http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* what the CDC sez; about KI - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/86c53018b03ca4b1?hl=en
* Nuclear Crisis in Japan - 21 messages, 11 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4e19044edc193817?hl=en
* Killer bees are here to sting again - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/35f8884779cb87af?hl=en
* Outrageous (operator assisted) phone charges - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e2bf0b6ebd705505?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: what the CDC sez; about KI
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/86c53018b03ca4b1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 9:19 pm
From: Karen Silkwood
any radioactive plume coming our way? What I found is that potassium
iodide has a certain amount of risk involved in taking it. The Center
for Disease Control (CDC) warns:
Adults: Adults older than 40 years should not take KI unless public
health or emergency management officials say that contamination with a
very large dose of radioactive iodine is expected. Adults older than 40
years have the lowest chance of developing thyroid cancer or thyroid
injury after contamination with radioactive iodine. They also have a
greater chance of having allergic reactions to KI.²
fo mo;
http://planetthrive.com/2011/03/anti-radiation-soup/
--
Karma, What a concept!
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 1:29 pm
From: "Bob F"
Karen Silkwood wrote:
> any radioactive plume coming our way? What I found is that potassium
> iodide has a certain amount of risk involved in taking it. The Center
> for Disease Control (CDC) warns:
> Adults: Adults older than 40 years should not take KI unless public
> health or emergency management officials say that contamination with a
> very large dose of radioactive iodine is expected. Adults older than
> 40 years have the lowest chance of developing thyroid cancer or
> thyroid injury after contamination with radioactive iodine. They also
> have a greater chance of having allergic reactions to KI.�
> fo mo;
> http://planetthrive.com/2011/03/anti-radiation-soup/
One expert Rachael Maddow had on said if you don't drink contaminated milk, you
don't need the KI.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nuclear Crisis in Japan
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4e19044edc193817?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 12:42 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Robert Green wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Robert Green wrote
>>> DGDevin <DGDevin@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>>> After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa
>>>> prefecture was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007,
>>>> government scientists found it had been built near an earthquake
>>>> fault that was more than twice as long as regulators deemed threatening."
>>> We also know that some of the greatest earthquakes have been along blind
>>> thrust faults whose presence is known only after they've been triggered.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_thrust_earthquake
>>> "blind thrust earthquakes contribute more to urban seismic risk than
>>> the 'big ones' of magnitude 8 or more"
>>> Building to avoid known fault lines in a no brainer,
>> Easier said than done with a small place like Japan right on the boundary between two plates.
>> Thats actually why its there.
> Agreed. The whole damn island is the result of one huge tectonic
> plate banging against another.
>>> but it's also no guarantee of not getting the M9.0
>>> hell shaken out of you no matter where you build.
>> Thats just plain wrong.
> How so?
If you build in the middle of one of the major plates,
you wont get the M9.0 hell shaken out of you.
> Without any reasoning to support your statement, it's just your word.
Nope, its also a fact.
> On the other hand, with huge plates floating on the
> surface of a molten metal core, there's no guarantee of
> anything not rupturing, splitting or heaving at some point.
It doesnt in fact happen like that.
> I'll agree that some places are far more likely to pop 9.0 on the
> Richter scale. However, I happen to know you're dead wrong
> in this case because time and time again I've read that there's
> no immunity to earthquakes anywhere in the world.
Just because some fool claims something repeatedly doesnt make it gospel.
> Do you have contrary information?
Yep.
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50E12FF395E13738DDDA00994D9415B818DF1D3
Just because some fool journo claims something repeatedly doesnt make it gospel.
> NO PLACE IMMUNE FROM EARTHQUAKES;
Just because some fool journo claims something repeatedly doesnt make it gospel.
> Scientists Agree That There Is Nothing Amazing About Those in Germany.
Those what ?
> Scientists who have made a study of earthquakes expressed no astonishment
> yesterday at the fact that extensive shocks had occurred in Germany and
> Switzerland, where heretofore they have been almost unknown.
Those werent anything even remotely resembling
anything like get the M9.0 hell shaken out of you.
And switzerland isnt that far from areas which
have had major earthquakes for millennia now.
> They said that while earthquakes were more common in certain other
> localities, there was no reason why one should not occur anywhere.
> Operative words: "NO REASON WHY ONE SHOULD NOT OCCUR ANYWHERE."
Just because some fool journo claims something repeatedly doesnt make it gospel.
> Just ask any competent geologist.
They dont say anything like that about get the M9.0 hell shaken out of you.
> I think that about demolishes your implied contention that there are "safe areas"
> where people are guaranteed not to get a M9.0 shaking at some point.
'think' again.
>>> I'm no geologist,
>> Thats obvious.
> As if *you* are.
You have absolutely no idea what I am.
> We've already proved you don't know shit about seismology
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying to your teeth.
And just how many of you are there between those ears anyway ?
> and that you somehow believe that earthquakes will only appear in certain places.
Never ever said anything like that.
> THAT'S wrong.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
>>> but I think our actual knowledge of what lies deep below the
>>> earth's mantle is limited to a relatively few samples at sites
>>> dispersed widely through the world.
>> Nope not with fault lines.
> Garbage.
Fact.
> Read what I wrote.
No point, it stays mindless pig ignorant shit no matter how often its read.
> "What lies deep below the mantle."
That aint what earthquakes are about.
> Are you saying we have all those fault lines mapped out?
We certainly have a hell of a lot more than just a relatively
few samples at sites dispersed widely through the world.
They just happen to be the most metalurgically active
areas, so have been very extensively mapped ineed.
> If so, you're a bigger BS'er than you appear to be.
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
> That would mean that there is no such thing as a blind thrust fault.
No it wouldnt.
> Just looking up Northridge on Google will put the lie to that contention.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
> We've barely mapped surface faults
Another pig ignorant lie.
> and even then, it's mostly in places that are known to be active.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> Very little fault mapping is done in areas that haven't recently had earthquakes.
Another pig ignorant lie.
Those just happen to be the most metalurgically active geology, fool.
> Especially deep faults lying "deep below the mantle."
They are irrelevant to most earthquakes.
>>> I've read some explanations of the history of magnetic pole reversal
>>> and there's an awful lot of "we believes" compared to the "we knows"
>> Sure, but thats an entirely different matter to fault lines.
> Prove it.
You dont see that with fault lines.
> We know so little about the processes in the earth's core
> I say it's impossible, given how little we know about deep earth
> processes, to conclude they're entirely different and unrelated.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> Common sense alone implies there's a relation because it's the
> heat from the core that provides the energy to power vulcanism
> and the core itself that allows plates to float and move around.
Doesnt mean its got a damned thing to do with magnetic pole reversal
> The convection of the molten core determines magnetic pole
> orientation (so they believe) and you want us to believe that
> huge currents of molten metal at the center of the planet have
> no relation to earthquakes?
Its completely trivial to compare the magnetic pole reversals
that have happened with the major eathquakes that have
happened and see that there is no correlation what so ever.
> You can believe it if you like . . .
It aint about belief, its about evidence and rigorous science.
>>> http://www.physorg.com/news159704651.html
>>> ""The quadrupolar field (it is likely to be a quadrupole
>>> but another structure could be possible)"
>>> "small fluctuations in convective flow in Earth's core can push the planet's
>>> sensitive magnetic system away from one pole toward an intermediate
>>> state, where the system becomes attracted to the opposite pole."
>>> I can sort of understand that, but there seems to be a lot that's missing.
>> Not surprising given that its a bit hard to see whats going on in the center of the earth.
> Strewth! Not being able to see usually means not being able
> to include or exclude those unseen processes from processes
> sitting right on top of them (like earthquakes) that we can see.
Its completely trivial to compare the magnetic pole reversals
that have happened with the major eathquakes that have
happened and see that there is no correlation what so ever.
>>> Like how the process even starts itself up and why there's such
>>> an immensely long time between changes, but a relatively quick
>>> change from north to south, at least according to the rock records.
>>> I wonder if the switch isn't associated with an increase in earthquakes.
>> No evidence that it is.
> No evidence yet
Its completely trivial to compare the magnetic pole reversals
that have happened with the major eathquakes that have
happened and see that there is no correlation what so ever.
> other than we seem to be going through an era of
> increased earthquake activity of very serious intensity.
And no magnetic pole reversals whatever associated with that.
> Understanding what's going on with processes in the earth's core is at its very infancy.
And just when we have seen magnetic pole reversals aint.
> Right now, all we can do it look at the geological records
> of both types of events to see if there's a concordance.
And there isnt.
> As you might know from your own countryman's brilliant
> deduction that microbes, not stress, causes ulcers,
> science doesn't necessarily have all the answers.
It does know that there is no correlation whatever between magnetic
pole reversals and major earthquakes or bursts of earthquakes.
> I think it's valid to conclude that convection currents in the molten core of the earth
> can affect both magnetic pole reversals AND geological events like earthquakes.
Its completely trivial to compare the magnetic pole reversals
that have happened with the major eathquakes that have
happened and see that there is no correlation what so ever.
> It's not like trying to prove astrology is meaningful, it's linking
> two events that share a very fundamental component - the
> entire, massive nickel-iron molten core of the earth.
And there is no link what so ever.
You get to like that or lump it.
== 2 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 12:44 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Robert Green wrote
> Jeff Thies <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote
>> It's all I can find. It leaves the seawater path into and out the
>> reactor unconnected so it is most certainly inaccurate. The PDF
>> has a better showing of the lines but the general idea of just
>> what is flooded and the rough path is described there. If you
>> can find something else, post it up. I'd like to know how
>> hacked together this is. Certainly plan "F" is a bad hack.
> No matter what the government is saying, when you see firefighting helos
They aint firefighting helos.
> dropping buckets of water (and boric acid - kills roaches AND
> runaway reactors, too!) then you know we're in deep, deep doodoo.
Nope, all you know is that there is no other way to get water into there currently.
== 3 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 12:47 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Jeff Thies wrote:
> On 3/17/2011 7:47 PM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 10:38 am, Jeff Thies<jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On 3/17/2011 9:38 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>>>
> <snip>
>
>> Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of
>> buildings, roads, etc because of the earthquake.
>
> You make a lot of straw man arguments about what other people think.
>
> Unless you think
>> tthey all
>> performed exactly as designed and intended. It could turn out
>> that a simple change like having the diesel generators located 25
>> feet higher would have prevented the whole thing.
>
> This plant has been dodging bullets. Just another "if only" in a bad
> design. What did happen is more important than what could have. Early
> in the accident, even with the generators working, there was trouble:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents
>
>
> And that change could be
>> implemented without closing anything. But we won't know until we
>> have an investigation and learn all the facts.
>
> The GE Mark 1 should not be allowed unmodified in any danger zone. Out
> of 6 reactors, 4 are history. What cost that? The flaws in the design
> were well known, among them an insufficient wet well and spent fuel
> storage located where it could be damaged and is essentially uncontained.
The most important flaw is that they can melt down.
Canadian CANDU nukes cant and nukes like that should be used in earthquake prone areas.
> I have never been anti nuclear. I previously had no opinion on any
> reactor. But, whatever it takes to make sure this model reactor never
> does what four of them are currently doing, is what has to be done.
> That takes no investigation to figure out.
== 4 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 4:07 am
From: Jeff Thies
On 3/17/2011 7:54 PM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> On Mar 17, 11:12 am, "Bob F"<bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Daring Dufas wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2011 8:36 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>>> The Daring Dufas wrote:
>>
>>>>> Well, it may be that the most prevalent cause of the nuclear
>>>>> disaster is complacency and lack of due diligence. I did notice one
>>>>> thing when I looked at a map showing the location of the epicenter
>>>>> of the quake, it was very close and I suppose the water hit those
>>>>> folks with no warning.
>>
>>>> 1/2 hour warning as I heard it.
>>
>>>>> I haven't immersed myself in the news of the disaster but
>>>>> how would you prepare for the worst earthquake EVER?
>>
>>>> If you can't, you shouldn't build the plant.
>>
>>> A gee golly gosh darn meteor could hit the power plant too!
>>> Perhaps that would be a good reason for not building it?
>>
>> Do you pay any attention to the news? They said it couldn't happen. Guess what,
>> it did. What is going on in Japan is still getting worse. It is not acceptable.
>> They have already proven they cannot guarantee safety despite their continuous
>> assurances. These things are way too dangerous to be allowed without serious
>> investment in safety.
>>
>> You would like to live in the neighborhood of the plant hit by a meteor?
>
> We already all live in a neighborhood called Earth that could be hit
> by a meteor.
> The remote chance of a meteor of sufficient size to breach the
> containment
> vessel yet not end life is say a 10 mile perimeter from the meteor
> itself is
> miniscule. But it does show the bizarre lengths some people will go
> to
> conjure up nonsense.
There it is the absurd meteor argument. You Tea Party types get so
wrapped up in what might happen, even though it likely won't, that you
don't care about what did happen.
>
>
>
>> How
>> about a terrorist attack on the secondary containment, scattering used fuel all
>> over you? Would you rather not have it near you?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> That used fuel would be safely stored in Yucca Mountain long ago if
> alarmists
> and nut jobs like Harry Reid had not stopped it.
Two completely different things. You can't take hot fuel and move it, it
has to cool down. It has to stay in cooling pools for years before going
anywhere.
If you're worried
> about security
> we can secure one Yucca a hell of a lot easier than 100 spent fuel
> pools
> all around the country.
Moving hot fuel is lunacy. #4 had come out in November of last year.
>
> At the end of the day, everything has risks. following the madness of
> zero risk
> tolerance, we should immediately shut down all airports near major
> cities, eg
> Laguardia, JFK, LAX, etc because of the horrific possibility of a 747
> crashing
> into a populated area. Yet, they fly everyday, people get on them,
> and life
> goes on.
Another straw man argument. Assign some ridiculous proposition to your
opponent and then trash it.
Everything has risks. But you don't take the design that is the least
likely to handle stress and use it in earthquake and Tsunami zones.
In the end, the additional cost of using a more robust design will be a
fraction of the cost of this "accident". The plant is a writeoff, the
cleanup is going to be very expensive, the ripple effect will be extensive.
But a meteor might hit so why bother.
Jeff
>
== 5 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 4:14 am
From: Jeff Thies
On 3/17/2011 7:58 PM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> On Mar 17, 11:19 am, "Bob F"<bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hank wrote:
>>> On Mar 17, 9:34 am, Kurt Ullman<kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Among other things they have been using fire engines to pump water
>>>>> into the reactors, so it's possible that all the pumps built into
>>>>> the plant are in fact down.
>>
>>>> They are, that is the entire problem, pretty much. So far, from afar
>>>> it looks like the major possible design flaw was placement of the
>>>> back-up electric systems in a low-lying area. The tsuanami came
>>>> through, ripped out the generators and the battery back-ups.
>>
>>> That is why I suggest steam driven pumps as back-up, no electric and
>>> the reactor produces steam to drive the pumps. Sounds like a great
>>> back-up plan to me. Of course, nothing is perfect.
>>
>> Except for the fact that the reactors shut down in a earthquake.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It's my understanding that at least some of these reactors have
> exactly
> what was suggested. That is a turbine driven pump system that uses
> the
> remaining heat inthe reactor after the control rods are inserted to
> pump
> cooling water. Then they have a diesel generator driven pump system
> and then a battery power source as well.
>
> Once again, until there is an investigation, it's just pure
> speculation
> to suggest what could have been done differently, because we
> don't know the exact sequence of events or what went wrong.
We've got a damn good idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents
And it is well documented the flaws and insufficient wet well of the GE
Mark 1. All previously listed in this thread.
What will take time is just how to moderate the risks of an
insufficient design in very bad locations.
Jeff
== 6 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 6:40 am
From: dgk
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:29:34 -0500, The Daring Dufas
<the-daring-dufas@stinky.net> wrote:
>On 3/17/2011 1:05 PM, dgk wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:35:41 -0500, The Daring Dufas
>> <the-daring-dufas@stinky.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/16/2011 10:14 PM, Jeff Thies wrote:
>>>> On 3/16/2011 10:34 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
>>>>> On 3/16/2011 8:36 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>>>>> The Daring Dufas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, it may be that the most prevalent cause of the nuclear disaster
>>>>>>> is complacency and lack of due diligence. I did notice one thing when
>>>>>>> I looked at a map showing the location of the epicenter of the quake,
>>>>>>> it was very close and I suppose the water hit those folks with no
>>>>>>> warning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1/2 hour warning as I heard it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I haven't immersed myself in the news of the disaster but
>>>>>>> how would you prepare for the worst earthquake EVER?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can't, you shouldn't build the plant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A gee golly gosh darn meteor could hit the power plant too!
>>>>> Perhaps that would be a good reason for not building it?
>>>>
>>>> A plant of a different design would not be in the unholy mess that
>>>> Fukushima is in now. It's a bad design sold in quantity because it was a
>>>> lower cost. It has a cheap completely inadequate onsite spent fuel
>>>> storage that in the case of the offline #4 also had the offline fuel.
>>>>
>>>> This should not now be running amuck. You can not afford to take chances
>>>> and cut corners with something that can have such dire consequences if
>>>> it fails.
>>>>
>>>> This will get worse.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>
>>> Like many other people, I'm all for safety but the owners have to
>>> consider what the stockholders wish to spend on it. In North Alabama
>>> where there are nuclear power reactors, I don't think any thought was
>>> given to a tsunami but there is an earthquake fault not too far away.
>>> Tornadoes are known to hit the area from time to time and there are
>>> passenger jet routes crisscrossing the area. If the plant is on a river,
>>> there is the possibility of a flood. Of course there are some wicked
>>> thunderstorms with cataclysmic lightning now and then, lightening could
>>> wipe out unprotected control and power systems. It's all about location,
>>> location, location. :-)
>>>
>>> TDD
>>
>> If saving money for stockholders is the problem then private
>> enterprise should not be in the business of building nuclear power
>> plants.
>
>There was a SciFi writer who wrote a story where there was a priesthood
>responsible for all nuclear power. It was kind of amusing in its own way
>with the strict rituals and regimented operating procedures. :-)
>
>TDD
There was a SciFi book by Niven and Pournelle called Lucifer's Hammer
that was about life after an asteroid slams into the earth. As I
recall, the locals survive and prosper because they can keep their
nuclear power plant running. It really bothered me at the time because
it was such bullshit. First off, no one, no matter what their
expertise, is going to be able to keep a nuclear plant running and
safe without the support of a large industrial capacity.
More importantly, and the reason I never read anything else by
Pournelle, is because they never bothered to explain what happened to
all the other nuclear power plants after the world wide earthquakes
and tsunamis. I can only conclude that most or all of them went to
category 7 destroying a good part of what was left of the world.
I had read other Niven stuff before, Ringworld and such, so I
concluded that Pournelle was the force behind the stupidity.
== 7 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 6:59 am
From: The Daring Dufas
On 3/18/2011 8:40 AM, dgk wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:29:34 -0500, The Daring Dufas
> <the-daring-dufas@stinky.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/17/2011 1:05 PM, dgk wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:35:41 -0500, The Daring Dufas
>>> <the-daring-dufas@stinky.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/16/2011 10:14 PM, Jeff Thies wrote:
>>>>> On 3/16/2011 10:34 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/16/2011 8:36 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>>>>>> The Daring Dufas wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, it may be that the most prevalent cause of the nuclear disaster
>>>>>>>> is complacency and lack of due diligence. I did notice one thing when
>>>>>>>> I looked at a map showing the location of the epicenter of the quake,
>>>>>>>> it was very close and I suppose the water hit those folks with no
>>>>>>>> warning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1/2 hour warning as I heard it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I haven't immersed myself in the news of the disaster but
>>>>>>>> how would you prepare for the worst earthquake EVER?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you can't, you shouldn't build the plant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A gee golly gosh darn meteor could hit the power plant too!
>>>>>> Perhaps that would be a good reason for not building it?
>>>>>
>>>>> A plant of a different design would not be in the unholy mess that
>>>>> Fukushima is in now. It's a bad design sold in quantity because it was a
>>>>> lower cost. It has a cheap completely inadequate onsite spent fuel
>>>>> storage that in the case of the offline #4 also had the offline fuel.
>>>>>
>>>>> This should not now be running amuck. You can not afford to take chances
>>>>> and cut corners with something that can have such dire consequences if
>>>>> it fails.
>>>>>
>>>>> This will get worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Like many other people, I'm all for safety but the owners have to
>>>> consider what the stockholders wish to spend on it. In North Alabama
>>>> where there are nuclear power reactors, I don't think any thought was
>>>> given to a tsunami but there is an earthquake fault not too far away.
>>>> Tornadoes are known to hit the area from time to time and there are
>>>> passenger jet routes crisscrossing the area. If the plant is on a river,
>>>> there is the possibility of a flood. Of course there are some wicked
>>>> thunderstorms with cataclysmic lightning now and then, lightening could
>>>> wipe out unprotected control and power systems. It's all about location,
>>>> location, location. :-)
>>>>
>>>> TDD
>>>
>>> If saving money for stockholders is the problem then private
>>> enterprise should not be in the business of building nuclear power
>>> plants.
>>
>> There was a SciFi writer who wrote a story where there was a priesthood
>> responsible for all nuclear power. It was kind of amusing in its own way
>> with the strict rituals and regimented operating procedures. :-)
>>
>> TDD
>
> There was a SciFi book by Niven and Pournelle called Lucifer's Hammer
> that was about life after an asteroid slams into the earth. As I
> recall, the locals survive and prosper because they can keep their
> nuclear power plant running. It really bothered me at the time because
> it was such bullshit. First off, no one, no matter what their
> expertise, is going to be able to keep a nuclear plant running and
> safe without the support of a large industrial capacity.
>
> More importantly, and the reason I never read anything else by
> Pournelle, is because they never bothered to explain what happened to
> all the other nuclear power plants after the world wide earthquakes
> and tsunamis. I can only conclude that most or all of them went to
> category 7 destroying a good part of what was left of the world.
>
>
> I had read other Niven stuff before, Ringworld and such, so I
> concluded that Pournelle was the force behind the stupidity.
I read LH back in 1979 when I was working at an electronics repair
depot and I shared SciFi books with a coworker. My coworker refused
to read Lucifer's Hammer because the name Lucifer was in the title.
My friend was a devout Southern Baptist but I didn't hold it against
him because half my relatives are Southern Baptist and they're just
as funny as he was. :-)
TDD
== 8 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 8:31 am
From: "Bob F"
Smitty Two wrote:
> In article <FqidnTq4Hr3vwR_QnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> "DGDevin" <DGDevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking the formula is going to be changed after this,
>> especially in light of massive deception and fraud in how the
>> Japanese nuclear industry has handled safety. For a start different
>> agencies should review safety and promote the nuclear industry--not
>> one agency responsible for both. And it's not like nobody saw this
>> disaster coming.
>
> My vote would be to require the 3 highest officials in charge of every
> nuclear power plant to live, with their families, within 5 miles of
> the plant.
No. The highest management of the utilities and the manufacturers should be
assigned cleanup duty.
== 9 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 9:32 am
From: "trader4@optonline.net"
On Mar 17, 11:15 pm, Jeff Thies <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
> On 3/17/2011 7:47 PM, trad...@optonline.net wrote:> On Mar 17, 10:38 am, Jeff Thies<jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On 3/17/2011 9:38 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of
> > buildings, roads, etc because of the earthquake.
>
> You make a lot of straw man arguments about what other people think.
>
> Unless you think
>
> > tthey all
> > performed exactly as designed and intended. It could turn out that a
> > simple change like having the diesel generators located 25 feet higher
> > would have prevented the whole thing.
>
> This plant has been dodging bullets. Just another "if only" in a bad
> design. What did happen is more important than what could have. Early in
> the accident, even with the generators working, there was trouble:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents
>
> And that change could be
>
> > implemented without closing anything. But we won't know until we
> > have an investigation and learn all the facts.
>
> The GE Mark 1 should not be allowed unmodified in any danger zone. Out
> of 6 reactors, 4 are history. What cost that? The flaws in the design
> were well known, among them an insufficient wet well and spent fuel
> storage located where it could be damaged and is essentially uncontained.
>
> I have never been anti nuclear. I previously had no opinion on any
> reactor. But, whatever it takes to make sure this model reactor never
> does what four of them are currently doing, is what has to be done. That
> takes no investigation to figure out.
>
> Jeff
Yeah, why bother with an investigation where we'll learn exactly what
happened and can then figure out what to do. We should just listen
to arm chair experts like you. The one thing virtually everyone
agrees on is that right now we don't know very much about what is
going on, let alone the root causes. Except you, who already has
the answer.
== 10 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 9:40 am
From: "trader4@optonline.net"
On Mar 18, 7:07 am, Jeff Thies <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
> On 3/17/2011 7:54 PM, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 11:12 am, "Bob F"<bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The Daring Dufas wrote:
> >>> On 3/16/2011 8:36 PM, Bob F wrote:
> >>>> The Daring Dufas wrote:
>
> >>>>> Well, it may be that the most prevalent cause of the nuclear
> >>>>> disaster is complacency and lack of due diligence. I did notice one
> >>>>> thing when I looked at a map showing the location of the epicenter
> >>>>> of the quake, it was very close and I suppose the water hit those
> >>>>> folks with no warning.
>
> >>>> 1/2 hour warning as I heard it.
>
> >>>>> I haven't immersed myself in the news of the disaster but
> >>>>> how would you prepare for the worst earthquake EVER?
>
> >>>> If you can't, you shouldn't build the plant.
>
> >>> A gee golly gosh darn meteor could hit the power plant too!
> >>> Perhaps that would be a good reason for not building it?
>
> >> Do you pay any attention to the news? They said it couldn't happen. Guess what,
> >> it did. What is going on in Japan is still getting worse. It is not acceptable.
> >> They have already proven they cannot guarantee safety despite their continuous
> >> assurances. These things are way too dangerous to be allowed without serious
> >> investment in safety.
>
> >> You would like to live in the neighborhood of the plant hit by a meteor?
>
> > We already all live in a neighborhood called Earth that could be hit
> > by a meteor.
> > The remote chance of a meteor of sufficient size to breach the
> > containment
> > vessel yet not end life is say a 10 mile perimeter from the meteor
> > itself is
> > miniscule. But it does show the bizarre lengths some people will go
> > to
> > conjure up nonsense.
>
> There it is the absurd meteor argument. You Tea Party types get so
> wrapped up in what might happen, even though it likely won't, that you
> don't care about what did happen.
>
>
If you can read, I made it clear that I agree the meteor argument is
absurd.
And your mind must work in mysterious ways to somehow link the
meteor to the Tea Party.
>
> >> How
> >> about a terrorist attack on the secondary containment, scattering used fuel all
> >> over you? Would you rather not have it near you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > That used fuel would be safely stored in Yucca Mountain long ago if
> > alarmists
> > and nut jobs like Harry Reid had not stopped it.
>
> Two completely different things. You can't take hot fuel and move it, it
> has to cool down. It has to stay in cooling pools for years before going
> anywhere.
No, they are not. There would be minimal amounts of spent fuel at
the
cooling pools at individual nuclear reactors if we had Yucca Mountain.
Since the libs and environmental nuts blocked it after we spent
billions
on it, those cooling pools have many years worth of backed up spent
fuel just sitting there.
>
> If you're worried
>
> > about security
> > we can secure one Yucca a hell of a lot easier than 100 spent fuel
> > pools
> > all around the country.
>
> Moving hot fuel is lunacy. #4 had come out in November of last year.
>
>
>
> > At the end of the day, everything has risks. following the madness of
> > zero risk
> > tolerance, we should immediately shut down all airports near major
> > cities, eg
> > Laguardia, JFK, LAX, etc because of the horrific possibility of a 747
> > crashing
> > into a populated area. Yet, they fly everyday, people get on them,
> > and life
> > goes on.
>
> Another straw man argument. Assign some ridiculous proposition to your
> opponent and then trash it.
It's an excellent example of how irrational some people are. If
you're
going to conjure up images of meteors hitting a nuke, what exactly is
wrong with comparing it to other far more likely scenarios that we
live with every day?
>
> Everything has risks. But you don't take the design that is the least
> likely to handle stress and use it in earthquake and Tsunami zones.
>
> In the end, the additional cost of using a more robust design will be a
> fraction of the cost of this "accident". The plant is a writeoff, the
> cleanup is going to be very expensive, the ripple effect will be extensive.
>
> But a meteor might hit so why bother.
>
> Jeff
>
So, says you, the armchair expert that knows how to fix things before
there is any investigation. It's entirely possible, the
investigation could
determine that other reactor designs might not have done any better.
Or that key problems could be simple things that have nothing to do
with the GE reactor design. An example being how the backup diesel
generators were located and secured. Bu then you already have
reached your conclusion, without letting any facts get in your way.
== 11 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 9:50 am
From: "trader4@optonline.net"
On Mar 18, 7:14 am, Jeff Thies <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
> On 3/17/2011 7:58 PM, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 11:19 am, "Bob F"<bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hank wrote:
> >>> On Mar 17, 9:34 am, Kurt Ullman<kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Among other things they have been using fire engines to pump water
> >>>>> into the reactors, so it's possible that all the pumps built into
> >>>>> the plant are in fact down.
>
> >>>> They are, that is the entire problem, pretty much. So far, from afar
> >>>> it looks like the major possible design flaw was placement of the
> >>>> back-up electric systems in a low-lying area. The tsuanami came
> >>>> through, ripped out the generators and the battery back-ups.
>
> >>> That is why I suggest steam driven pumps as back-up, no electric and
> >>> the reactor produces steam to drive the pumps. Sounds like a great
> >>> back-up plan to me. Of course, nothing is perfect.
>
> >> Except for the fact that the reactors shut down in a earthquake.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > It's my understanding that at least some of these reactors have
> > exactly
> > what was suggested. That is a turbine driven pump system that uses
> > the
> > remaining heat inthe reactor after the control rods are inserted to
> > pump
> > cooling water. Then they have a diesel generator driven pump system
> > and then a battery power source as well.
>
> > Once again, until there is an investigation, it's just pure
> > speculation
> > to suggest what could have been done differently, because we
> > don't know the exact sequence of events or what went wrong.
>
> We've got a damn good idea:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents
>
> And it is well documented the flaws and insufficient wet well of the GE
> Mark 1. All previously listed in this thread.
>
> What will take time is just how to moderate the risks of an
> insufficient design in very bad locations.
>
> Jeff- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, no need for an investiagtion to figure out what happened and
learn from
it before figuring out solutions. Just go to that source of all
knowledge and truth,
Wikipedia, where any armchair idiot can edit it and put up anything
they want.
I'm beginning to see your problem here.
== 12 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 10:02 am
From: Smitty Two
In article
<f727d4fa-c428-41d6-9f42-63b09c38ce35@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
"trader4@optonline.net" <trader4@optonline.net> wrote:
> Yeah, no need for an investiagtion to figure out what happened
Wasn't needed for 9/11, so shouldn't be necessary for this. Just clean
up the debris and haul it off to the dump.
== 13 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 11:15 am
From: Karen Silkwood
In article <PqydnbFgCLrqPhzQnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"DGDevin" <DGDevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:48d6041a-f5c3-42a7-b993-2564ecc9d0b4@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > About what I'd expect from the Huffington Post. A smear of the
> > design of
> > the GE reactors containment vessel design without ever mentioning that
> > from everything I've heard so far, the vessel itself has NOT been
> > compromised.
>
> There is ample evidence that the GE reactors were sold as cheaper than
> competing designs, that there were warnings going back to the 70s about the
> potential for just such failures as we are now seeing, and that the design
> of the plant in question was shockingly vulnerable. To suggest that
> questioning the safety of the design is a left-wing smear is not a position
> supported by the facts.
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/03/16/warning_was_issued_i
> n_70s_on_ge_designed_reactors/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z
>
> GE began making the Mark 1 boiling-water reactors in the 1960s, marketing
> them as cheaper and easier to build — in part because they used a
> comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure.
>
> US regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on.
>
> In 1972, Stephen Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic Energy
> Commission, recommended that the Mark 1 system be discontinued because it
> presented unacceptable safety risks. Among the concerns cited was the
> smaller containment design, which was more susceptible to explosion and
> rupture from a buildup in hydrogen — a situation that may have unfolded at
> the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
>
> Later that same year, Joseph Hendrie, who would later become chairman of the
> Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a successor agency to the atomic commission,
> said the idea of a ban on such systems was attractive. But the technology
> had been so widely accepted by the industry and regulatory officials, he
> said, that "reversal of this hallowed policy, particularly at this time,
> could well be the end of nuclear power.''
>
> > Seems to me it would be better to wait for a full investigation to
> > understand
> > exactly what happened and learn from it. In the end, I would not be
> > surprised to find out that after an earthquake
> > and sunami ranking in the top 5 of the last century, while the plants
> > were
> > wrecked the total radiation released beyond the plant boundaries could
> > turn out to be minimal and not a serious threat.
>
> "Minimal" and "not a serious threat" would no longer seem to be appropriate
> terms to use in this disaster. I bet if you lived a couple of hundred miles
> downwind from that plant your opinion would be very different.
What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too. Sound good?
--
Karma, What a concept!
== 14 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 10:20 am
From: Jeff Thies
On 3/18/2011 12:50 PM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> On Mar 18, 7:14 am, Jeff Thies<jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>> On 3/17/2011 7:58 PM, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
<snip>
>
>
> Yeah, no need for an investiagtion to figure out what happened and
> learn from
> it before figuring out solutions.
Do you think the option is no investigation? There will be plenty of
investigations. A great deal will be learned.
If you need to wait until a full investigation has been completed than
go ahead. It should be obvious to anyone that I have no say in this. But
that matters not on why this perfect maelstrom happened, it is little
different than all the cost benefit that was done at the Deepwater
Horizon. It should also be obvious that the cost of such mistakes is huge.
But not to you. You are immersed in the ideology.
Just go to that source of all
> knowledge and truth,
> Wikipedia, where any armchair idiot can edit it and put up anything
> they want.
Shoot the messenger on a documented timeline. I found that recently and
it is comprehensive, if you have something better post it.
>
> I'm beginning to see your problem here.
I've seen your problem before. You've put a label on me and you can't
see beyond that.
Jeff
== 15 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 11:23 am
From: "chaniarts"
Karen Silkwood wrote:
> In article <PqydnbFgCLrqPhzQnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> "DGDevin" <DGDevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> wrote in message
>> news:48d6041a-f5c3-42a7-b993-2564ecc9d0b4@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> About what I'd expect from the Huffington Post. A smear of the
>>> design of
>>> the GE reactors containment vessel design without ever mentioning
>>> that from everything I've heard so far, the vessel itself has NOT
>>> been compromised.
>>
>> There is ample evidence that the GE reactors were sold as cheaper
>> than competing designs, that there were warnings going back to the
>> 70s about the potential for just such failures as we are now seeing,
>> and that the design of the plant in question was shockingly
>> vulnerable. To suggest that questioning the safety of the design is
>> a left-wing smear is not a position supported by the facts.
>>
>> http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/03/16/warning_was_issued_i
>> n_70s_on_ge_designed_reactors/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z
>>
>> GE began making the Mark 1 boiling-water reactors in the 1960s,
>> marketing them as cheaper and easier to build — in part because
>> they used a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment
>> structure.
>>
>> US regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on.
>>
>> In 1972, Stephen Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic
>> Energy Commission, recommended that the Mark 1 system be
>> discontinued because it presented unacceptable safety risks. Among
>> the concerns cited was the smaller containment design, which was
>> more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a buildup in hydrogen
>> — a situation that may have unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi
>> plant.
>>
>> Later that same year, Joseph Hendrie, who would later become
>> chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a successor agency to
>> the atomic commission, said the idea of a ban on such systems was
>> attractive. But the technology had been so widely accepted by the
>> industry and regulatory officials, he said, that "reversal of this
>> hallowed policy, particularly at this time, could well be the end of
>> nuclear power.''
>>
>>> Seems to me it would be better to wait for a full investigation to
>>> understand
>>> exactly what happened and learn from it. In the end, I would not
>>> be surprised to find out that after an earthquake
>>> and sunami ranking in the top 5 of the last century, while the
>>> plants were
>>> wrecked the total radiation released beyond the plant boundaries
>>> could turn out to be minimal and not a serious threat.
>>
>> "Minimal" and "not a serious threat" would no longer seem to be
>> appropriate terms to use in this disaster. I bet if you lived a
>> couple of hundred miles downwind from that plant your opinion would
>> be very different.
>
> What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
> nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too. Sound good?
how much energy would it take to MAKE all those rooftop solar panels?
== 16 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 11:45 am
From: "DGDevin"
wrote in message
news:7cc7e69d-32ee-4097-8ede-de38648dc70f@p16g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>> So far? So far it is a cluster fuck. The situation is largely out of
>> control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost billions to clean
>> up. And that is the best case.
> And that affects you exactly how? Did they ask you to pay for the
> clean up?
Who do you think is paying for the U.S. military's efforts to offer aid in
Japan if not the American taxpayer? U.S. auto plants are shutting down
because they can't get parts from Japan, do you imagine that won't have a
serious impact in the U.S.? Japan is America's most important ally in Asia,
but for years to come they're going to be focused inward, rebuilding from
this horrible disaster, is that unlikely to effect U.S. foreign policy in
that part of the world?
> Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of
> buildings, roads, etc because of the earthquake. Unless you think
> tthey all
> performed exactly as designed and intended.
That is an odd interpretation of what he posted.
> It could turn out that a
> simple change like having the diesel generators located 25 feet higher
> would have prevented the whole thing. And that change could be
> implemented without closing anything. But we won't know until we
> have an investigation and learn all the facts.
While I agree that a rush to judgment should be avoided, it is hard to
ignore that these particular reactors have caused trouble before. Warnings
about the vulnerability of the design were first raised in the 1970s, and
the reactors at this plant are already well past their intended design life
yet they were kept in service because corporate profits were put ahead of
public safety. Nuclear power generation is profitable only after the huge
capital costs have been paid, but not putting public safety into that
formula amounts to reckless greed.
== 17 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 11:51 am
From: "DGDevin"
"Gary Heston" wrote in message
news:M5GdnSy_M-CFXx_QnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@posted.hiwaay2...
> Not everyone can afford the Lincoln model. Japan has kept those
> reactors going because they need the electricity. While not the
> best, they've worked well over the decades.
If you ignore the accidents (sometimes fatal) that Japan's nuclear industry
concealed for decades, including a "critical" incident at one of the
Fukushima reactors.
> Energy, not just nuclear energy, is a complex thing. While it's easy
> to Monday morning quarterback decisions made decades ago, none of us
> were there nor are any of us privy to all the issues.
Some of the people who were there tried to alert the Japanese govt. to
serious problems in the nuclear industry and were ignored. In Japan, govt.
and business work hand-in-glove and that seems to be one of the problems
with why nuclear plants were built in poor locations.
> Can we get back on topic, now?
The easiest way to cast a vote for that is to start an on-topic thread. But
expecting people not to talk about something this big is a faint hope.
== 18 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 1:31 pm
From: Jeff Thies
On 3/18/2011 2:45 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> wrote in message
> news:7cc7e69d-32ee-4097-8ede-de38648dc70f@p16g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>> So far? So far it is a cluster fuck. The situation is largely out of
>>> control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost billions to clean
>>> up. And that is the best case.
>
>> And that affects you exactly how? Did they ask you to pay for the
>> clean up?
>
> Who do you think is paying for the U.S. military's efforts to offer aid
> in Japan if not the American taxpayer? U.S. auto plants are shutting
> down because they can't get parts from Japan, do you imagine that won't
> have a serious impact in the U.S.? Japan is America's most important
> ally in Asia, but for years to come they're going to be focused inward,
> rebuilding from this horrible disaster, is that unlikely to effect U.S.
> foreign policy in that part of the world?
>
>> Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of
>> buildings, roads, etc because of the earthquake. Unless you think
>> tthey all
>> performed exactly as designed and intended.
>
> That is an odd interpretation of what he posted.
>
>> It could turn out that a
>> simple change like having the diesel generators located 25 feet higher
>> would have prevented the whole thing. And that change could be
>> implemented without closing anything. But we won't know until we
>> have an investigation and learn all the facts.
>
> While I agree that a rush to judgment should be avoided, it is hard to
> ignore that these particular reactors have caused trouble before.
> Warnings about the vulnerability of the design were first raised in the
> 1970s, and the reactors at this plant are already well past their
> intended design life yet they were kept in service because corporate
> profits were put ahead of public safety. Nuclear power generation is
> profitable only after the huge capital costs have been paid, but not
> putting public safety into that formula amounts to reckless greed.
I could not agree more.
Jeff
== 19 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 1:33 pm
From: "Bob F"
chaniarts wrote:
>> What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
>> nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too. Sound good?
>
> how much energy would it take to MAKE all those rooftop solar panels?
Less than it would cost to pay for them.
== 20 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 2:04 pm
From: "HeyBub"
Karen Silkwood wrote:
>
> What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
> nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too. Sound good?
No, it doesn't sound good.
* First, there is the horrendous expense of making, buying, and installing
them.
* Second, one of the most common causes of visits to the emergency room is
"falls." Imagine the cost to society when, literally, millions of
middle-aged men start cavorting on their roofs to remove leaves, dirt, and
snow.
* Third, there probably are not enough rooftops in Las Vegas to power a
single casino, let alone the strip. Point is, one aluminum smelting plant,
alfalfa dryer, or other commercial customer consumes enough electricity to
add the word "silly" to the notion of universal solar panels.
== 21 of 21 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 2:04 pm
From: "HeyBub"
Bob F wrote:
> chaniarts wrote:
>>> What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
>>> nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too. Sound good?
>>
>> how much energy would it take to MAKE all those rooftop solar panels?
>
> Less than it would cost to pay for them.
Not if the government (i.e., you, me, and everyone else) subsidizes the
project.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Killer bees are here to sting again
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/35f8884779cb87af?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 8:20 am
From: enough
http://mobile.associatedcontent.com/article/2813980/killer_bees_can_kill.html
Best not to use those phy$icaly loud lawn tools :D
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 8:44 am
From: Tater Gumfries
On Mar 18, 9:20 am, enough <blinkingblyth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://mobile.associatedcontent.com/article/2813980/killer_bees_can_k...
>
> Best not to use those phy$icaly loud lawn tools :D
Damn that Obama. Why don't he do somethin about them killer bees?
Tater
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Outrageous (operator assisted) phone charges
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e2bf0b6ebd705505?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 1:30 pm
From: "Bob F"
Bill Bowden wrote:
> Not having a long distance service, I recently made a 23 minute long
> distance call (California to Texas) using operator assistance and was
> billed a little over $60. The operator made no comment about the
> charges at the time. I consulted AT&T costumer service about a credit
> for being unaware of the high rates, but they said there was nothing
> they could do. I could have purchased a prepaid phone including 5
> hours of time for less than $40. But there was still nothing they
> could do.
>
I've had good results with onesuite.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
