Southern California Edison has finally announced the San Onofre
nuclear plant will be permanently shut down.
The arrogance of SCE was typical of the "We know best" attitude
of the utility industry found in some parts of the country.
The San Onofre nuclear plant was an inferior design according to
industry watchdogs that SCE tried to get recertified when it leaked
without submitting to the certifying process.
They were finally brought into submission.
To put things in perspective, there are over 8 million people living
with in 50 miles of San Onofre.
Now for the plant's demolition, but leaving accumulated nuclear
waste within 100 yards of the Pacific Ocean is not an option.
There is still a lot of work ahead to properly dispose of all the
waste
material accumulated over the years and not allow San Onofre to
become an ocean side nuclear dump after the plant's demolition.
SCE will try to cut corners, that is their track record.
Vigilance to keep them under control will be vital.
Off the stump.
Lew
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 18:28:42 -0500, Leon wrote:
>
>> That statement could just as easily be applied to other places. The
>> fist
>>> one that comes to my mind is the province of Quebec.
>>>
>> Any government/politician that does any more than to maintain the
>> infrastructure and protect its borders is IN OVER IT'S HEAD.
>
> No state police? No weights and measures inspectors? No health
> inspectors? No public universities?
>
>
>
>
All better done by the public.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> And the answer to why the people in California are in the situation
>> that
>> hey are in. I have to think that it is difficult to see the Forrest
>> for the
>> trees considering all hurdles you seem to constantly have to jump.
> -----------------------------------------------
> As posted elsewhere, you're working with stale data.
>
> CA is back in the black.
>
> Lew
I'm sure you actually believe that.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Southern California Edison has finally announced the San Onofre
> nuclear plant will be permanently shut down.
>
> The arrogance of SCE was typical of the "We know best" attitude
> of the utility industry found in some parts of the country.
>
> The San Onofre nuclear plant was an inferior design according to
> industry watchdogs that SCE tried to get recertified when it leaked
> without submitting to the certifying process.
>
> They were finally brought into submission.
>
> To put things in perspective, there are over 8 million people living
> with in 50 miles of San Onofre.
>
> Now for the plant's demolition, but leaving accumulated nuclear
> waste within 100 yards of the Pacific Ocean is not an option.
>
> There is still a lot of work ahead to properly dispose of all the
> waste
> material accumulated over the years and not allow San Onofre to
> become an ocean side nuclear dump after the plant's demolition.
>
> SCE will try to cut corners, that is their track record.
>
> Vigilance to keep them under control will be vital.
>
> Off the stump.
>
> Lew
I wonder if California's over the top restrictions and regulations are the
source of the problems. I mean really, my new yard sprinkler which is also
sold in California has to have cancer warning labels because something in
it may or may not cause cancer in "1 in 1,000,000,000,000" test critters.
The regulations seem to be so far fetched and absurd that a "legitimate"
producer simply can not operate and make a profit. So what you end up with
is a business environment that is too hostile for production. As a result
it appears that the ones that do operate under the "California
restrictions" and are producers of "whatever" probably hide the fact, or
not, that they have to cut corners at every possible step. And because of
the over bearing restrictions the businesses that could possibly do a
better job and make a sustainable profit simply feel that life is too
short to do business in California. This leaves you with the type of
businesses you rant about, those that don't care about their image, those
that will lie and hide what is really going on, those that do what ever it
takes to make a profit and ride that pony for all it is worth until it gets
caught.
I believe for many years Californians have believed that they live in
heaven, a place where every thing can be made perfectly safe, clean, and
with out hazard.
May I assure you, they are not in heaven and they are the recipients of
enormous amounts of deception.. They have been sold a bill of goods which
they cannot afford.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 19:24:47 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> I can assure you a politician is getting paid for letting his state
>> accept/be paid for housing the materials. Shoot the waste into outer
>> space and the politician gets nothing.
>
> We're not prepared to make the effort to use a cleaner source of
> energy and we're not prepared to keep its waste product on our planet
> so the solution is to put it off planet and potentially contaminate
> somewhere out of this world?
You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to be a problem?
>
> I don't know. I have a moral problem with that. Already, our nearby
> space is turning into a junk field. What if all that junk and possible
> nuclear waste ever comes back to home? Then we might have a REAL
> problem.
You don't send it into orbit like all the other junk that is up there, you
go for a close by star which BTW would consume the waste in the blink of an
eye.
One doesn't have to 'shoot' it into our star - but if we were allowed
to build a 'breeder' plant the waste would be transformed into fuel.
Other countries have them in use but our 'do stuff always wrong ECO
types' screamed to loud. Shame on them. Now store it all over the place.
The fly ash is used in cement and in 'cinder-blocks' a cement block
for building. It is a common thread with the greenees - don't solve
something, prevent it in the first place and go back to the bad old days.
Martin
On 6/9/2013 7:24 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 6/9/2013 7:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 19:07:30 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> I have often wondered why the nuclear waste is not shot off into outer
>>> space.
>>
>> My guess would be cost. Much, Much cheaper to just stick it in a hole
>> in the ground.
>>
>
>
> At the moment it is, but not when it has to be dealt with later.
>
> And for that matter, the cost would be countless times more reasonable
> that the cost of sending astronauts up there. Shoot the waste out
> there and the problem of down the rode costs is solved. We are not
> really getting a worth while return on the investment of sending
> astronauts up there.
>
> I can assure you a politician is getting paid for letting his state
> accept/be paid for housing the materials. Shoot the waste into outer
> space and the politician gets nothing.
"Leon" wrote:
> I wonder if California's over the top restrictions and regulations
> are the
> source of the problems.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This was driven by the feds (NRC).
SCE finally realized they were not going to be able to stonewall
this one away.
-----------------------------------------------------------
> I mean really, my new yard sprinkler which
> is also
> sold in California has to have cancer warning labels because
> something in
> it may or may not cause cancer in "1 in 1,000,000,000,000" test
> critters.
>
> The regulations seem to be so far fetched and absurd that a
> "legitimate"
> producer simply can not operate and make a profit. So what you end
> up with
> is a business environment that is too hostile for production. As a
> result
> it appears that the ones that do operate under the "California
> restrictions" and are producers of "whatever" probably hide the
> fact, or
> not, that they have to cut corners at every possible step. And
> because of
> the over bearing restrictions the businesses that could possibly do
> a
> better job and make a sustainable profit simply feel that life is
> too
> short to do business in California. This leaves you with the type
> of
> businesses you rant about, those that don't care about their image,
> those
> that will lie and hide what is really going on, those that do what
> ever it
> takes to make a profit and ride that pony for all it is worth until
> it gets
> caught.
>
> I believe for many years Californians have believed that they live
> in
> heaven, a place where every thing can be made perfectly safe, clean,
> and
> with out hazard.
>
> May I assure you, they are not in heaven and they are the
> recipients of
> enormous amounts of deception.. They have been sold a bill of goods
> which
> they cannot afford.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Is there an echo chamber in here?
That's the standard line we keep hearing from the chief idiot sitting
in your
governor's chair, when he trys to raid a few marginal businesses under
the
guise of a "trade junket".
Regardless of all the bitching, California still has an economy that
is in the
world's top six economies.
Must be doing something right.
Lew
"Keith Nuttle" wrote:
> An example is trace contaminates in food and food substances. When I
> was working daily with regulations, California regulations were
> basically if you can detect a compound you must provide proof that
> it is safe.
-----------------------------------------------
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Guess a majority of the 38+ million people here in California seem
to also agree.
Lew
"Keith Nuttle" wrote:
> To emphasis what I said let me say: "I sorry that there are that
> many people in California who think that way". Maybe the state
> would not be near bankrupt if the people were more reasonable.
------------------------------------------------
You're working with stale data.
CA is back in the black.
Lew
"Leon" wrote:
> And the answer to why the people in California are in the situation
> that
> hey are in. I have to think that it is difficult to see the Forrest
> for the
> trees considering all hurdles you seem to constantly have to jump.
-----------------------------------------------
As posted elsewhere, you're working with stale data.
CA is back in the black.
Lew
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:10:28 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 6/10/2013 7:17 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:50:36 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>> I have often wondered why the nuclear waste is not shot off into outer
>>>> space.
>>>
>>> Cause rockets blow up
>>
>> Very good point. Even if it was one rocket in a thousand, it would be
>> an environment disaster beyond catastrophic.
>>
>
>
>The cargo could be secured in a safe container, even the shuttles had
>parts that survived the crashes and blow ups.
But it would be containment built by the lowest bidder, cutting cost
increase profits.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Keith Nuttle" wrote:
>
>> An example is trace contaminates in food and food substances. When I
>> was working daily with regulations, California regulations were
>> basically if you can detect a compound you must provide proof that
>> it is safe.
> -----------------------------------------------
> Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
>
> Guess a majority of the 38+ million people here in California seem
> to also agree.
>
> Lew
And the answer to why the people in California are in the situation that
hey are in. I have to think that it is difficult to see the Forrest for the
trees considering all hurdles you seem to constantly have to jump.
On 6/9/2013 6:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 15:36:44 -0500, "ChairMan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> California is a beautiful state , but the folks in the capitol have ruined
>> it.
>> Companies are leaving in droves because of it, it's a shame they can't use a
>> little common sense, but that seems to be a trait that politicans don't
>> possess
>
> That statement could just as easily be applied to other places. The
> fist one that comes to my mind is the province of Quebec.
>
Any government/politician that does any more than to maintain the
infrastructure and protect its borders is IN OVER IT'S HEAD.
Any privileges beyond that is a license to steal, and we all see the
proof. When politicians have special privileges that are not equal to
the people of those they govern there is an attraction of the dishonest.
If politicians had any talent other than lying and the gift of gab they
would not be in government.
Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 6/8/2013 1:03 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Southern California Edison has finally announced the San Onofre
>> nuclear plant will be permanently shut down.
>>
>> The arrogance of SCE was typical of the "We know best" attitude
>> of the utility industry found in some parts of the country.
>>
>> The San Onofre nuclear plant was an inferior design according to
>> industry watchdogs that SCE tried to get recertified when it leaked
>> without submitting to the certifying process.
>>
>> They were finally brought into submission.
>>
>> To put things in perspective, there are over 8 million people living
>> with in 50 miles of San Onofre.
>>
>> Now for the plant's demolition, but leaving accumulated nuclear
>> waste within 100 yards of the Pacific Ocean is not an option.
>>
>> There is still a lot of work ahead to properly dispose of all the
>> waste
>> material accumulated over the years and not allow San Onofre to
>> become an ocean side nuclear dump after the plant's demolition.
>>
>> SCE will try to cut corners, that is their track record.
>>
>> Vigilance to keep them under control will be vital.
>>
>> Off the stump.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
> Thank GOD, we have people in the Carolinas that are not afraid of
> Nuclear Energy and have trained knowledgeable people to run them in a
> safe manner. We have several plants that are online producing clean,
> environmental-friendly energy. They are not killing birds, creating
> noise in all frequencies. They are not taking up acres and acres of
> sunbaked land with no trees.
>
> We recently had a power plant problem. They found a small crack in a
> pipe going to the reactor. They shut the plant down, fixed it and
> restarted it.
>
> Several years ago we lived within 10 miles of one. Never did it
> affect our lives in a negative way. The large lake created for the
> cooling system was leased to the city and was a beautiful park with
> waking trails, picnic areas, etc. The lake itself was one of the
> best fishing lakes in the area.
>
> It is nice to know we have a reliable source of energy to run our air
> conditioners this summer, that will run day and night. That is not
> dependent on the wind which may be blowing over 100 mph during a
> hurricane one day, and the next be so weak that they will not move my
> small sailboat.
So you let them bury the nuclear waste in your backyard?
--
PV
If you could choose one characteristic that would get you through life,
choose a sense of humor. -Jennifer Jones
On 6/8/2013 2:25 PM, PV wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 6/8/2013 10:09 AM, PV wrote:
>>> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>> On 6/8/2013 1:03 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>> Southern California Edison has finally announced the San Onofre
>>>>> nuclear plant will be permanently shut down.
>>>>>
>>>>> The arrogance of SCE was typical of the "We know best" attitude
>>>>> of the utility industry found in some parts of the country.
>>>>>
>>>>> The San Onofre nuclear plant was an inferior design according to
>>>>> industry watchdogs that SCE tried to get recertified when it leaked
>>>>> without submitting to the certifying process.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were finally brought into submission.
>>>>>
>>>>> To put things in perspective, there are over 8 million people
>>>>> living with in 50 miles of San Onofre.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now for the plant's demolition, but leaving accumulated nuclear
>>>>> waste within 100 yards of the Pacific Ocean is not an option.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is still a lot of work ahead to properly dispose of all the
>>>>> waste
>>>>> material accumulated over the years and not allow San Onofre to
>>>>> become an ocean side nuclear dump after the plant's demolition.
>>>>>
>>>>> SCE will try to cut corners, that is their track record.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vigilance to keep them under control will be vital.
>>>>>
>>>>> Off the stump.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Thank GOD, we have people in the Carolinas that are not afraid of
>>>> Nuclear Energy and have trained knowledgeable people to run them in
>>>> a safe manner. We have several plants that are online producing
>>>> clean, environmental-friendly energy. They are not killing birds,
>>>> creating noise in all frequencies. They are not taking up acres
>>>> and acres of sunbaked land with no trees.
>>>>
>>>> We recently had a power plant problem. They found a small crack in
>>>> a pipe going to the reactor. They shut the plant down, fixed it and
>>>> restarted it.
>>>>
>>>> Several years ago we lived within 10 miles of one. Never did it
>>>> affect our lives in a negative way. The large lake created for the
>>>> cooling system was leased to the city and was a beautiful park with
>>>> waking trails, picnic areas, etc. The lake itself was one of the
>>>> best fishing lakes in the area.
>>>>
>>>> It is nice to know we have a reliable source of energy to run our
>>>> air conditioners this summer, that will run day and night. That is
>>>> not dependent on the wind which may be blowing over 100 mph during a
>>>> hurricane one day, and the next be so weak that they will not move
>>>> my small sailboat.
>>>
>>> So you let them bury the nuclear waste in your backyard?
>>>
>>>
>> Probably ends up in NM or Washington State.
>
> It's always great to have a "reliable source of energy" when you can pawn
> the waste off on another place. Waste that will be hot for a long long
> time.
>
I have often wondered why the nuclear waste is not shot off into outer
space.
As I heard it - it is checker-board black and red.
They dumped a lot of bills on the counties to pay and
have stolen a lot of counties money (law allows it),
taxed the fool out of folks and has a balance in this years take,
but not in the total RED mess they are into for many years.
CA is debt deep they are.
Martin
On 6/9/2013 5:18 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> And the answer to why the people in California are in the situation
>> that
>> hey are in. I have to think that it is difficult to see the Forrest
>> for the
>> trees considering all hurdles you seem to constantly have to jump.
> -----------------------------------------------
> As posted elsewhere, you're working with stale data.
>
> CA is back in the black.
>
> Lew
>
>
On 6/8/2013 10:35 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 08:34:00 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
>> Thank GOD, we have people in the Carolinas that are not afraid of
>> Nuclear Energy and have trained knowledgeable people to run them in a
>> safe manner.
>
> I used to be a strong supporter of nuclear power. Then I did some
> software for a couple of nuclear plants. After listening to the managers
> and watching the "trained" people for a couple of months, I changed my
> mind.
>
Ever think it might have been the software? :~)
On 6/8/2013 10:09 AM, PV wrote:
> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> On 6/8/2013 1:03 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> Southern California Edison has finally announced the San Onofre
>>> nuclear plant will be permanently shut down.
>>>
>>> The arrogance of SCE was typical of the "We know best" attitude
>>> of the utility industry found in some parts of the country.
>>>
>>> The San Onofre nuclear plant was an inferior design according to
>>> industry watchdogs that SCE tried to get recertified when it leaked
>>> without submitting to the certifying process.
>>>
>>> They were finally brought into submission.
>>>
>>> To put things in perspective, there are over 8 million people living
>>> with in 50 miles of San Onofre.
>>>
>>> Now for the plant's demolition, but leaving accumulated nuclear
>>> waste within 100 yards of the Pacific Ocean is not an option.
>>>
>>> There is still a lot of work ahead to properly dispose of all the
>>> waste
>>> material accumulated over the years and not allow San Onofre to
>>> become an ocean side nuclear dump after the plant's demolition.
>>>
>>> SCE will try to cut corners, that is their track record.
>>>
>>> Vigilance to keep them under control will be vital.
>>>
>>> Off the stump.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>>>
>> Thank GOD, we have people in the Carolinas that are not afraid of
>> Nuclear Energy and have trained knowledgeable people to run them in a
>> safe manner. We have several plants that are online producing clean,
>> environmental-friendly energy. They are not killing birds, creating
>> noise in all frequencies. They are not taking up acres and acres of
>> sunbaked land with no trees.
>>
>> We recently had a power plant problem. They found a small crack in a
>> pipe going to the reactor. They shut the plant down, fixed it and
>> restarted it.
>>
>> Several years ago we lived within 10 miles of one. Never did it
>> affect our lives in a negative way. The large lake created for the
>> cooling system was leased to the city and was a beautiful park with
>> waking trails, picnic areas, etc. The lake itself was one of the
>> best fishing lakes in the area.
>>
>> It is nice to know we have a reliable source of energy to run our air
>> conditioners this summer, that will run day and night. That is not
>> dependent on the wind which may be blowing over 100 mph during a
>> hurricane one day, and the next be so weak that they will not move my
>> small sailboat.
>
> So you let them bury the nuclear waste in your backyard?
>
>
Probably ends up in NM or Washington State.
On 6/10/2013 9:22 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 6/10/2013 2:02 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:09:07 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to be a problem?
>>>
>>> Only a financial one and maybe a technical one. Obviously, the sun
>>> would make a great trash burner, but it's something often discussed
>>> but not acted on ~ yet. There must be some practical reasons for that
>>> otherwise I'm guessing it would have been done already.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Substitute political for practical in your last sentence above and you
>> have your answer.
>
> Actually, there is a practical reason for not doing so: it takes too much fuel.
Not arguing here but as an example, and I am clueless as to how much
would have to disposed of in this manner, I would think that maintenance
of the materials forever might be more expensive than sending some one
to the moon. I am talking on a 1 to 1 comparison, maybe 50 to 1 might
be the real number and in that instance I totally agree that would
probably be way too much trouble and expensive.
To eject
> something from the solar system completely, you need to speed it up only a little bit, but to
> make it fall into the sun, you have to slow it down A LOT.
I suppose if you are depending on the suns gravity to pull the waste in
that would be true. I was thinking more of a direct shot at the sun.
(I used to work with a guy who was
> a for-real rocket scientist -- former NASA aerospace engineer -- and once asked him
> exactly the same question: why don't we dispose of nuclear waste by launching it into the
> sun? and that was his answer.)
>
Hummmm we had the same thought. LOL
On 6/9/2013 7:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 19:07:30 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> I have often wondered why the nuclear waste is not shot off into outer
>> space.
>
> My guess would be cost. Much, Much cheaper to just stick it in a hole
> in the ground.
>
At the moment it is, but not when it has to be dealt with later.
And for that matter, the cost would be countless times more reasonable
that the cost of sending astronauts up there. Shoot the waste out
there and the problem of down the rode costs is solved. We are not
really getting a worth while return on the investment of sending
astronauts up there.
I can assure you a politician is getting paid for letting his state
accept/be paid for housing the materials. Shoot the waste into outer
space and the politician gets nothing.
On 6/9/2013 6:44 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 6/8/2013 8:25 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 13:09:22 -0400, none wrote:
>>
>>> So, what did you see? People lurching from one problem to another?
>>
>> How about doors to critical areas locked with a keypad, but no way to
>> tell how many entered or left on a single actuation?
>>
>> How about spills that were marked with tape on the floor instead of
>> cleaned up. They did get cleaned up shortly before a congressional visit
>> - at least the tape went away.
>>
>> How about monitoring software whose consoles were left unmanned?
>>
>> Operators were only required to have a high school diploma (or GED). Do
>> you know how easy it has been to get a diploma in the last 20-30 years?
>>
> If the software were any good and problems occurred, alarms would be
> sent to all consoles so all consoles would not need be manned.
>
> The problem with many people in the US is they run of and make critical
> decision without a complete knowledge of the situation.
>
> How many times have you heard people complaining about a company making
> a billion dollars profit, and do not consider the fact that the company
> has 50 billion in sales, or making 2% profit.
LOL Really, My sister and her son have both been involved in their own
small businesses. My sister gets by but her son has never been
successful. Both have bragged about their yearly sales, which BTW is
about equal to an average gross salary. What they don't realize I am
wondering is how much their cost of materials and cost of doing business
is coming out of those sales. If you have $60,000 in sales and your
cost is $45,000 can you live on $15,000 per year?
In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
> On 6/8/2013 10:35 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 08:34:00 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> >
> >> Thank GOD, we have people in the Carolinas that are not afraid of
> >> Nuclear Energy and have trained knowledgeable people to run them in a
> >> safe manner.
> >
> > I used to be a strong supporter of nuclear power. Then I did some
> > software for a couple of nuclear plants. After listening to the managers
> > and watching the "trained" people for a couple of months, I changed my
> > mind.
> >
>
>
> Ever think it might have been the software? :~)
Sounds more like the problem was wetware at several stages of the decision
making process.
Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 6/8/2013 8:11 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> Here is a general article about the technology of processing
>> materials coming from a nuclear plant.
>>
>> Because of Jimmy Carter, a knowledgeable democrat, it can not be
>> used in the US.
> http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/05/18/18climatewire-is-the-solution-to-the-us-nuclear-waste-prob-12208.html?pagewanted=all
Far from a definitive solution to the problem plus it's 4 years old, and in
the meantime the stockpile of waste continues to grow but that's okay and
you can ship it somewhere else to be disposed of while you enjoy dependable
air conditioning
--
PV
If you could choose one characteristic that would get you through life,
choose a sense of humor. -Jennifer Jones
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 6/10/2013 2:02 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:09:07 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to be a problem?
>>
>> Only a financial one and maybe a technical one. Obviously, the sun
>> would make a great trash burner, but it's something often discussed
>> but not acted on ~ yet. There must be some practical reasons for that
>> otherwise I'm guessing it would have been done already.
>>
>
>
> Substitute political for practical in your last sentence above and you
> have your answer.
Actually, there is a practical reason for not doing so: it takes too much fuel. To eject
something from the solar system completely, you need to speed it up only a little bit, but to
make it fall into the sun, you have to slow it down A LOT. (I used to work with a guy who was
a for-real rocket scientist -- former NASA aerospace engineer -- and once asked him
exactly the same question: why don't we dispose of nuclear waste by launching it into the
sun? and that was his answer.)
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 6/10/2013 9:22 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 6/10/2013 2:02 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:09:07 -0500, Leon
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to
>>>>> be a problem?
>>>>
>>>> Only a financial one and maybe a technical one. Obviously,
>>>> the sun would make a great trash burner, but it's something
>>>> often discussed but not acted on ~ yet. There must be some
>>>> practical reasons for that otherwise I'm guessing it would
>>>> have been done already.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Substitute political for practical in your last sentence above
>>> and you have your answer.
>>
>> Actually, there is a practical reason for not doing so: it
>> takes too much fuel.
>
> Not arguing here but as an example, and I am clueless as to how
> much would have to disposed of in this manner, I would think
> that maintenance of the materials forever might be more
> expensive than sending some one to the moon. I am talking on a
> 1 to 1 comparison, maybe 50 to 1 might be the real number and in
> that instance I totally agree that would probably be way too
> much trouble and expensive.
>
>
> To eject
>> something from the solar system completely, you need to speed
>> it up only a little bit, but to make it fall into the sun, you
>> have to slow it down A LOT.
>
> I suppose if you are depending on the suns gravity to pull the
> waste in that would be true. I was thinking more of a direct
> shot at the sun.
That takes even more fuel. (I asked about that, too.)
>
>
> (I used to work with a guy who was
>> a for-real rocket scientist -- former NASA aerospace engineer
>> -- and once asked him exactly the same question: why don't we
>> dispose of nuclear waste by launching it into the sun? and that
>> was his answer.)
>>
>
> Hummmm we had the same thought. LOL
Larry W wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> PV <edrnouser@ spam telus.net> wrote:
>>
>> It's always great to have a "reliable source of energy" when you can
>> pawn the waste off on another place. Waste that will be hot for a
>> long long time.
>>
>
>
> Damage and deaths from coal burning air pollution and fly ash waste
> containment accidents dwarf anything caused to date from nuclear
> waste in the USA.
Installation of scrubbing units, improvements in coal burning techniques and
using fly ash waste as a concrete reinforcment has cleaned up the coal fed
power plants in the area.
Nuclear waste would be hanging around for hundreds of years, waiting for a
mistake to happen
--
PV
If you could choose one characteristic that would get you through life,
choose a sense of humor. -Jennifer Jones
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 19:07:30 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 6/8/2013 2:25 PM, PV wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> On 6/8/2013 10:09 AM, PV wrote:
>>>> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>> On 6/8/2013 1:03 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>>> Southern California Edison has finally announced the San Onofre
>>>>>> nuclear plant will be permanently shut down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The arrogance of SCE was typical of the "We know best" attitude
>>>>>> of the utility industry found in some parts of the country.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The San Onofre nuclear plant was an inferior design according to
>>>>>> industry watchdogs that SCE tried to get recertified when it leaked
>>>>>> without submitting to the certifying process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were finally brought into submission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To put things in perspective, there are over 8 million people
>>>>>> living with in 50 miles of San Onofre.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now for the plant's demolition, but leaving accumulated nuclear
>>>>>> waste within 100 yards of the Pacific Ocean is not an option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is still a lot of work ahead to properly dispose of all the
>>>>>> waste
>>>>>> material accumulated over the years and not allow San Onofre to
>>>>>> become an ocean side nuclear dump after the plant's demolition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SCE will try to cut corners, that is their track record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vigilance to keep them under control will be vital.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Off the stump.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lew
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thank GOD, we have people in the Carolinas that are not afraid of
>>>>> Nuclear Energy and have trained knowledgeable people to run them in
>>>>> a safe manner. We have several plants that are online producing
>>>>> clean, environmental-friendly energy. They are not killing birds,
>>>>> creating noise in all frequencies. They are not taking up acres
>>>>> and acres of sunbaked land with no trees.
>>>>>
>>>>> We recently had a power plant problem. They found a small crack in
>>>>> a pipe going to the reactor. They shut the plant down, fixed it and
>>>>> restarted it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Several years ago we lived within 10 miles of one. Never did it
>>>>> affect our lives in a negative way. The large lake created for the
>>>>> cooling system was leased to the city and was a beautiful park with
>>>>> waking trails, picnic areas, etc. The lake itself was one of the
>>>>> best fishing lakes in the area.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is nice to know we have a reliable source of energy to run our
>>>>> air conditioners this summer, that will run day and night. That is
>>>>> not dependent on the wind which may be blowing over 100 mph during a
>>>>> hurricane one day, and the next be so weak that they will not move
>>>>> my small sailboat.
>>>>
>>>> So you let them bury the nuclear waste in your backyard?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Probably ends up in NM or Washington State.
>>
>> It's always great to have a "reliable source of energy" when you can pawn
>> the waste off on another place. Waste that will be hot for a long long
>> time.
>>
>I have often wondered why the nuclear waste is not shot off into outer
>space.
Cause rockets blow up
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:09:07 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to be a problem?
Only a financial one and maybe a technical one. Obviously, the sun
would make a great trash burner, but it's something often discussed
but not acted on ~ yet. There must be some practical reasons for that
otherwise I'm guessing it would have been done already.
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:50:36 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
>>I have often wondered why the nuclear waste is not shot off into outer
>>space.
>
>Cause rockets blow up
Very good point. Even if it was one rocket in a thousand, it would be
an environment disaster beyond catastrophic.
On 6/10/2013 2:02 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:09:07 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to be a problem?
>
> Only a financial one and maybe a technical one. Obviously, the sun
> would make a great trash burner, but it's something often discussed
> but not acted on ~ yet. There must be some practical reasons for that
> otherwise I'm guessing it would have been done already.
>
Substitute political for practical in your last sentence above and you
have your answer.
On 6/10/2013 7:17 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:50:36 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
>>> I have often wondered why the nuclear waste is not shot off into outer
>>> space.
>>
>> Cause rockets blow up
>
> Very good point. Even if it was one rocket in a thousand, it would be
> an environment disaster beyond catastrophic.
>
The cargo could be secured in a safe container, even the shuttles had
parts that survived the crashes and blow ups.
On 6/8/2013 1:03 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Southern California Edison has finally announced the San Onofre
> nuclear plant will be permanently shut down.
>
> The arrogance of SCE was typical of the "We know best" attitude
> of the utility industry found in some parts of the country.
>
> The San Onofre nuclear plant was an inferior design according to
> industry watchdogs that SCE tried to get recertified when it leaked
> without submitting to the certifying process.
>
> They were finally brought into submission.
>
> To put things in perspective, there are over 8 million people living
> with in 50 miles of San Onofre.
>
> Now for the plant's demolition, but leaving accumulated nuclear
> waste within 100 yards of the Pacific Ocean is not an option.
>
> There is still a lot of work ahead to properly dispose of all the
> waste
> material accumulated over the years and not allow San Onofre to
> become an ocean side nuclear dump after the plant's demolition.
>
> SCE will try to cut corners, that is their track record.
>
> Vigilance to keep them under control will be vital.
>
> Off the stump.
>
> Lew
>
>
Thank GOD, we have people in the Carolinas that are not afraid of
Nuclear Energy and have trained knowledgeable people to run them in a
safe manner. We have several plants that are online producing clean,
environmental-friendly energy. They are not killing birds, creating
noise in all frequencies. They are not taking up acres and acres of
sunbaked land with no trees.
We recently had a power plant problem. They found a small crack in a
pipe going to the reactor. They shut the plant down, fixed it and
restarted it.
Several years ago we lived within 10 miles of one. Never did it affect
our lives in a negative way. The large lake created for the cooling
system was leased to the city and was a beautiful park with waking
trails, picnic areas, etc. The lake itself was one of the best fishing
lakes in the area.
It is nice to know we have a reliable source of energy to run our air
conditioners this summer, that will run day and night. That is not
dependent on the wind which may be blowing over 100 mph during a
hurricane one day, and the next be so weak that they will not move my
small sailboat.
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 08:34:00 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> Thank GOD, we have people in the Carolinas that are not afraid of
> Nuclear Energy and have trained knowledgeable people to run them in a
> safe manner.
I used to be a strong supporter of nuclear power. Then I did some
software for a couple of nuclear plants. After listening to the managers
and watching the "trained" people for a couple of months, I changed my
mind.
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
On 6/8/2013 6:26 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> >I wonder if California's over the top restrictions and regulations
>> >are the
>> >source of the problems.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This was driven by the feds (NRC).
>
> SCE finally realized they were not going to be able to stonewall
> this one away.
The Feds are not responsible for the restrictive regulations in
California. In my experience with Regulation, California is many times
more restrictive than the Feds or any other state regulations.
An example is trace contaminates in food and food substances. When I was
working daily with regulations, California regulations were basically if
you can detect a compound you must provide proof that it is safe. This
is counter to the American law, which is that you are innocent until
proof guilty. At least it was until 2008.
On 6/8/2013 11:09 AM, PV wrote:
> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> On 6/8/2013 1:03 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> Southern California Edison has finally announced the San Onofre
>>> nuclear plant will be permanently shut down.
>>>
>>> The arrogance of SCE was typical of the "We know best" attitude
>>> of the utility industry found in some parts of the country.
>>>
>>> The San Onofre nuclear plant was an inferior design according to
>>> industry watchdogs that SCE tried to get recertified when it leaked
>>> without submitting to the certifying process.
>>>
>>> They were finally brought into submission.
>>>
>>> To put things in perspective, there are over 8 million people living
>>> with in 50 miles of San Onofre.
>>>
>>> Now for the plant's demolition, but leaving accumulated nuclear
>>> waste within 100 yards of the Pacific Ocean is not an option.
>>>
>>> There is still a lot of work ahead to properly dispose of all the
>>> waste
>>> material accumulated over the years and not allow San Onofre to
>>> become an ocean side nuclear dump after the plant's demolition.
>>>
>>> SCE will try to cut corners, that is their track record.
>>>
>>> Vigilance to keep them under control will be vital.
>>>
>>> Off the stump.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>>>
>> Thank GOD, we have people in the Carolinas that are not afraid of
>> Nuclear Energy and have trained knowledgeable people to run them in a
>> safe manner. We have several plants that are online producing clean,
>> environmental-friendly energy. They are not killing birds, creating
>> noise in all frequencies. They are not taking up acres and acres of
>> sunbaked land with no trees.
>>
>> We recently had a power plant problem. They found a small crack in a
>> pipe going to the reactor. They shut the plant down, fixed it and
>> restarted it.
>>
>> Several years ago we lived within 10 miles of one. Never did it
>> affect our lives in a negative way. The large lake created for the
>> cooling system was leased to the city and was a beautiful park with
>> waking trails, picnic areas, etc. The lake itself was one of the
>> best fishing lakes in the area.
>>
>> It is nice to know we have a reliable source of energy to run our air
>> conditioners this summer, that will run day and night. That is not
>> dependent on the wind which may be blowing over 100 mph during a
>> hurricane one day, and the next be so weak that they will not move my
>> small sailboat.
>
> So you let them bury the nuclear waste in your backyard?
>
>
If the restrictive regulations had not been employed to drive nuclear
power out of existence, there would be no waste to bury. It is against
the law to try to reclaim nuclear waste.
If the Chemist and Physicist had been allowed to solve the problem in
the last 40 years, the raw material that we are currently are burying
from nuclear plants would be used to produce additional energy.
On 6/8/2013 7:53 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 6/8/2013 11:09 AM, PV wrote:
>> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> On 6/8/2013 1:03 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>> Southern California Edison has finally announced the San Onofre
>>>> nuclear plant will be permanently shut down.
>>>>
>>>> The arrogance of SCE was typical of the "We know best" attitude
>>>> of the utility industry found in some parts of the country.
>>>>
>>>> The San Onofre nuclear plant was an inferior design according to
>>>> industry watchdogs that SCE tried to get recertified when it leaked
>>>> without submitting to the certifying process.
>>>>
>>>> They were finally brought into submission.
>>>>
>>>> To put things in perspective, there are over 8 million people living
>>>> with in 50 miles of San Onofre.
>>>>
>>>> Now for the plant's demolition, but leaving accumulated nuclear
>>>> waste within 100 yards of the Pacific Ocean is not an option.
>>>>
>>>> There is still a lot of work ahead to properly dispose of all the
>>>> waste
>>>> material accumulated over the years and not allow San Onofre to
>>>> become an ocean side nuclear dump after the plant's demolition.
>>>>
>>>> SCE will try to cut corners, that is their track record.
>>>>
>>>> Vigilance to keep them under control will be vital.
>>>>
>>>> Off the stump.
>>>>
>>>> Lew
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thank GOD, we have people in the Carolinas that are not afraid of
>>> Nuclear Energy and have trained knowledgeable people to run them in a
>>> safe manner. We have several plants that are online producing clean,
>>> environmental-friendly energy. They are not killing birds, creating
>>> noise in all frequencies. They are not taking up acres and acres of
>>> sunbaked land with no trees.
>>>
>>> We recently had a power plant problem. They found a small crack in a
>>> pipe going to the reactor. They shut the plant down, fixed it and
>>> restarted it.
>>>
>>> Several years ago we lived within 10 miles of one. Never did it
>>> affect our lives in a negative way. The large lake created for the
>>> cooling system was leased to the city and was a beautiful park with
>>> waking trails, picnic areas, etc. The lake itself was one of the
>>> best fishing lakes in the area.
>>>
>>> It is nice to know we have a reliable source of energy to run our air
>>> conditioners this summer, that will run day and night. That is not
>>> dependent on the wind which may be blowing over 100 mph during a
>>> hurricane one day, and the next be so weak that they will not move my
>>> small sailboat.
>>
>> So you let them bury the nuclear waste in your backyard?
>>
>>
> If the restrictive regulations had not been employed to drive nuclear
> power out of existence, there would be no waste to bury. It is against
> the law to try to reclaim nuclear waste.
>
> If the Chemist and Physicist had been allowed to solve the problem in
> the last 40 years, the raw material that we are currently are burying
> from nuclear plants would be used to produce additional energy.
Here is a general article about the technology of processing materials
coming from a nuclear plant.
Because of Jimmy Carter, a knowledgeable democrat, it can not be used in
the US.
On 6/8/2013 8:11 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> Here is a general article about the technology of processing materials
> coming from a nuclear plant.
>
> Because of Jimmy Carter, a knowledgeable democrat, it can not be used in
> the US.
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/05/18/18climatewire-is-the-solution-to-the-us-nuclear-waste-prob-12208.html?pagewanted=all
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 13:14:03 -0500, Leon wrote:
> Ever think it might have been the software? :~)
No, because it never got used. We were informed that the NRC required
it, therefore they had to have it - but they had no intention of using it.
That's when I started getting worried.
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 13:09:22 -0400, none wrote:
> So, what did you see? People lurching from one problem to another?
How about doors to critical areas locked with a keypad, but no way to
tell how many entered or left on a single actuation?
How about spills that were marked with tape on the floor instead of
cleaned up. They did get cleaned up shortly before a congressional visit
- at least the tape went away.
How about monitoring software whose consoles were left unmanned?
Operators were only required to have a high school diploma (or GED). Do
you know how easy it has been to get a diploma in the last 20-30 years?
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
On 6/8/2013 8:25 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 13:09:22 -0400, none wrote:
>
>> So, what did you see? People lurching from one problem to another?
>
> How about doors to critical areas locked with a keypad, but no way to
> tell how many entered or left on a single actuation?
>
> How about spills that were marked with tape on the floor instead of
> cleaned up. They did get cleaned up shortly before a congressional visit
> - at least the tape went away.
>
> How about monitoring software whose consoles were left unmanned?
>
> Operators were only required to have a high school diploma (or GED). Do
> you know how easy it has been to get a diploma in the last 20-30 years?
>
If the software were any good and problems occurred, alarms would be
sent to all consoles so all consoles would not need be manned.
The problem with many people in the US is they run of and make critical
decision without a complete knowledge of the situation.
How many times have you heard people complaining about a company making
a billion dollars profit, and do not consider the fact that the company
has 50 billion in sales, or making 2% profit.
In article <[email protected]>,
PV <edrnouser@ spam telus.net> wrote:
>
>It's always great to have a "reliable source of energy" when you can pawn
>the waste off on another place. Waste that will be hot for a long long
>time.
>
Damage and deaths from coal burning air pollution and fly ash waste
containment accidents dwarf anything caused to date from nuclear waste in
the USA.
--
Often wrong, never in doubt.
Larry W. - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
On 6/8/2013 10:38 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Keith Nuttle" wrote:
>
>> An example is trace contaminates in food and food substances. When I
>> was working daily with regulations, California regulations were
>> basically if you can detect a compound you must provide proof that
>> it is safe.
> -----------------------------------------------
> Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
>
> Guess a majority of the 38+ million people here in California seem
> to also agree.
>
> Lew
>
>
To emphasis what I said let me say: "I sorry that there are that many
people in California who think that way". Maybe the state would not be
near bankrupt if the people were more reasonable.
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 07:44:08 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> If the software were any good and problems occurred, alarms would be
> sent to all consoles so all consoles would not need be manned.
>
> The problem with many people in the US is they run of and make critical
> decision without a complete knowledge of the situation.
I think your second sentence explains your first one quite well :-).
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 18:28:42 -0500, Leon wrote:
> That statement could just as easily be applied to other places. The
> fist
>> one that comes to my mind is the province of Quebec.
>>
> Any government/politician that does any more than to maintain the
> infrastructure and protect its borders is IN OVER IT'S HEAD.
No state police? No weights and measures inspectors? No health
inspectors? No public universities?
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
On 6/10/2013 3:02 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:09:07 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to be a problem?
>
> Only a financial one and maybe a technical one. Obviously, the sun
> would make a great trash burner, but it's something often discussed
> but not acted on ~ yet. There must be some practical reasons for that
> otherwise I'm guessing it would have been done already.
>
It would be like a famous land mark. If you permit the tourist to take
part of it with every visit, eventually it no longer exist.
If we call all of the earth potential energy, waste, and shoot it into
the sun it no longer exist on earth. When we give our scientist the go
ahead to develop methods to recover, it will no longer be available.
It took a little over four years to separate uranium in the Manhattan
Project, what could we have done in the last 50 years if our scientist
had been encouraged to develop methods to reuse our nuclear waste.
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:09:07 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to be a problem?
>
>Only a financial one and maybe a technical one. Obviously, the sun
>would make a great trash burner, but it's something often discussed
>but not acted on ~ yet. There must be some practical reasons for that
>otherwise I'm guessing it would have been done already.
Well, for one practical reason, how about the fact that a certain
percentage of space craft launches fail and return their payload to the
ground?
--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.
Larry W. - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org
On 6/9/2013 1:16 PM, ChairMan wrote:
> Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Keith Nuttle" wrote:
>>>
>>>> An example is trace contaminates in food and food
>>>> substances. When I
>>>> was working daily with regulations, California
>>>> regulations were
>>>> basically if you can detect a compound you must provide
>>>> proof that
>>>> it is safe.
>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>> Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
>>>
>>> Guess a majority of the 38+ million people here in
>>> California seem
>>> to also agree.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>
>> And the answer to why the people in California are in the
>> situation
>> that hey are in. I have to think that it is difficult to
>> see the
>> Forrest for the trees considering all hurdles you seem to
>> constantly
>> have to jump.
>
> And if Lew agrees with them, why does he post his rant
> weekly about gas prices?
> Can't have it both ways, Lew.
>
>
>
It must not be as rosy in California as the residents would want you to
believe. They do complain a lot and have restrictions upon restrictions.
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 19:24:47 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>I can assure you a politician is getting paid for letting his state
>accept/be paid for housing the materials. Shoot the waste into outer
>space and the politician gets nothing.
We're not prepared to make the effort to use a cleaner source of
energy and we're not prepared to keep its waste product on our planet
so the solution is to put it off planet and potentially contaminate
somewhere out of this world?
I don't know. I have a moral problem with that. Already, our nearby
space is turning into a junk field. What if all that junk and possible
nuclear waste ever comes back to home? Then we might have a REAL
problem.
Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Keith Nuttle" wrote:
>>
>>> An example is trace contaminates in food and food
>>> substances. When I
>>> was working daily with regulations, California
>>> regulations were
>>> basically if you can detect a compound you must provide
>>> proof that
>>> it is safe.
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
>>
>> Guess a majority of the 38+ million people here in
>> California seem
>> to also agree.
>>
>> Lew
>
> And the answer to why the people in California are in the
> situation
> that hey are in. I have to think that it is difficult to
> see the
> Forrest for the trees considering all hurdles you seem to
> constantly
> have to jump.
And if Lew agrees with them, why does he post his rant
weekly about gas prices?
Can't have it both ways, Lew.
On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 15:36:44 -0500, "ChairMan" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>California is a beautiful state , but the folks in the capitol have ruined
>it.
>Companies are leaving in droves because of it, it's a shame they can't use a
>little common sense, but that seems to be a trait that politicans don't
>possess
That statement could just as easily be applied to other places. The
fist one that comes to my mind is the province of Quebec.
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 15:35:58 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>I used to be a strong supporter of nuclear power. Then I did some
>software for a couple of nuclear plants. After listening to the managers
>and watching the "trained" people for a couple of months, I changed my
>mind.
So, what did you see? People lurching from one problem to another?
Leon wrote:
> On 6/8/2013 10:09 AM, PV wrote:
>> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> On 6/8/2013 1:03 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>> Southern California Edison has finally announced the San Onofre
>>>> nuclear plant will be permanently shut down.
>>>>
>>>> The arrogance of SCE was typical of the "We know best" attitude
>>>> of the utility industry found in some parts of the country.
>>>>
>>>> The San Onofre nuclear plant was an inferior design according to
>>>> industry watchdogs that SCE tried to get recertified when it leaked
>>>> without submitting to the certifying process.
>>>>
>>>> They were finally brought into submission.
>>>>
>>>> To put things in perspective, there are over 8 million people
>>>> living with in 50 miles of San Onofre.
>>>>
>>>> Now for the plant's demolition, but leaving accumulated nuclear
>>>> waste within 100 yards of the Pacific Ocean is not an option.
>>>>
>>>> There is still a lot of work ahead to properly dispose of all the
>>>> waste
>>>> material accumulated over the years and not allow San Onofre to
>>>> become an ocean side nuclear dump after the plant's demolition.
>>>>
>>>> SCE will try to cut corners, that is their track record.
>>>>
>>>> Vigilance to keep them under control will be vital.
>>>>
>>>> Off the stump.
>>>>
>>>> Lew
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thank GOD, we have people in the Carolinas that are not afraid of
>>> Nuclear Energy and have trained knowledgeable people to run them in
>>> a safe manner. We have several plants that are online producing
>>> clean, environmental-friendly energy. They are not killing birds,
>>> creating noise in all frequencies. They are not taking up acres
>>> and acres of sunbaked land with no trees.
>>>
>>> We recently had a power plant problem. They found a small crack in
>>> a pipe going to the reactor. They shut the plant down, fixed it and
>>> restarted it.
>>>
>>> Several years ago we lived within 10 miles of one. Never did it
>>> affect our lives in a negative way. The large lake created for the
>>> cooling system was leased to the city and was a beautiful park with
>>> waking trails, picnic areas, etc. The lake itself was one of the
>>> best fishing lakes in the area.
>>>
>>> It is nice to know we have a reliable source of energy to run our
>>> air conditioners this summer, that will run day and night. That is
>>> not dependent on the wind which may be blowing over 100 mph during a
>>> hurricane one day, and the next be so weak that they will not move
>>> my small sailboat.
>>
>> So you let them bury the nuclear waste in your backyard?
>>
>>
> Probably ends up in NM or Washington State.
It's always great to have a "reliable source of energy" when you can pawn
the waste off on another place. Waste that will be hot for a long long
time.
--
PV
If you could choose one characteristic that would get you through life,
choose a sense of humor. -Jennifer Jones
In news:[email protected],
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> belched:
> On 6/9/2013 1:16 PM, ChairMan wrote:
>> Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "Keith Nuttle" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> An example is trace contaminates in food and food
>>>>> substances. When I
>>>>> was working daily with regulations, California
>>>>> regulations were
>>>>> basically if you can detect a compound you must provide
>>>>> proof that
>>>>> it is safe.
>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>> Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
>>>>
>>>> Guess a majority of the 38+ million people here in
>>>> California seem
>>>> to also agree.
>>>>
>>>> Lew
>>>
>>> And the answer to why the people in California are in the
>>> situation
>>> that hey are in. I have to think that it is difficult to
>>> see the
>>> Forrest for the trees considering all hurdles you seem to
>>> constantly
>>> have to jump.
>>
>> And if Lew agrees with them, why does he post his rant
>> weekly about gas prices?
>> Can't have it both ways, Lew.
>>
>>
>>
> It must not be as rosy in California as the residents would want you
> to believe. They do complain a lot and have restrictions upon
> restrictions.
California is a beautiful state , but the folks in the capitol have ruined
it.
Companies are leaving in droves because of it, it's a shame they can't use a
little common sense, but that seems to be a trait that politicans don't
possess