http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Christian Louboutin shoesRed-soles shoes,Cheap Christian sale louboutin
shoes online, - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d8984279fa5ddace?hl=en
* We more people to consider christian louboutin zappos planning your own
funera - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/92f7488b23946ac0?hl=en
* Nuclear Crisis in Japan - 22 messages, 12 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4e19044edc193817?hl=en
* Damn Pedestrians! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a4486f5ab89c33d5?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Christian Louboutin shoesRed-soles shoes,Cheap Christian sale louboutin
shoes online,
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d8984279fa5ddace?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 16 2011 11:57 pm
From: "www.jersey-2009.com"
<p><a href="http://www.heelshoes08.com" title="Christian Louboutin
shoes">Christian Louboutin shoes</a>Red-soles shoes,Cheap Christian
sale louboutin shoes online, highlighting women's charm, beauty, sexy
and maturity, is Christian Louboutin's symbol. Each Christian
Louboutin shoe is a stylish masterpiece. All materials are carefully
selected.? In the world of louboutin high heels shoes, you can never
ignore the Frenchman Christian Louboutin who is a favorite of European
and American female stars. In fact, to ignore also can not be ignored,
this brand is so popular and the burning red color under their feet of
the female stars will directly catch on to your sight.<a href="http://
www.heelshoes08.com" title="2011 discount Christian Louboutin">2011
discount Christian Louboutin</a></p> <p>President bush's "shocked"
panicked behavior is a republican Congressman mark Foley, from
Florida. President obviously not depressed or shocked concealing the
republican <a href="http://www.heelshoes08.com/">christian louboutin
sale</a> the information from the public, welfare contact warned him
of his conduct, and their failure of disciplining them a member. This
news in early September in a relatively new blog, stop sexual
predators, he reported, benefits, vice chairman of the six-term
Congressman who is missing, and exploited children caucus, had sent
naked e-mails and notes to the 16-year old male congressional pages. </
p>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: We more people to consider christian louboutin zappos planning your own
funera
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/92f7488b23946ac0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 16 2011 11:59 pm
From: "www.jersey-2009.com"
<p>We more people to consider <a href="http://
www.heelshoes08.com/">christian louboutin zappos</a> planning your own
funeral, these days. In some respects are meaningful leading planning
and pay for the wedding. There are many company sold funeral plans and
can help you organize your the final goodbye. You can do very well, if
you are considering to organize your funeral to some idea of cylinder
to ashes. Such a great choice, if you leave it for your family
circumstances choose your death, it can make them feel overwhelmed,
lack of confidence. Choose your own cylinder for ashes, can take the
pressure of your family in their most need it.</p> <p>The culture is a
culture of personal attack, the anger of the individual from those who
just didn't get their political direction, the result is a country,
can only be described as a normal democracy. May be more obvious than
<a href="http://www.heelshoes08.com/">christian louboutin sale</a>
this idea of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is the policy of
President Obama policy.</p>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nuclear Crisis in Japan
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4e19044edc193817?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 12:52 am
From: "Rod Speed"
DGDevin wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> But from the reports I have read/heard, the major problem was the fact that both back-up water pumping stations
>>> (both the diesel
>>> generator operated pump and battery operated pumps failed.
>> They cant have failed completely otherwise they couldnt
>> have pumped sea water into the reactors and they did.
> Among other things they have been using fire engines to pump water into the reactors,
That wasnt done initially.
> so it's possible that all the pumps built into the plant are in fact down.
Fraid not. The problem was that some of them are powered by the mains and that went down.
== 2 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 2:26 am
From: Jeff Thies
On 3/17/2011 1:38 AM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
> news:ils32g$dl9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>> Like many other people, I'm all for safety but the owners have to
>> consider what the stockholders wish to spend on it.
>
> Screw the stockholders! Hundreds of thousands of people have been
> evacuated, and if this situation gets worse that will seem like a minor
> inconvenience especially as the wind shifts to the south. The mentality
> that corporate profits should come ahead of the safety of an entire
> nation (and of the entire world) is insane.
Exactly. There is a reason for regulation and why market forces should
not decide such things.
You have too much faith in the corporation and too little in doing
things for the greater good. When the consequences are this dire, and
they are, to be so cavalier...
I'd like to make one more point, and that is that the safety of this
plant is based on complexity. There are no expensive cooling towers,
there is a cheap suppression pool that requires everything else to
function to prevent the catastrophe that is at hand. Emergency cooling
should not be done with firetrucks and helicopters and men facing death
from radiation.
The reason such has to be done is unconscionable.
When I first heard of this I thought a mighty technology nation with
many resources at hand will manage this. It might take a few hours or
days. I was wrong.
Onsite fuel storage must change, particularly for any Mark 1 reactors
left licensed, but the rest need to be decommissioned. Screw the
corporate cost when the public good is at such risk.
Note that the Browns Ferry reactor #1 had already been disabled once by
fire and has had other problems. It is a GE Mark 1.
Jeff
== 3 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 3:17 am
From: The Daring Dufas
On 3/17/2011 12:38 AM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
> news:ils32g$dl9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>> Like many other people, I'm all for safety but the owners have to
>> consider what the stockholders wish to spend on it.
>
> Screw the stockholders! Hundreds of thousands of people have been
> evacuated, and if this situation gets worse that will seem like a minor
> inconvenience especially as the wind shifts to the south. The mentality
> that corporate profits should come ahead of the safety of an entire
> nation (and of the entire world) is insane.
"That's a good way to sustain injury to your penis" circa 1965, IBM
360/50 mainframe's answer the IBM Selectric terminal typed back when
you tried to insult the computer with a common rude colloquialism.
TDD
== 4 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 4:57 am
From: Han
"DGDevin" <DGDevin@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:XLydnS8_xNx1PhzQnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>
>
> "Han" wrote in message
> news:Xns9EAA9648F5FE7ikkezelf@207.246.207.189...
>
>
>> That link says (as far as I could read) that 2 people had been
>> contaminated
>> with low level contaminants. That means that some radioactive dust
>> flew off and attached to their clothing or something like that.
>> Geiger or whatever counters are very sensitive and will distinguish
>> between ~30 counts per minute and 60 cpm. Therefore it is real easy
>> to find something that low. Riding the subway in New York or flying
>> cross country gets you more radiation. Keep perspective!!
>
> That why the USN moved a carrier battle group from downwind of the
> plant, because there was less radiation than a ride on the NY subway?
I think you are misreading. What I was trying to say is that measurable
and significant are adjectives that do not by themselves mean dangerous.
Right now I am significantly sniffing and coughing, but that doesn't mean
I am about to die from pneumonia.
Of course, if you can move from a position where you "catch" radioactive
particles to one where you don't, then it is totally proper and advisable
to change course.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
== 5 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 5:25 am
From: "R. F. Duffer"
What does this have to do with home repair or frugal-living? Unless the
discussion touches on how much lead is needed to wrap a house near a
reactor, then this is the wrong newsgroup.
On 3/16/2011 11:10 PM, Michael Dobony wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:07:08 -0400, Jeff Thies wrote:
>
>> Here's an interesting bit about the reactor design (GE Mark I, also
>> used in type II) that are currently running rampant:
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/reactors-japan-crisis-raised-concerns-1972_n_836227.html
>>
>> Designs:
>> http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf
>>
>> Jeff
>
> From what I have been reading and hearing the real problem is lack of
> electrical power at the electric power stations (??????). The reactors went
> down and the backup diesel generators were waterlogged. With no power to
> run the circulation pumps the cooling process went down. It seems to me
> that nuclear plants near the ocean and known areas of tsunamis, this was a
> stupid idea. These plants were not miles inland away from the probable
> tsumani threat. Dry and simple makes sense. The more complicated the
> design, the more risk, like cars with power everything. Something WILL go
> wrong. An earthquake/tsunami double hit should NOT have been unexpected.
> Politics won and now the Japanese people are paying the price for their
> greed.
== 6 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 6:03 am
From: Jeff Thies
On 3/17/2011 8:25 AM, R. F. Duffer wrote:
> What does this have to do with home repair or frugal-living? Unless the
> discussion touches on how much lead is needed to wrap a house near a
> reactor, then this is the wrong newsgroup.
Every newsgroup has it's share of OT, many threads that start on topic
drift OT.
Usenet etiquette requires subjects start with OT, which this does. Then
it is your option to read or not. Only the English because of their
billing ever object. You can simply configure your newsreader to ignore
OT if you wish. If you don't know how to do this, then you should either
find out or get a better reader.
We are friends here (although some of our dialect might suggest
otherwise) and it is unusual to object to marked OT threads. It is not
just home repairs that get discussed here. To sum it up, get over it,
and get on with your life.
Now, SPAM, that is not tolerated.
Jeff
>
> On 3/16/2011 11:10 PM, Michael Dobony wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:07:08 -0400, Jeff Thies wrote:
>>
>>> Here's an interesting bit about the reactor design (GE Mark I, also
>>> used in type II) that are currently running rampant:
>>>
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/reactors-japan-crisis-raised-concerns-1972_n_836227.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Designs:
>>> http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>> From what I have been reading and hearing the real problem is lack of
>> electrical power at the electric power stations (??????). The reactors
>> went
>> down and the backup diesel generators were waterlogged. With no power to
>> run the circulation pumps the cooling process went down. It seems to me
>> that nuclear plants near the ocean and known areas of tsunamis, this
>> was a
>> stupid idea. These plants were not miles inland away from the probable
>> tsumani threat. Dry and simple makes sense. The more complicated the
>> design, the more risk, like cars with power everything. Something WILL go
>> wrong. An earthquake/tsunami double hit should NOT have been unexpected.
>> Politics won and now the Japanese people are paying the price for their
>> greed.
>
== 7 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 6:34 am
From: Kurt Ullman
In article <w7adnQ5beb_gPRzQnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"DGDevin" <DGDevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Rod Speed" wrote in message news:8ud3dkFhfjU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> >> But from the reports I have read/heard, the major problem was the
> >> fact that both back-up water pumping stations (both the diesel
> >> generator operated pump and battery operated pumps failed.
>
> > They cant have failed completely otherwise they couldnt
> > have pumped sea water into the reactors and they did.
>
> 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.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke
== 8 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 6:34 am
From: gpsman
On Mar 17, 8:25 am, "R. F. Duffer" <rft1952-newsgro...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> What does this have to do with home repair or frugal-living?
Reports suggest a bunch of homes in Japan got broken, and what broke
them is likely to send the the cost of what we want to go down, up,
and what we want to go up, down.
If you want to invest in real estate, Hawaii is the place to do it,
yesterday.
-----
- gpsman
== 9 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 6:38 am
From: Kurt Ullman
In article <ilsk5q$9j7$1@news.albasani.net>,
Jeff Thies <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Exactly. There is a reason for regulation and why market forces should
> not decide such things.
>
Yet it has been shown over and over again that market forces end up
deciding the regulations, too.
> When I first heard of this I thought a mighty technology nation with
> many resources at hand will manage this. It might take a few hours or
> days. I was wrong.
>
So far they have for the most part. However, I will admit to
stressing the so far part.
> Onsite fuel storage must change, particularly for any Mark 1 reactors
> left licensed, but the rest need to be decommissioned. Screw the
> corporate cost when the public good is at such risk.
HOw about the public cost? You don't just shut down reactors without
replacing them with something else.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke
== 10 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 6:49 am
From: Jeff Thies
On 3/16/2011 8:09 AM, Jeff Thies wrote:
> On 3/15/2011 6:07 PM, Jeff Thies wrote:
>> Here's an interesting bit about the reactor design (GE Mark I, also
>> used in type II) that are currently running rampant:
Diagram of the spent fuel storage, and data on the amounts thereof and
how the emergency measures to pump saltwater work:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/japan-nuclear-reactors-and-seismic-activity/
Jeff
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/reactors-japan-crisis-raised-concerns-1972_n_836227.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Designs:
>> http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf
>
> A bit better explanation of the drywell/wetwell in GE Mark I, as well
> the "blowout" panels and the spent fuel reservoir which has been running
> dry and burning particularly in the offline reactor #4.
>
> http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2011/3/12/fukushima-dai-ichi-unit-1-reactor-schematic.html
>
>
> Jeff
>
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
== 11 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 6:52 am
From: Hank
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.
Hank
== 12 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 7:38 am
From: Jeff Thies
On 3/17/2011 9:38 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article<ilsk5q$9j7$1@news.albasani.net>,
> Jeff Thies<jeff_thies@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly. There is a reason for regulation and why market forces should
>> not decide such things.
>>
> Yet it has been shown over and over again that market forces end up
> deciding the regulations, too.
I don't disagree.
But, better regulatory rather than none as the Tea Party wants is the
answer. If your objective is to break government than broken government
is what you get.
>
>
>> When I first heard of this I thought a mighty technology nation with
>> many resources at hand will manage this. It might take a few hours or
>> days. I was wrong.
>>
> So far they have for the most part. However, I will admit to
> stressing the so far part.
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.
>
>> Onsite fuel storage must change, particularly for any Mark 1 reactors
>> left licensed, but the rest need to be decommissioned. Screw the
>> corporate cost when the public good is at such risk.
> HOw about the public cost? You don't just shut down reactors without
> replacing them with something else.
They can stop extending the licenses on Mark 1s. One was just renewed in
Vermont, despite local regulatory refusal. Just because it takes a long
time to do something doesn't mean the only option is the status quo. The
faults previously identified and the likely outcome of their failures is
exactly the situation that is in Fukuyama.
To reiterate, if you think things are going well there, you need to take
another look.
Jeff
>
== 13 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 7:43 am
From: Jeff Thies
On 3/17/2011 9:34 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article<w7adnQ5beb_gPRzQnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> "DGDevin"<DGDevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Rod Speed" wrote in message news:8ud3dkFhfjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>>>> But from the reports I have read/heard, the major problem was the
>>>> fact that both back-up water pumping stations (both the diesel
>>>> generator operated pump and battery operated pumps failed.
>>
>>> They cant have failed completely otherwise they couldnt
>>> have pumped sea water into the reactors and they did.
>>
>> 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.
>
Mind you that replacement diesels have been there for some time. The
major flaw is not that something failed, it is that it can't be fixed
once it does. And the battery backups were used so they must have been
intact.
Ever been to a big concert? They have mega generators suitable for
powering everything. That stuff can be gotten and moved one way or another.
Jeff
== 14 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 8:10 am
From: Han
Jeff Thies <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote in
news:ilt3i5$bt9$1@news.albasani.net:
> Diagram of the spent fuel storage, and data on the amounts thereof and
> how the emergency measures to pump saltwater work:
>
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/japan-nuclear-
reactors-and-seismic-activity/>
>
> Jeff
That is a really good background.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
== 15 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 8:12 am
From: "Bob F"
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? How
about a terrorist attack on the secondary containment, scattering used fuel all
over you? Would you rather not have it near you?
== 16 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 8:17 am
From: "Bob F"
DGDevin wrote:
> "Hank" wrote in message
> news:743b84f9-467f-4c1e-933c-16f5bd9f32c5@j9g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> Let me say that I know nothing about Nuclear Power Plants. But from
>> the reports I have read/heard, the major problem was the fact that
>> both back-up water pumping stations (both the diesel generator
>> operated pump and battery operated pumps failed. Why don't they have
>> a steam turbine/steam reciprocating pump as back-up? The reactor
>> produces steam, steam runs the pumps. All is good.
>
> The reactors are designed to automatically SCRAM (shut down) in an
> emergency situation like a major earthquake. And there is no
> guarantee that the tsunami wouldn't have disrupted regular power
> production just as it did the backup power. If the backup systems
> and their plumbing had been tougher that would probably have been
> sufficient, but for some bizarre reason this whole plant was insanely
> vulnerable.
As are, probably, many others.
== 17 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 8:19 am
From: "Bob F"
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.
== 18 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 8:23 am
From: bud--
DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "Hank" wrote in message
> news:743b84f9-467f-4c1e-933c-16f5bd9f32c5@j9g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> Let me say that I know nothing about Nuclear Power Plants. But from
>> the reports I have read/heard, the major problem was the fact that
>> both back-up water pumping stations (both the diesel generator
>> operated pump and battery operated pumps failed. Why don't they have a
>> steam turbine/steam reciprocating pump as back-up? The reactor
>> produces steam, steam runs the pumps. All is good.
>
> The reactors are designed to automatically SCRAM (shut down) in an
> emergency situation like a major earthquake. And there is no guarantee
> that the tsunami wouldn't have disrupted regular power production just
> as it did the backup power. If the backup systems and their plumbing
> had been tougher that would probably have been sufficient, but for some
> bizarre reason this whole plant was insanely vulnerable.
I have not heard there was damage from the earthquake.
The plant was protected from tsunami by a seawall. They did not envision
a quake as strong as what occurred and thus did not expect a tsunami as
high as occurred (design error). The plant is very near the sea -
presumably for cooling water. Emergency generators, in one report, were
in the basement and flooded (likely design error). From the rather poor
reporting it sounds like if they would have had emergency electrical
power for the pumps both the reactors and spent rod pools would have
been OK.
Reports are they are working on getting electric power to the plant,
which implies that the plant pumps can do the cooling. On the other hand
reporting of what is known is pretty poor, and a lot appears to not be
known. The US NRC says the spent rod pool at reactor 4 is dry (which is
apparently not entirely certain). As of last night that spent rod pool
was the major source of released radiation.
People are generally not supposed to be with in 12? mi of the plant. Out
to 29 miles you are supposed to stay inside and try to seal the
building. A lot depends on weather. So far wind has been mostly out to
sea. (So the US carrier moved to the west side of Japan.) If the wind
blows onshore health risks go up. And that can be 'excessive' cancers
years later. Years after Chernobyl thyroid cancer is far elevated.
== 19 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 10:43 am
From: The Daring Dufas
On 3/17/2011 10:12 AM, Bob F 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? How
> about a terrorist attack on the secondary containment, scattering used fuel all
> over you? Would you rather not have it near you?
>
Wouldn't bother me, I think glowing in the dark could be pretty cool. ^_^
TDD
== 20 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 11:05 am
From: dgk
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.
== 21 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 11:15 am
From: "DGDevin"
"bud--" wrote in message news:ilt91j$nt2$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> I have not heard there was damage from the earthquake.
Or from previous quakes apparently. But the system is still designed to
shut down if something happens that might have caused serious damage. That
seems prudent. And it would have been fine if not for the poorly-designed
backup power systems.
> The plant was protected from tsunami by a seawall.
Yesterday I saw video of one of those walls that protected a town, it was
broken up like a cinder-block wall put up by somebody who didn't know how to
mix mortar.
> They did not envision a quake as strong as what occurred and thus did not
> expect a tsunami as high as occurred (design error).
Incredible design error, to save x-million dollars they rolled the dice on
how big a quake would occur while the plant was in service. They just got
an extension on keeping one of those reactors in service for another decade
too, despite the design life being hit before the turn of the century.
Profits ahead of safety--that's a formula for disaster.
== 22 of 22 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 11:22 am
From: Kurt Ullman
In article <OpCdnW_Y75tN0h_QnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"DGDevin" <DGDevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Incredible design error, to save x-million dollars they rolled the dice on
> how big a quake would occur while the plant was in service. They just got
> an extension on keeping one of those reactors in service for another decade
> too, despite the design life being hit before the turn of the century.
> Profits ahead of safety--that's a formula for disaster.
I don't how it works in Japan, but in the US most utilites are highly
regulated from a profit standpoint. Usually they are guaranteed a
certain return on investment and can pass along most of costs of
producing the energy. So, keeping these online and saving money is at
least as much a political decision, so the Regulatory Commissions (and
through them the governor and legislators) don't get yelled at for
higher electricity rates.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Damn Pedestrians!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a4486f5ab89c33d5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 6:12 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bullshit
Campaign"
On Mar 16, 11:54 pm, Conscience <obama...@fraud.gov> wrote:
> On 2011-03-16 20:37:52 -0700, Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> said:
>
>
>
> > "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, aka Comandante Banana"
> > <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
> >>> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, aka Comandante Banana"
> >>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> I can buy that argument against bikes on sidewalks, but their legal
> >>>> status on the roads is not backed up by facilities, enforcement or a
> >>>> willingness to share by some drivers.
>
> >>> If bikers held me up back when I smoked, I'd get in front of them
> >>> and flick lit Marlboros at them. Ten points for a face hit!
>
> >>> Walk or drive a car, I don't care but GTF out of my way!- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> Won't you give room to a fellow cyclist who fears for his life? And
> >> why don't you ride a bike on the sidewalk too?
>
> >> Driving can never be a solution and instead you should encourage me to
> >> walk.
>
> > Huh? That made no sense, Hippie Highness.
>
> > When I rode a bike as a boy, there were no bike lanes and we weren't
> > allowed on the sidewalks. We had to fear for our dear lives as we
> > got the hell out of the way of speeding cars and trucks.
>
> > Today's cyclists deserve no better. Spoiled brats.
>
> I think the troll ought to stop using any product, including food,
> that's been delivered with an internal combustion engine.
>
> Until then, he's just another elitist, left-wing, jobless hypocrite.
I'm not a radical. I'm all for PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY though.
I thought doing your individual contribution was being part of an
honest solution.
Nobody will save your ass for you, and those who do are terrorized.
You really got a sick mind.
==============================================================================
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
No comments:
Post a Comment