moron. Can't remember Three Mile Island? http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html Yup, and it released much less radiation than a 1/2 day of the radiation that coal fired plants release. And 3 mile had a couple problems. The idiot who shut down the cooling was an affirmative action hire. Not hired because he was capable. I am not saying minorities can not do the job, but hire a competant minority. Lots of those. And the French build every plant the same. Exactly the same layout, same controls. So anybody trained in any plant can go to another plant. Even the bathrooms are located the same. I think the most we ever build the same was 2. Good gawd that boy is stupid!!!! |
What great lines...
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:29:15 -0300, "Don White"
wrote: "NotNow" wrote in message ... D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. You simple minded moron. Can't remember Three Mile Island? http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html Hee, hee. Donnie is calling someone 'simple-minded'. The Three Mile Island incident occurred thirty years ago. Do you not think technology has improved in thirty years? Think about it, we could just replicate French reactors. *YOU* should *never* call names reflecting on the intelligence of others. Get back on the tit, Donnie. Harry misses you. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
What great lines...
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:12:11 -0400, NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:09:24 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Hey genius, you folks are the ones saying we're all going to drown in this century from global warming. John, who said that? In 10 thousand years, we could probably figure out what to do with what little waste actually comes from today's nuclear power technology. Do some reading. A lot less waste than we are generating with coal and oil fired power plants! Or, get back on the tit and stfu. -- There you go!!! That way he wouldn't look like such an idiot! Al Gore made a movie showing lots of places getting flooded very soon. Did you not see it? Here, watch this. It may show Florida being sunk, along with New York City. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
What great lines...
"JLH" wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:29:15 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "NotNow" wrote in message ... D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. You simple minded moron. Can't remember Three Mile Island? http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html Hee, hee. Donnie is calling someone 'simple-minded'. The Three Mile Island incident occurred thirty years ago. Do you not think technology has improved in thirty years? Think about it, we could just replicate French reactors. *YOU* should *never* call names reflecting on the intelligence of others. Get back on the tit, Donnie. Harry misses you. -- John H Get back on the dick, Johnny..your Dope Army misses you. |
What great lines...
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:00:21 -0400, JLH
wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:12:11 -0400, NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:09:24 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Hey genius, you folks are the ones saying we're all going to drown in this century from global warming. John, who said that? In 10 thousand years, we could probably figure out what to do with what little waste actually comes from today's nuclear power technology. Do some reading. A lot less waste than we are generating with coal and oil fired power plants! Or, get back on the tit and stfu. -- There you go!!! That way he wouldn't look like such an idiot! Al Gore made a movie showing lots of places getting flooded very soon. Did you not see it? Here, watch this. It may show Florida being sunk, along with New York City. Whoops. He http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEJ5pHVKjiI -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
What great lines...
Don White wrote:
"Just John II" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:09:24 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Hey genius, you folks are the ones saying we're all going to drown in this century from global warming. In 10 thousand years, we could probably figure out what to do with what little waste actually comes from today's nuclear power technology. Do some reading. Or, get back on the tit and stfu. -- John H In your case, it would be 'get back on the dick and stfu'. Are you dumber than your son, Donnie? That was...pathetic. |
What great lines...
NotNow wrote:
D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. Yep. And nuclear waste degrades in storage. It takes a *long* time, but no harm is done. |
What great lines...
Don White wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message ... D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. You simple minded moron. Can't remember Three Mile Island? http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html Donnie calling someone else "simple minded"? Now *THAT'S* funny! |
What great lines...
JLH wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:29:15 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "NotNow" wrote in message ... D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. You simple minded moron. Can't remember Three Mile Island? http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html Hee, hee. Donnie is calling someone 'simple-minded'. The Three Mile Island incident occurred thirty years ago. Do you not think technology has improved in thirty years? Think about it, we could just replicate French reactors. *YOU* should *never* call names reflecting on the intelligence of others. Get back on the tit, Donnie. Harry misses you. -- John H I agree with this post. |
What great lines...
"D 1" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "Just John II" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:09:24 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Hey genius, you folks are the ones saying we're all going to drown in this century from global warming. In 10 thousand years, we could probably figure out what to do with what little waste actually comes from today's nuclear power technology. Do some reading. Or, get back on the tit and stfu. -- John H In your case, it would be 'get back on the dick and stfu'. Are you dumber than your son, Donnie? That was...pathetic. Above goes double for you. |
What great lines...
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:56:14 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:00:21 -0400, JLH wrote: Al Gore made a movie showing lots of places getting flooded very soon. Did you not see it? Here, watch this. It may show Florida being sunk, along with New York City. As a person who lives on the water in Florida and is very cognizant of the water level. 2 feet (about 100 year's worth by some of the worst projections) won't even get it over my dock unless it is a full moon high tide and that is nowhere near the yard or the house. Even if they are wrong by 10 feet and it floods my house in 2109, I really don't care anyway and neither will my grand children. The oldest would have been 94. This "flood Florida" stuff is just bull****. New York City may be in worse trouble OMG(osh), you have completely destroyed my confidence in Al Gore and most of the other liberal 'Global Warming' Chicken Littles. http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/...g_chickens.jpg -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
What great lines...
JLH wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:29:15 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "NotNow" wrote in message ... D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. You simple minded moron. Can't remember Three Mile Island? http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html Hee, hee. Donnie is calling someone 'simple-minded'. The Three Mile Island incident occurred thirty years ago. Do you not think technology has improved in thirty years? Think about it, we could just replicate French reactors. *YOU* should *never* call names reflecting on the intelligence of others. Get back on the tit, Donnie. Harry misses you. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. What's hilarious is his idiotic blather started about waste from nuke plants, meaning spent fuel rods. After being told here, and maybe actually learning a little to find out there just isn't much waste involved, he changed it to another idiotic diatribe about TMI!!! |
What great lines...
JLH wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:12:11 -0400, NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:09:24 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Hey genius, you folks are the ones saying we're all going to drown in this century from global warming. John, who said that? In 10 thousand years, we could probably figure out what to do with what little waste actually comes from today's nuclear power technology. Do some reading. A lot less waste than we are generating with coal and oil fired power plants! Or, get back on the tit and stfu. -- There you go!!! That way he wouldn't look like such an idiot! Al Gore made a movie showing lots of places getting flooded very soon. Did you not see it? Here, watch this. It may show Florida being sunk, along with New York City. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. And did he say "we're all going to drown in this century from global warming"? I must have missed that part. |
What great lines...
D 1 wrote:
Don White wrote: "Just John II" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:09:24 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Hey genius, you folks are the ones saying we're all going to drown in this century from global warming. In 10 thousand years, we could probably figure out what to do with what little waste actually comes from today's nuclear power technology. Do some reading. Or, get back on the tit and stfu. -- John H In your case, it would be 'get back on the dick and stfu'. Are you dumber than your son, Donnie? That was...pathetic. I don't know if that's possible with anything more than a brain stem! |
What great lines...
D 1 wrote:
NotNow wrote: D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. Yep. And nuclear waste degrades in storage. It takes a *long* time, but no harm is done. And there's places in the mountains out west where you can dig up dirt that is more radioactive than the spent rods you are putting in it! |
What great lines...
D 1 wrote:
Don White wrote: "NotNow" wrote in message ... D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. You simple minded moron. Can't remember Three Mile Island? http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html Donnie calling someone else "simple minded"? Now *THAT'S* funny! Add to that the fact that at first the idiot was talking about waste from working nuke plants, then when it was pointed out that there just isn't much waste, he starts talking about TMI!!! If his son would wake up from his drunken stupor, maybe he could teach his old dad something. |
What great lines...
Don White wrote:
"D 1" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "Just John II" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:09:24 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Hey genius, you folks are the ones saying we're all going to drown in this century from global warming. In 10 thousand years, we could probably figure out what to do with what little waste actually comes from today's nuclear power technology. Do some reading. Or, get back on the tit and stfu. -- John H In your case, it would be 'get back on the dick and stfu'. Are you dumber than your son, Donnie? That was...pathetic. Above goes double for you. The kids here say "I know you are but what am I?" So now I know the Canadian version. Carry on... |
What great lines...
NotNow wrote:
D 1 wrote: NotNow wrote: D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. Yep. And nuclear waste degrades in storage. It takes a *long* time, but no harm is done. And there's places in the mountains out west where you can dig up dirt that is more radioactive than the spent rods you are putting in it! He's an idiot. He won't believe until WAFA tells him to. |
What great lines...
NotNow wrote:
D 1 wrote: Don White wrote: "NotNow" wrote in message ... D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. You simple minded moron. Can't remember Three Mile Island? http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html Donnie calling someone else "simple minded"? Now *THAT'S* funny! Add to that the fact that at first the idiot was talking about waste from working nuke plants, then when it was pointed out that there just isn't much waste, he starts talking about TMI!!! If his son would wake up from his drunken stupor, maybe he could teach his old dad something. Yep. |
What great lines...
"D 1" wrote in message ... NotNow wrote: D 1 wrote: NotNow wrote: D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. Yep. And nuclear waste degrades in storage. It takes a *long* time, but no harm is done. And there's places in the mountains out west where you can dig up dirt that is more radioactive than the spent rods you are putting in it! He's an idiot. He won't believe until WAFA tells him to. This is amusing...Dumb & Dumber trying to talk about nuclear waste. Y'all haven't cleaned up your outhouses yet. |
What great lines...
Don White wrote:
"D 1" wrote in message ... NotNow wrote: D 1 wrote: NotNow wrote: D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. Yep. And nuclear waste degrades in storage. It takes a *long* time, but no harm is done. And there's places in the mountains out west where you can dig up dirt that is more radioactive than the spent rods you are putting in it! He's an idiot. He won't believe until WAFA tells him to. This is amusing...Dumb & Dumber trying to talk about nuclear waste. Y'all haven't cleaned up your outhouses yet. No, dummy, you are amusing. Your pathetic life, however, is very sad. |
What great lines...
Don White wrote:
"D 1" wrote in message ... NotNow wrote: D 1 wrote: NotNow wrote: D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. Yep. And nuclear waste degrades in storage. It takes a *long* time, but no harm is done. And there's places in the mountains out west where you can dig up dirt that is more radioactive than the spent rods you are putting in it! He's an idiot. He won't believe until WAFA tells him to. This is amusing...Dumb & Dumber trying to talk about nuclear waste. Y'all haven't cleaned up your outhouses yet. D Krueger just craps on the sidewalk..using an outhouse would require him to attend some training. Really, Don, when you see a stinking pile of crap like Krueger on the sidewalk...just hold your nose and step over it. |
What great lines...
"H K" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "D 1" wrote in message ... NotNow wrote: D 1 wrote: NotNow wrote: D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. Yep. And nuclear waste degrades in storage. It takes a *long* time, but no harm is done. And there's places in the mountains out west where you can dig up dirt that is more radioactive than the spent rods you are putting in it! He's an idiot. He won't believe until WAFA tells him to. This is amusing...Dumb & Dumber trying to talk about nuclear waste. Y'all haven't cleaned up your outhouses yet. D Krueger just craps on the sidewalk..using an outhouse would require him to attend some training. Really, Don, when you see a stinking pile of crap like Krueger on the sidewalk...just hold your nose and step over it. Yup...back he goes into the septic tank for the 39th time. He's desperate to be acknowledged by me or anyone for that matter....I guess Margaret Kennedy and anyone else he has contact with do their best to avoid him in real life. |
What great lines...
Don White wrote:
"H K" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "D 1" wrote in message ... NotNow wrote: D 1 wrote: NotNow wrote: D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. Yep. And nuclear waste degrades in storage. It takes a *long* time, but no harm is done. And there's places in the mountains out west where you can dig up dirt that is more radioactive than the spent rods you are putting in it! He's an idiot. He won't believe until WAFA tells him to. This is amusing...Dumb & Dumber trying to talk about nuclear waste. Y'all haven't cleaned up your outhouses yet. D Krueger just craps on the sidewalk..using an outhouse would require him to attend some training. Really, Don, when you see a stinking pile of crap like Krueger on the sidewalk...just hold your nose and step over it. Yup...back he goes into the septic tank for the 39th time. He's desperate to be acknowledged by me or anyone for that matter....I guess Margaret Kennedy and anyone else he has contact with do their best to avoid him in real life. Just leave him in there. |
What great lines...
D 1 wrote:
Don White wrote: "D 1" wrote in message ... NotNow wrote: D 1 wrote: NotNow wrote: D wrote: Don White wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax can't get any worse. Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where according to some, it does no damage. Yep. And nuclear waste degrades in storage. It takes a *long* time, but no harm is done. And there's places in the mountains out west where you can dig up dirt that is more radioactive than the spent rods you are putting in it! He's an idiot. He won't believe until WAFA tells him to. This is amusing...Dumb & Dumber trying to talk about nuclear waste. Y'all haven't cleaned up your outhouses yet. No, dummy, you are amusing. Your pathetic life, however, is very sad. And just like his blow up doll Harry, he can't debate the facts so he insults! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com