|
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Feb 5, 9:51*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 18:19:03 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 12:30:29 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 07:59:47 -0800, wrote: More than "a few problems." I'm happy to entertain the notion of fixing the problems with fracking. Perhaps they can start by disclosing the chemical mix they use. The problems I have heard are mostly because they were fracking too close to the surface and in residential areas. You mean that left up to the companies, who by the way deny everything, we shouldn't have any gov't oversight because there aren't any problems.. Did I say that? This fracking is done under a federal permit from MMS. Yes, and we all know how much oversight happened with that agency. I hear Obama broke it up into different agencies.. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05...erior-unveils-... Lets keep a good thought. Maybe he will fix the agency and put an end to the revolving door that is the regulatory establishment in the US. Do you know of anything that doesn't affect someone? Sure. If my cat pees on a bush and I don't know about it, I suspect nobody is affected. Is that an equivalency attempt you're trying to make? I am trying to say "energy" is never going to be free of costs or even dangers. I agree. How about nuclear? France seems to be doing it safely. Oh wait, the French can't be trusted... lol I am OK with nuclear but the waste is still a problem. Yes, it's a problem, but there's got to be a trade-off. It is interesting how cavalier you are with fission products that have a huge potential for harm on a global scale for 10,000 years but you wring your hands because a few hundred *people have had problems with their wells. Cavalier? It needs careful thought and regulation, but should be part of the solution. You think otherwise? It could be a valuable part of the 21st century energy picture. Now just convince those people who guide their lives from what they see in movies. I agree nuclear is probably our best hope for long term energy independence but the challenges are huge. I don't think we have a plant here in the US that has paid for itself yet and they get decommissioned, still in the red. These piles of high level waste are also very attractive targets for terrorists. Even a very modest dirty bomb in an urban center could make that place unusable for 1000 years. It would make Love Canal look like a dog knocking over your garbage can. I doubt the latter part of what you're saying. It's pretty well protected, esp. here in the US. In other countries.... well, the Republicans wanted to block the treaty, so I guess they thought all was cool. "The treaty" has nothing to do with non-fissionable materials. There are tons of high level waste and a few pounds of it could cause a whole lot of problems if someone threw it from a plane in a very modest low explosive bomb over a big city. *For that matter you could just throw them off the roof of a few tall buildings on a windy day.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Anthrax would be easier to spread, transport, and would make a city much more unusable than a dirty bomb... |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 19:01:22 -0800 (PST), "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!"
wrote: "The treaty" has nothing to do with non-fissionable materials. There are tons of high level waste and a few pounds of it could cause a whole lot of problems if someone threw it from a plane in a very modest low explosive bomb over a big city. *For that matter you could just throw them off the roof of a few tall buildings on a windy day.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Anthrax would be easier to spread, transport, and would make a city much more unusable than a dirty bomb... Mabe it's just me but I'm very reluctant to discuss possible terror plots in a public forum. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 21:51:04 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 18:19:03 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 12:30:29 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 07:59:47 -0800, wrote: More than "a few problems." I'm happy to entertain the notion of fixing the problems with fracking. Perhaps they can start by disclosing the chemical mix they use. The problems I have heard are mostly because they were fracking too close to the surface and in residential areas. You mean that left up to the companies, who by the way deny everything, we shouldn't have any gov't oversight because there aren't any problems.. Did I say that? This fracking is done under a federal permit from MMS. Yes, and we all know how much oversight happened with that agency. I hear Obama broke it up into different agencies.. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05...gen-72654.html Lets keep a good thought. Maybe he will fix the agency and put an end to the revolving door that is the regulatory establishment in the US. Do you know of anything that doesn't affect someone? Sure. If my cat pees on a bush and I don't know about it, I suspect nobody is affected. Is that an equivalency attempt you're trying to make? I am trying to say "energy" is never going to be free of costs or even dangers. I agree. How about nuclear? France seems to be doing it safely. Oh wait, the French can't be trusted... lol I am OK with nuclear but the waste is still a problem. Yes, it's a problem, but there's got to be a trade-off. It is interesting how cavalier you are with fission products that have a huge potential for harm on a global scale for 10,000 years but you wring your hands because a few hundred people have had problems with their wells. Cavalier? It needs careful thought and regulation, but should be part of the solution. You think otherwise? It could be a valuable part of the 21st century energy picture. Now just convince those people who guide their lives from what they see in movies. I agree nuclear is probably our best hope for long term energy independence but the challenges are huge. I don't think we have a plant here in the US that has paid for itself yet and they get decommissioned, still in the red. These piles of high level waste are also very attractive targets for terrorists. Even a very modest dirty bomb in an urban center could make that place unusable for 1000 years. It would make Love Canal look like a dog knocking over your garbage can. I doubt the latter part of what you're saying. It's pretty well protected, esp. here in the US. In other countries.... well, the Republicans wanted to block the treaty, so I guess they thought all was cool. "The treaty" has nothing to do with non-fissionable materials. There are tons of high level waste and a few pounds of it could cause a whole lot of problems if someone threw it from a plane in a very modest low explosive bomb over a big city. For that matter you could just throw them off the roof of a few tall buildings on a windy day. Radiological weapons are most likely to be developed by home-grown terrorists vs. foreign ones. The biggest threat would be the so-called loose nukes, and as I said, the Republicans tried to block/delay it. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 22:52:59 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 19:01:22 -0800 (PST), "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote: "The treaty" has nothing to do with non-fissionable materials. There are tons of high level waste and a few pounds of it could cause a whole lot of problems if someone threw it from a plane in a very modest low explosive bomb over a big city. *For that matter you could just throw them off the roof of a few tall buildings on a windy day.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Anthrax would be easier to spread, transport, and would make a city much more unusable than a dirty bomb... Mabe it's just me but I'm very reluctant to discuss possible terror plots in a public forum. Why? It's not like the real terrorists are ignorant of the methods. Bio-weapons are probably the greatest threat. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
|
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 01:35:03 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 21:47:10 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 21:51:04 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 18:19:03 -0800, wrote: I doubt the latter part of what you're saying. It's pretty well protected, esp. here in the US. In other countries.... well, the Republicans wanted to block the treaty, so I guess they thought all was cool. "The treaty" has nothing to do with non-fissionable materials. There are tons of high level waste and a few pounds of it could cause a whole lot of problems if someone threw it from a plane in a very modest low explosive bomb over a big city. For that matter you could just throw them off the roof of a few tall buildings on a windy day. Radiological weapons are most likely to be developed by home-grown terrorists vs. foreign ones. I didn't say where the terrorists come from, nor does it really even matter. If anything, home grown terrorists are better at their job than foreigners. The anthrax guy, the DC sniper, McVeigh (OK City) and the Ft Hood guy did a lot more damage than all the foreign terrorist terrorists combined if you exclude 9-11. And, yet, we invaded Iraq... sigh.... |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 23:41:46 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 11:18:27 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 01:35:03 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 21:47:10 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 21:51:04 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 18:19:03 -0800, wrote: I doubt the latter part of what you're saying. It's pretty well protected, esp. here in the US. In other countries.... well, the Republicans wanted to block the treaty, so I guess they thought all was cool. "The treaty" has nothing to do with non-fissionable materials. There are tons of high level waste and a few pounds of it could cause a whole lot of problems if someone threw it from a plane in a very modest low explosive bomb over a big city. For that matter you could just throw them off the roof of a few tall buildings on a windy day. Radiological weapons are most likely to be developed by home-grown terrorists vs. foreign ones. I didn't say where the terrorists come from, nor does it really even matter. If anything, home grown terrorists are better at their job than foreigners. The anthrax guy, the DC sniper, McVeigh (OK City) and the Ft Hood guy did a lot more damage than all the foreign terrorist terrorists combined if you exclude 9-11. And, yet, we invaded Iraq... sigh.... It wasn't my idea. But you think it was justifiable now? You seem to be saying that with the "we were already at war" claim. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:36:01 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 07:57:23 -0800, wrote: And, yet, we invaded Iraq... sigh.... It wasn't my idea. But you think it was justifiable now? You seem to be saying that with the "we were already at war" claim. If you are saying invading Iraq was a bad idea, I have always agreed. I think we should have come home in 1991 when they stopped the pursuit of the Republican Guard on the road to Iraq. Iraq and Iran have never been a danger to the US but neither was Afghanistan. We invaded and occupied a country to get one guy, who isn't there. Is that dumber than invading for WMD that wasn't there? ?? We invaded Afg. to 1) get Bin Laden (Bush gave up on that one) and 2) to stop the safe harbor the Taliban were giving him. When we invaded, Bin Laden was there. Bush let him get away. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
wrote in message ...
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 18:19:03 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 12:30:29 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 07:59:47 -0800, wrote: More than "a few problems." I'm happy to entertain the notion of fixing the problems with fracking. Perhaps they can start by disclosing the chemical mix they use. The problems I have heard are mostly because they were fracking too close to the surface and in residential areas. You mean that left up to the companies, who by the way deny everything, we shouldn't have any gov't oversight because there aren't any problems.. Did I say that? This fracking is done under a federal permit from MMS. Yes, and we all know how much oversight happened with that agency. I hear Obama broke it up into different agencies.. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05...gen-72654.html Lets keep a good thought. Maybe he will fix the agency and put an end to the revolving door that is the regulatory establishment in the US. Do you know of anything that doesn't affect someone? Sure. If my cat pees on a bush and I don't know about it, I suspect nobody is affected. Is that an equivalency attempt you're trying to make? I am trying to say "energy" is never going to be free of costs or even dangers. I agree. How about nuclear? France seems to be doing it safely. Oh wait, the French can't be trusted... lol I am OK with nuclear but the waste is still a problem. Yes, it's a problem, but there's got to be a trade-off. It is interesting how cavalier you are with fission products that have a huge potential for harm on a global scale for 10,000 years but you wring your hands because a few hundred people have had problems with their wells. Cavalier? It needs careful thought and regulation, but should be part of the solution. You think otherwise? It could be a valuable part of the 21st century energy picture. Now just convince those people who guide their lives from what they see in movies. I agree nuclear is probably our best hope for long term energy independence but the challenges are huge. I don't think we have a plant here in the US that has paid for itself yet and they get decommissioned, still in the red. These piles of high level waste are also very attractive targets for terrorists. Even a very modest dirty bomb in an urban center could make that place unusable for 1000 years. It would make Love Canal look like a dog knocking over your garbage can. I doubt the latter part of what you're saying. It's pretty well protected, esp. here in the US. In other countries.... well, the Republicans wanted to block the treaty, so I guess they thought all was cool. "The treaty" has nothing to do with non-fissionable materials. There are tons of high level waste and a few pounds of it could cause a whole lot of problems if someone threw it from a plane in a very modest low explosive bomb over a big city. For that matter you could just throw them off the roof of a few tall buildings on a windy day. Actually there is a small pile of high level waste. Most is low level, clothes, tools, etc. The fuel itself is reprocessed. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com