| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 48:46:56 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (4,227K bytes) |
| Messages: | 177,138 |
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 14:31:40 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
It is an engineering feat to build a nuclear power submarine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)
It's still a tender subject in New Hampshire since the civilians were ride-alongs that had worked on it at the Kittery Naval Yard. It was
supposed to be a special treat. Then there is Christa McAuliffe. NH is suspicious of any government offers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zClEHMU8W_4--
Phil Ochs could get some could songs out of the 21st century but he
checked out early.
On 23/09/2025 21:21, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-23 14:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Not if it's designed to be opened up
On 23/09/2025 12:23, Daniel70 wrote:
On 23/09/2025 10:17 am, Jeff Barnett wrote:
<Snip>
Labs where I worked had a reactor that they do longer needed or
wanted. The history of getting rid of one of those things in less
than 15 (or was it 20) years was bureaucracy 100% and space
reclamation 0%. The Chief Scientist of this aerospace laboratory
was bored and looking for a hobby so said he'd give it a try. A few >>>>> years later, he succeeded! Next thing we know is folks with similar >>>>> problems were lined up at his door with job offers. He was a rock
star who made good.
Your comments interest me ...... As people here-abouts may or may
not be aware, Australia was/is in the market for new Submarines and
have settled into the AUKUS consortium along with the UK and US of A
for a project that will last well past 2050.
As I understand it, one criteria of the set-up is that when the
Submarine's Nuclear Reactor has reached End-of-Life, the Reactor
vessel will be removed and disposed of (somehow/somewhere) and a new
reactor vessel fitted into the Submarine ..... and off they go!
REALLY??
Yes, really.
Its actually easier and safer than attempting to refuel or service it.
IIRC it is not designed to be refuelled at all.
Opening up a submarine to replace the "engine" must be an engineering
feat.
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 22/09/2025 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In particular when the 1960s reactors were built the regulatory
framework was very light and governments wanted them built,. The real
death knell was Germany, the Green party, proportional representation,
and Chernobyl.
From what I remember "Germany" was largely a reaction to Fukushima.
On 2025-09-24, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 23/09/2025 21:21, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Opening up a submarine to replace the "engine" must be an engineering feat. >>Not if it's designed to be opened up
That reminds me of the "fast ferry" fiasco here in B.C. This batch
of new ferries, as it turns out, had to be red-lined in order to get
the speed that was promised - which wore out the engines in record
time. That's when it was discovered that there was no means to
easily remove the engines for servicing, so holes had to be cut
in the hull. After the provincial government's standard 100%
cost overrun building them, they were eventually pulled from
service (to the great relief of everyone who traveled on them),
and they were eventually sold for 10 cents on the dollar.
Ironically, they turned out to generate such a wake that they
had to be run slowly past the islands near each end of the trip
so that their wake wouldn't bash everything on said islands, so
the purported time savings shrank to 5 to 10 minutes on a 1:35
trip. Yawn. The only person I know of who liked them was a guy
who lived on Gabriola Island who would get out his surfboard
whenever one went by.
On 2025-09-24 01:57, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 22/09/2025 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In particular when the 1960s reactors were built the regulatory
framework was very light and governments wanted them built,. The real
death knell was Germany, the Green party, proportional representation,
and Chernobyl.
-aFrom what I remember "Germany" was largely a reaction to Fukushima.
Indeed.
It was my turning point, and that of many people.
When Chernobyl exploded we though: that's Russian inefficiency.
Communists are corrupt and imbecile. Then years later comes Fukushima disaster. No communists there to blame. State of the art "western"
industry.
On 2025-09-24 02:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/09/2025 21:21, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-23 14:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Not if it's designed to be opened up
On 23/09/2025 12:23, Daniel70 wrote:
On 23/09/2025 10:17 am, Jeff Barnett wrote:
<Snip>
Labs where I worked had a reactor that they do longer needed or
wanted. The history of getting rid of one of those things in less >>>>>> than 15 (or was it 20) years was bureaucracy 100% and space
reclamation 0%. The Chief Scientist of this aerospace laboratory
was bored and looking for a hobby so said he'd give it a try. A
few years later, he succeeded! Next thing we know is folks with
similar problems were lined up at his door with job offers. He was >>>>>> a rock star who made good.
Your comments interest me ...... As people here-abouts may or may
not be aware, Australia was/is in the market for new Submarines and >>>>> have settled into the AUKUS consortium along with the UK and US of
A for a project that will last well past 2050.
As I understand it, one criteria of the set-up is that when the
Submarine's Nuclear Reactor has reached End-of-Life, the Reactor
vessel will be removed and disposed of (somehow/somewhere) and a
new reactor vessel fitted into the Submarine ..... and off they go!
REALLY??
Yes, really.
Its actually easier and safer than attempting to refuel or service it. >>>>
IIRC it is not designed to be refuelled at all.
Opening up a submarine to replace the "engine" must be an engineering
feat.
How?
A huge "door" with many bolts?
I highly suspect the Spanish S81 and S82 will be opened at the major
review operation in some years time to install the AIP instead of the
diesel it has now.
DeepL fails to translate the Spanish wording. Chatgpt says it is "Great Careening"
Msjor Drydock work! Careening was done in the days of woodenships and
iron men. It involved getting the ship up on the beach to scrape off
the barnacle and repair any damage.
On 2025-09-24 02:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/09/2025 21:21, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-23 14:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Not if it's designed to be opened up
On 23/09/2025 12:23, Daniel70 wrote:
On 23/09/2025 10:17 am, Jeff Barnett wrote:
<Snip>
Labs where I worked had a reactor that they do longer needed or
wanted. The history of getting rid of one of those things in less >>>>>> than 15 (or was it 20) years was bureaucracy 100% and space
reclamation 0%. The Chief Scientist of this aerospace laboratory
was bored and looking for a hobby so said he'd give it a try. A
few years later, he succeeded! Next thing we know is folks with
similar problems were lined up at his door with job offers. He was >>>>>> a rock star who made good.
Your comments interest me ...... As people here-abouts may or may
not be aware, Australia was/is in the market for new Submarines and >>>>> have settled into the AUKUS consortium along with the UK and US of
A for a project that will last well past 2050.
As I understand it, one criteria of the set-up is that when the
Submarine's Nuclear Reactor has reached End-of-Life, the Reactor
vessel will be removed and disposed of (somehow/somewhere) and a
new reactor vessel fitted into the Submarine ..... and off they go!
REALLY??
Yes, really.
Its actually easier and safer than attempting to refuel or service it. >>>>
IIRC it is not designed to be refuelled at all.
Opening up a submarine to replace the "engine" must be an engineering
feat.
How?
A huge "door" with many bolts?
I highly suspect the Spanish S81 and S82 will be opened at the major
review operation in some years time to install the AIP instead of the
diesel it has now.
DeepL fails to translate the Spanish wording. Chatgpt says it is "Great Careening"
On 2025-09-24 01:57, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 22/09/2025 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In particular when the 1960s reactors were built the regulatory
framework was very light and governments wanted them built,. The real
death knell was Germany, the Green party, proportional representation,
and Chernobyl.
-aFrom what I remember "Germany" was largely a reaction to Fukushima.
Indeed.
It was my turning point, and that of many people.
When Chernobyl exploded we though: that's Russian inefficiency.
Communists are corrupt and imbecile. Then years later comes Fukushima disaster. No communists there to blame. State of the art "western"
industry.
I think TNP is also saddling SMRs with the millstone of a 60 yearYou have no idea how investment works.
expected lifespan. Investors don't like this because there is huge
risk some cheaper energy will take away expected profits in the long
term future. Some of the SMR designers are looking at much shorter
expected lifespans, as low as 5 years. If they can get this to work
economically it is more appealing in that it reduces long term
financial risk and the short lifecycle will allow for much more
rapid innovation.
Once built the running costs of a nuclear power station is
insignificant. ALL the cashflow goes to servicing the debt, and the
longer it operates the cheaper it can generate electricity once the debt
is repaid. Contrariwise the longer it takes to build the more the debt
piles up because its generating no revenue.
This is exactly how regulatory ratcheting is used to destroy the
investment value, that and forcing premature cloisure as happened in
Germany. Where the government was successfully sued for breach of contract.
What you have stated is exactly the reverse : Nuclear is highly
attractive to investors like pension funds swinging huge piles of cash
and looking for a steady 7.5% return over 60 years or more.
Their only worry is risk. Not of cheaper technology coming along, but
that *government will change the rules and force closure*.
On 9/24/25 13:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-24 01:57, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 22/09/2025 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In particular when the 1960s reactors were built the regulatory
framework was very light and governments wanted them built,. The real
death knell was Germany, the Green party, proportional representation, >>>> and Chernobyl.
-aFrom what I remember "Germany" was largely a reaction to Fukushima.
Indeed.
It was my turning point, and that of many people.
When Chernobyl exploded we though: that's Russian inefficiency.
Communists are corrupt and imbecile. Then years later comes Fukushima
disaster. No communists there to blame. State of the art "western"
industry.
-a-a-a-aFukushima was built in a zone where tidal waves had happened before.
-a-a-a-aAnd it was internally SOTA but that was a while back.-a The siting o Fukushima was very bad and that is the most I can say about that.
The problem I'm referring to is technological advance. In a reasonable world, we would expect future breakthroughs in technology to make electricity cheaper. Maybe Fusion, maybe SMRs (like Copenhagen Atomics).
In 60 years, it is likely something will turn up. I know you agree with
me, that electricity could be generated cheaper.
So that is the problem for any finance based upon future cashflows from
the sale of electricity decades in the future. The amount you can sell electricity for will likely decrease. The longer in the future, the more likely cheaper alternatives will appear.
It is only now that we see that politicians have made such a pig's ear
of generation that you see big companies, ai data centres, getting
scared. They know if the governments continue to mess it up, the first people to suffer from rationing will be ai data centres.
On 9/24/25 13:02, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-24 02:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/09/2025 21:21, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-23 14:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Not if it's designed to be opened up
On 23/09/2025 12:23, Daniel70 wrote:
On 23/09/2025 10:17 am, Jeff Barnett wrote:
<Snip>
As I understand it, one criteria of the set-up is that when the
Submarine's Nuclear Reactor has reached End-of-Life, the Reactor
vessel will be removed and disposed of (somehow/somewhere) and a
new reactor vessel fitted into the Submarine ..... and off they go! >>>>>>
REALLY??
Yes, really.
Its actually easier and safer than attempting to refuel or service it. >>>>>
IIRC it is not designed to be refuelled at all.
Opening up a submarine to replace the "engine" must be an
engineering feat.
How?
A huge "door" with many bolts?
-a-a-a-aA welded shut hatch big enough to take out the system to be removed.>
I highly suspect the Spanish S81 and S82 will be opened at the major
review operation in some years time to install the AIP instead of the
diesel it has now.
DeepL fails to translate the Spanish wording. Chatgpt says it is
"Great Careening"
Msjor Drydock work! Careening was done in the days of wooden ships
and iron men.
It involved getting the ship up on the beach to
scrape off the barnacle and repair any damage. It involved
lightening the ship by removing weapons and stores. Getting it up on
the Beach then doing the work. Then back to water and reload
everything previously removed if the stores had survived the work.
This was done by explorers and pirates. Military ships would go
into dry dock for the same work. I dunno if merchant ships went to
dry dock.
On 24/09/2025 23:20, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Well exactly. You have *no idea* about the issues *at all*.
On 9/24/25 13:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-24 01:57, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 22/09/2025 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In particular when the 1960s reactors were built the regulatory
framework was very light and governments wanted them built,. The real >>>>> death knell was Germany, the Green party, proportional representation, >>>>> and Chernobyl.
-aFrom what I remember "Germany" was largely a reaction to Fukushima.
Indeed.
It was my turning point, and that of many people.
When Chernobyl exploded we though: that's Russian inefficiency.
Communists are corrupt and imbecile. Then years later comes Fukushima
disaster. No communists there to blame. State of the art "western"
industry.
-a-a-a-a-aFukushima was built in a zone where tidal waves had happened before.
-a-a-a-a-aAnd it was internally SOTA but that was a while back.-a The siting o
Fukushima was very bad and that is the most I can say about that.
In fact the reactor survived the tsunami and the earthquake.
Just not the flooding.
Hundreds of square miles of Japan were devastated by that event. 20,000 people were killed . The only flaw in the reactor was that the emergency diesel generators were flooded.
Nevertheless the last safety containment worked, and the reactor melted
down fully contained except a little hydrogen *which regulations would
not let the operators vent*.
So ultimately it vented itself with a bang.
Fukushima is a tribute to the incredible safety of even a reactor built
in the 1960s.
Just as Chernobyl was a wake up call to actually how much radiation
could escape with so little long term effects.
SMRs are of course designed without the need for cooling pumps when shut down so cannot do what Fukushima did
Statistically nuclear power is the safest power generating industry
there is. In terms of deaths and injuries per unit electricity generated.
And yet the public perception is that it's extremely dangerous.
I wonder why that is?
Cui Bono?
On 24/09/2025 21:02, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-24 02:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Well of course. Many of them.
On 23/09/2025 21:21, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-23 14:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Not if it's designed to be opened up
On 23/09/2025 12:23, Daniel70 wrote:
On 23/09/2025 10:17 am, Jeff Barnett wrote:
<Snip>
Labs where I worked had a reactor that they do longer needed or >>>>>>> wanted. The history of getting rid of one of those things in less >>>>>>> than 15 (or was it 20) years was bureaucracy 100% and space
reclamation 0%. The Chief Scientist of this aerospace laboratory >>>>>>> was bored and looking for a hobby so said he'd give it a try. A >>>>>>> few years later, he succeeded! Next thing we know is folks with >>>>>>> similar problems were lined up at his door with job offers. He
was a rock star who made good.
Your comments interest me ...... As people here-abouts may or may >>>>>> not be aware, Australia was/is in the market for new Submarines
and have settled into the AUKUS consortium along with the UK and
US of A for a project that will last well past 2050.
As I understand it, one criteria of the set-up is that when the
Submarine's Nuclear Reactor has reached End-of-Life, the Reactor
vessel will be removed and disposed of (somehow/somewhere) and a
new reactor vessel fitted into the Submarine ..... and off they go! >>>>>>
REALLY??
Yes, really.
Its actually easier and safer than attempting to refuel or service it. >>>>>
IIRC it is not designed to be refuelled at all.
Opening up a submarine to replace the "engine" must be an
engineering feat.
How?
A huge "door" with many bolts?
Water pressure will hold the doors in place once closed
How do the people get inside? How do the missiles get inside? Or the Torpedoes? Or the food and water?
A reactor-a is not that big. No space in a sub anyway.
I highly suspect the Spanish S81 and S82 will be opened at the majorCareening is a process of hauling a ship out of the water to make repairs.
review operation in some years time to install the AIP instead of the
diesel it has now.
DeepL fails to translate the Spanish wording. Chatgpt says it is
"Great Careening"
Today we would probably say 'dry dock'
On 9/24/25 13:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-24 01:57, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 22/09/2025 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In particular when the 1960s reactors were built the regulatory
framework was very light and governments wanted them built,. The real
death knell was Germany, the Green party, proportional representation, >>>> and Chernobyl.
-aFrom what I remember "Germany" was largely a reaction to Fukushima.
Indeed.
It was my turning point, and that of many people.
When Chernobyl exploded we though: that's Russian inefficiency.
Communists are corrupt and imbecile. Then years later comes Fukushima
disaster. No communists there to blame. State of the art "western"
industry.
-a-a-a-aFukushima was built in a zone where tidal waves had happened before.
-a-a-a-aAnd it was internally SOTA but that was a while back.-a The siting o Fukushima was very bad and that is the most I can say about that.
On 24/09/2025 21:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-24 01:57, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 22/09/2025 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In particular when the 1960s reactors were built the regulatory
framework was very light and governments wanted them built,. The real
death knell was Germany, the Green party, proportional representation, >>>> and Chernobyl.
-aFrom what I remember "Germany" was largely a reaction to Fukushima.
Indeed.
It was my turning point, and that of many people.
When Chernobyl exploded we though: that's Russian inefficiency.
Communists are corrupt and imbecile. Then years later comes Fukushima
disaster. No communists there to blame. State of the art "western"
industry.
The tsunami killed 20,000 people
No one died at the nuclear plant.
The safety systems all performed as designed.
There was no disaster.
It was a very old design of reactor indeed
It simply had not been designed for a once in a thousand years tsunami.
Now nuclear plants are.
But the main thing was that the press made the nuclear meltdown a
'disaster' and completely ignored the fact that far far more death and destruction had been caused by the tsunami itself. The nuclear incident
was a mere footnote.
More clear evidence of anti-nuclear propaganda, is hard to find.
On 2025-09-25 00:20, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 9/24/25 13:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-24 01:57, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 22/09/2025 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In particular when the 1960s reactors were built the regulatory
framework was very light and governments wanted them built,. The real >>>>> death knell was Germany, the Green party, proportional representation, >>>>> and Chernobyl.
-aFrom what I remember "Germany" was largely a reaction to Fukushima.
Indeed.
It was my turning point, and that of many people.
When Chernobyl exploded we though: that's Russian inefficiency.
Communists are corrupt and imbecile. Then years later comes Fukushima
disaster. No communists there to blame. State of the art "western"
industry.
-a-a-a-a-aFukushima was built in a zone where tidal waves had happened before.
-a-a-a-a-aAnd it was internally SOTA but that was a while back.-a The siting o
Fukushima was very bad and that is the most I can say about that.
And they did not know that when designing? They could not have designed
the diesel generators to be raised on platforms about what could be the water level?
The fact is, it was a disaster. We can not trust a new reactor anywhere
to be safe.
It it an interesting paradox.-a People decided that Nuclear power plants were bad, but everyone now has to have computers that require terabytes
of storage.-a Terabytes of storage require terawatts of energy. To get
the terawatts of energy, the people who provide those terabytes of
storage are turning nuclear power plants to provide those terawatts of energy.-a So it is coming to the point where to have terabytes of
storage, they will have to accept nuclear plants or give up the computer.
On 25/09/2025 10:10, Pancho wrote:
The problem I'm referring to is technological advance. In a reasonableI guess that is why 50 year old reactors in the UK are now the cheapest generators on the grid
world, we would expect future breakthroughs in technology to make
electricity cheaper. Maybe Fusion, maybe SMRs (like Copenhagen
Atomics). In 60 years, it is likely something will turn up. I know you
agree with me, that electricity could be generated cheaper.
So that is the problem for any finance based upon future cashflows
from the sale of electricity decades in the future. The amount you can
sell electricity for will likely decrease. The longer in the future,
the more likely cheaper alternatives will appear.
In fact under renewable energy and the advent of tight oil the price of electricity has steadily *increased*.
And you have completely ignored the issue of potential refinancing if
e.g. bond rates go down.
The cost of running a reactor is *absolutely dominated* by the cost of
the capital you borrowed to build it.
No other structure of comparable complexity is going to cost less.
The only way to get costs down is by reducing regulatory overburden back
to the levels of the 1960s and 1970s
You simply do not understand the detail of the cost of a nuclear power station.
It costs next to nothing to run. Only a small amount to maintain.
ALL its costs are the costs of the capital used to build it (and
ultimately to decommission it, but that's far less).
Ergo if its designed to have paid for itself after - say - 50 years and
it does another ten years after that, it can afford to sell its
electricity for the cost of the fuel and maintenance, which is so low
that NOTHING can compete with it
Which is why it's the last thing to be taken off the UK grid., Any
income at all-a is profit.
Nothing can compete with a paid for nuclear reactor on electricity price.
And golly. They want reactors.
It is only now that we see that politicians have made such a pig's ear
of generation that you see big companies, ai data centres, getting
scared. They know if the governments continue to mess it up, the first
people to suffer from rationing will be ai data centres.
On 2025-09-25 10:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/09/2025 21:02, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-24 02:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Well of course. Many of them.
On 23/09/2025 21:21, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-23 14:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Not if it's designed to be opened up
On 23/09/2025 12:23, Daniel70 wrote:
On 23/09/2025 10:17 am, Jeff Barnett wrote:
<Snip>
Labs where I worked had a reactor that they do longer
needed or wanted. The history of getting rid of one of
those things in less than 15 (or was it 20) years was
bureaucracy 100% and space reclamation 0%. The Chief
Scientist of this aerospace laboratory was bored and
looking for a hobby so said he'd give it a try. A few
years later, he succeeded! Next thing we know is folks
with similar problems were lined up at his door with
job offers. He was a rock star who made good.
Your comments interest me ...... As people here-abouts
may or may not be aware, Australia was/is in the market
for new Submarines and have settled into the AUKUS
consortium along with the UK and US of A for a project
that will last well past 2050.
As I understand it, one criteria of the set-up is that
when the Submarine's Nuclear Reactor has reached
End-of-Life, the Reactor vessel will be removed and
disposed of (somehow/somewhere) and a new reactor vessel
fitted into the Submarine ..... and off they go!
REALLY??
Yes, really.
Its actually easier and safer than attempting to refuel or
service it.
IIRC it is not designed to be refuelled at all.
Opening up a submarine to replace the "engine" must be an
engineering feat.
How?
A huge "door" with many bolts?
Water pressure will hold the doors in place once closed
How do the people get inside? How do the missiles get inside? Or
the Torpedoes? Or the food and water?
Certainly, but those hatches are small.
A reactor is not that big. No space in a sub anyway.
It is way bigger than a man.
Today we would probably say 'dry dock'
Yes, certainly it is in a dry dock, but the Spanish name actually
used at the ship yards and all news I read is "la gran carena", thus
the translation I found.
On 2025-09-25 00:20, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 9/24/25 13:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-24 01:57, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 22/09/2025 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In particular when the 1960s reactors were built the regulatory
framework was very light and governments wanted them built,. The real >>>>> death knell was Germany, the Green party, proportional representation, >>>>> and Chernobyl.
-aFrom what I remember "Germany" was largely a reaction to Fukushima.
Indeed.
It was my turning point, and that of many people.
When Chernobyl exploded we though: that's Russian inefficiency.
Communists are corrupt and imbecile. Then years later comes Fukushima
disaster. No communists there to blame. State of the art "western"
industry.
-a-a-a-a-aFukushima was built in a zone where tidal waves had happened before.
-a-a-a-a-aAnd it was internally SOTA but that was a while back.-a The siting o
Fukushima was very bad and that is the most I can say about that.
And they did not know that when designing?
They could not have designed
the diesel generators to be raised on platforms about what could be the water level?
The fact is, it was a disaster. We can not trust a new reactor anywhere
to be safe.
On 2025-09-25 11:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/09/2025 21:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-24 01:57, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 22/09/2025 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In particular when the 1960s reactors were built the regulatory
framework was very light and governments wanted them built,. The real >>>>> death knell was Germany, the Green party, proportional representation, >>>>> and Chernobyl.
-aFrom what I remember "Germany" was largely a reaction to Fukushima.
Indeed.
It was my turning point, and that of many people.
When Chernobyl exploded we though: that's Russian inefficiency.
Communists are corrupt and imbecile. Then years later comes Fukushima
disaster. No communists there to blame. State of the art "western"
industry.
The tsunami killed 20,000 people
No one died at the nuclear plant.
There is long term radiation disease and deaths to account for.
The safety systems all performed as designed.
There was no disaster.
Oh yes, there was.
It was a very old design of reactor indeed
It simply had not been designed for a once in a thousand years tsunami.
Oh. So now you tell me to trust other designs, that they will be "safe"? That _nothing_ bad will ever happen?
The thing is, it wasn't a huge disaster. The world can stand a few such disasters. The risks from energy poverty, global warming, pollution, war
are much greater.
On 9/25/25 10:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/09/2025 10:10, Pancho wrote:
The problem I'm referring to is technological advance. In aI guess that is why 50 year old reactors in the UK are now the
reasonable world, we would expect future breakthroughs in technology
to make electricity cheaper. Maybe Fusion, maybe SMRs (like
Copenhagen Atomics). In 60 years, it is likely something will turn
up. I know you agree with me, that electricity could be generated
cheaper.
cheapest generators on the grid
So that is the problem for any finance based upon future cashflows
from the sale of electricity decades in the future. The amount you
can sell electricity for will likely decrease. The longer in the
future, the more likely cheaper alternatives will appear.
In fact under renewable energy and the advent of tight oil the price
of electricity has steadily *increased*.
And you have completely ignored the issue of potential refinancing if
e.g. bond rates go down.
The cost of running a reactor is *absolutely dominated* by the cost of
the capital you borrowed to build it.
No, interest rates can be fixed. You can hedge, this is a red herring.
No other structure of comparable complexity is going to cost less.
The only way to get costs down is by reducing regulatory overburden
back to the levels of the 1960s and 1970s
You simply do not understand the detail of the cost of a nuclear power
station.
It costs next to nothing to run. Only a small amount to maintain.
ALL its costs are the costs of the capital used to build it (and
ultimately to decommission it, but that's far less).
Ergo if its designed to have paid for itself after - say - 50 years
and it does another ten years after that, it can afford to sell its
electricity for the cost of the fuel and maintenance, which is so low
that NOTHING can compete with it
I understand there is a balance between plant cost (decommissioning too,
if you insist on comflexification) and revenue from sales.
You keep assuming revenue from sales is assured. In a free market, it
isn't. The amount of revenue could drop after 10 years, you might never
get to break even. This is why the government fixes a strike price.
However, the upfront plant investment in nuclear isn't just build cost,
it is R&D. Any reactor builder is investing in learning how to build
future reactors cheaper. This isn't just big reactors, it is SMR too.
The government doesn't offer a strike price for all the reactors you
plan to build. So if the electricity price plummets, the R&D asset disappears.
Yes, you can say electricity prices might go up. They have gone up. But
that is due to political incompetence. Prices can only go up so far
before something snaps and much cheaper alternatives are rolled out. Hopefully in the next 10-20 years.
Which is why it's the last thing to be taken off the UK grid., Any
income at all-a is profit.
Nothing can compete with a paid for nuclear reactor on electricity price.
Yes, I understand it is profit, but it isn't enough to balance build
cost. SumOfAllFutureProfit - BuildCost =-a ActualProfit.
And golly. They want reactors.
It is only now that we see that politicians have made such a pig's
ear of generation that you see big companies, ai data centres,
getting scared. They know if the governments continue to mess it up,
the first people to suffer from rationing will be ai data centres.
And to his huge credit, Bill Gates has invested in them, rather than building silly space rockets.
The Chinese communists of course have a superior government, managed economy, which builds them.
On 09/25/2025 5:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It it an interesting paradox.-a People decided that Nuclear power plants were bad, but everyone now has to have computers that require terabytes
of storage.-a Terabytes of storage require terawatts of energy. To get
the terawatts of energy, the people who provide those terabytes of
storage are turning nuclear power plants to provide those terawatts of energy.-a So it is coming to the point where to have terabytes of
storage, they will have to accept nuclear plants or give up the computer.
On 2025-09-25 00:20, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 9/24/25 13:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-24 01:57, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 22/09/2025 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In particular when the 1960s reactors were built the regulatory
framework was very light and governments wanted them built,. The real >>>>> death knell was Germany, the Green party, proportional representation, >>>>> and Chernobyl.
-aFrom what I remember "Germany" was largely a reaction to Fukushima.
Indeed.
It was my turning point, and that of many people.
When Chernobyl exploded we though: that's Russian inefficiency.
Communists are corrupt and imbecile. Then years later comes Fukushima
disaster. No communists there to blame. State of the art "western"
industry.
-a-a-a-a-aFukushima was built in a zone where tidal waves had happened before.
-a-a-a-a-aAnd it was internally SOTA but that was a while back.-a The siting o
Fukushima was very bad and that is the most I can say about that.
And they did not know that when designing? They could not have designed
the diesel generators to be raised on platforms about what could be the water level?
The fact is, it was a disaster. We can not trust a new reactor anywhere
to be safe.
On 9/25/25 04:25, knuttle wrote:
On 09/25/2025 5:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
-a-a-a-aBig snipWe have spent trillions of dollars in the past 80 years, trying to
The present situation is that Nuclear Power is a mature but problematic technology.-a But where to put that spent reactor fuel waste after you recycle because not only is it tadioactive to some degree but the
minerals left behind are toxic.-a No one seems to want them.
It it an interesting paradox.-a People decided that Nuclear power
plants were bad, but everyone now has to have computers that require
terabytes of storage.-a Terabytes of storage require terawatts of
energy. To get the terawatts of energy, the people who provide those
terabytes of storage are turning nuclear power plants to provide those
terawatts of energy.-a So it is coming to the point where to have
terabytes of storage, they will have to accept nuclear plants or give
up the computer.
-a-a-a-aNow that is a good idea but better is to say give up AI data centers until
the power requirements are reduced to reasonable levels.-a After all Natural Intelligence runs on a few hundred or thousand calories a day for people
who
do a lot of thinking.
-a-a-a-aThose terawatts of energy are only important because the owners of the
plants are using them to make profits.-a Not the people deciding but the owners of technology and data centers and right now they do not care
about how much pollution the power plants produce it seems.
-a-a-a-aMy personal computers, used generally one at a time provide plenty of
support to my NI for a reasonable amount of electricity.-a Maybe we should take big computers requiring large amounts of electrictiy and water for cooling right off the table allowing only modern chips that use less electrictiy
be the power behind the Internet.
-a-a-a-aWell someone besides myself will be making the decisions and larger profits will eventually dictate the use of less electricity with less
water for
cooling.
-a-a-a-abliss
Careening is a process of hauling a ship out of the water to make
repairs.
Today we would probably say 'dry dock'
On 9/24/25 13:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-24 01:57, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 22/09/2025 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In particular when the 1960s reactors were built the regulatory
framework was very light and governments wanted them built,. The real
death knell was Germany, the Green party, proportional representation, >>>> and Chernobyl.
-aFrom what I remember "Germany" was largely a reaction to Fukushima.
Indeed.
It was my turning point, and that of many people.
When Chernobyl exploded we though: that's Russian inefficiency. Communists are corrupt and imbecile. Then years later comes Fukushima disaster. No communists there to blame. State of the art "western" industry.
-a-a-a-aFukushima was built in a zone where tidal waves had happened before. -a-a-a-aAnd it was internally SOTA but that was a while back.-a The siting o Fukushima was very bad and that is the most I can say about that.
-a-a-a-abliss
On 9/25/25 04:25, knuttle wrote:
On 09/25/2025 5:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Big snipWrong/.
The present situation is that Nuclear Power is a mature but
problematic technology.
But where to put that spent reactor fuel waste after you recycle
because not only is it tadioactive to some degree but the minerals
left behind are toxic. No one seems to want them.
Given the level of debate the fact that the thinkers here are burningIt it an interesting paradox. People decided that Nuclear power
plants were bad, but everyone now has to have computers that
require terabytes of storage. Terabytes of storage require
terawatts of energy. To get the terawatts of energy, the people who
provide those terabytes of storage are turning nuclear power plants
to provide those terawatts of energy. So it is coming to the point
where to have terabytes of storage, they will have to accept
nuclear plants or give up the computer.
Now that is a good idea but better is to say give up AI data centers
until the power requirements are reduced to reasonable levels. After
all Natural Intelligence runs on a few hundred or thousand calories a
day for people who do a lot of thinking.
Those terawatts of energy
are only important because the owners of the plants are using them to
make profits. Not the people deciding but the owners of technology
and data centers and right now they do not care about how much
pollution the power plants produce it seems.
My personal computers, used generally one at a time provide plenty
of support to my NI for a reasonable amount of electricity. Maybe we
should take big computers requiring large amounts of electrictiy and
water for cooling right off the table allowing only modern chips that
use less electrictiy be the power behind the Internet.
Well someone besides myself will be making the decisions and larger
profits will eventually dictate the use of less electricity with less
water for cooling.
bliss--
On 9/25/25 04:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-25 00:20, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 9/24/25 13:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-24 01:57, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 22/09/2025 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In particular when the 1960s reactors were built the
regulatory framework was very light and governments wanted
them built,. The real death knell was Germany, the Green
party, proportional representation, and Chernobyl.
From what I remember "Germany" was largely a reaction to
Fukushima.
Indeed.
It was my turning point, and that of many people.
When Chernobyl exploded we though: that's Russian inefficiency.
Communists are corrupt and imbecile. Then years later comes
Fukushima disaster. No communists there to blame. State of the
art "western" industry.
Fukushima was built in a zone where tidal waves had happened
before. And it was internally SOTA but that was a while back.
The siting o Fukushima was very bad and that is the most I can
say about that.
And they did not know that when designing? They could not have
designed the diesel generators to be raised on platforms about what
could be the water level?
History of a place in regard to quakes and other disruptive natural
events are frequently ignored otherwise the cities that replaced
Pompei would not have been built.
It was a very great disaster.
The fact is, it was a disaster. We can not trust a new reactor
anywhere to be safe.
Trusting new reactors in other places
is up to you. The use of Coal to generate power is fraught with other liabilities and may have a greater death toll but of individuals
dying of black lung at the mines and where it is burned more
respiratory problems including lung cancer.
bliss--
We have spent trillions of dollars in the past 80 years, trying to circumvent the use of nuclear energy.-a-a If that trillions of dollars had been spent in the laboratory to develop methods to handle nuclear waste
we would not still be facing the problem that we recognized 80 years ago.
With research we develop the methods to concentrate uranium for the bomb
in a little more that 6 years (1939 to 1945).-a Now 80 years later we
have not progressed much beyond that level of technology when it comes
to the nuclear waste
On Wed, 9/24/2025 6:20 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 9/24/25 13:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-24 01:57, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 22/09/2025 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In particular when the 1960s reactors were built the regulatory
framework was very light and governments wanted them built,. The real >>>>> death knell was Germany, the Green party, proportional representation, >>>>> and Chernobyl.
-aFrom what I remember "Germany" was largely a reaction to Fukushima.
Indeed.
It was my turning point, and that of many people.
When Chernobyl exploded we though: that's Russian inefficiency. Communists are corrupt and imbecile. Then years later comes Fukushima disaster. No communists there to blame. State of the art "western" industry.
-a-a-a-aFukushima was built in a zone where tidal waves had happened before.
-a-a-a-aAnd it was internally SOTA but that was a while back.-a The siting o
Fukushima was very bad and that is the most I can say about that.
-a-a-a-abliss
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Japan is an island.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Japan_topo_en.jpg
You're building initially four reactors and eventually
six reactors. The ocean makes for a compact cooling system. Your choices
are to position reactors on a fresh-water river, if one of sufficient capacity and sustainable water flow is available. Or, to use the ocean.
The bluff was cleared of overburden, which lowered the height of the
bluff, but mounted the reactors on bedrock.
Tsunami events, historically, a few were very high. The Alaskan one
was 1700 feet. B.C. has some marks on a mountain somewhere, at
around 800 feet or so. Providing your emergency diesel with air
to drive it, would require a rather tall pipe to do the job
in such a way as to tolerate any incoming tsunami.
In hindsight, if "they'd made this a foot higher or that
a foot higher", it's hindsight that provides those measurements.
They could have made the seawall taller, but then the base
has to be bigger.
The area is the Ring of Fire, so surprises are to be expected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Fire
Paul
History of a place in regard to quakes and other disruptivenatural
events
are frequently ignored otherwise the cities that replaced Pompei would
not have been built.
On 25/09/2025 12:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-25 00:20, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 9/24/25 13:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-24 01:57, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
On 22/09/2025 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Indeed.
In particular when the 1960s reactors were built the regulatory
framework was very light and governments wanted them built,. The real >>>>>> death knell was Germany, the Green party, proportional
representation,
and Chernobyl.
-aFrom what I remember "Germany" was largely a reaction to Fukushima. >>>>
It was my turning point, and that of many people.
When Chernobyl exploded we though: that's Russian inefficiency.
Communists are corrupt and imbecile. Then years later comes
Fukushima disaster. No communists there to blame. State of the art
"western" industry.
-a-a-a-a-aFukushima was built in a zone where tidal waves had happened
before.
-a-a-a-a-aAnd it was internally SOTA but that was a while back.-a The siting o
Fukushima was very bad and that is the most I can say about that.
And they did not know that when designing?
No tidal wave had *ever been experienced* that high. Fukushima was built
to withstand 1 19ft surge which is all that was known in the 1970s when
it was designed.
Later studies in the 1980s concluded that probably was not high enough,
They could not have designed the diesel generators to be raised on
platforms about what could be the water level?
Expect they didnt.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing
The fact is, it was a disaster. We can not trust a new reactor
anywhere to be safe.
That is alarmist bollocks. The design was safe. The core was contained.
No one died.
I don't know why you need to lie about this.
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:17:36 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
History of a place in regard to quakes and other disruptivenatural
events
are frequently ignored otherwise the cities that replaced Pompei would
not have been built.
Or much of California. Loma Prieta was a year before I started trucking
but having I-880 fall down and go boom did nothing for the traffic around
SF.
Then there was the 1994 Northridge quake that took out the Newhall Pass interchange. That was a complex mess when it was functional and a complete horror show when it was broken.
That's the one that was destroyed in the 1971 Sylmar earthquake and Built Back Better.
PG&E seems to have searched for every fault line in California to build Diablo Canyon. Good luck with that one. At least Bodega Bay got headed off
at the pass, so to speak.
Rancho Seco didn't even need an earthquake to fail. I think shutting that
one down was the best thing that ever happened to SMUD. It would have
never survived deregulation.
I won't even go into all the mudslides waiting to happen.
On 25/09/2025 12:23, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-25 10:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/09/2025 21:02, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-24 02:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Well of course. Many of them.
On 23/09/2025 21:21, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-23 14:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Not if it's designed to be opened up
On 23/09/2025 12:23, Daniel70 wrote:
On 23/09/2025 10:17 am, Jeff Barnett wrote:
<Snip>
Labs where I worked had a reactor that they do longer needed or >>>>>>>>> wanted. The history of getting rid of one of those things in >>>>>>>>> less than 15 (or was it 20) years was bureaucracy 100% and
space reclamation 0%. The Chief Scientist of this aerospace >>>>>>>>> laboratory was bored and looking for a hobby so said he'd give >>>>>>>>> it a try. A few years later, he succeeded! Next thing we know >>>>>>>>> is folks with similar problems were lined up at his door with >>>>>>>>> job offers. He was a rock star who made good.
Your comments interest me ...... As people here-abouts may or >>>>>>>> may not be aware, Australia was/is in the market for new
Submarines and have settled into the AUKUS consortium along with >>>>>>>> the UK and US of A for a project that will last well past 2050. >>>>>>>>
As I understand it, one criteria of the set-up is that when the >>>>>>>> Submarine's Nuclear Reactor has reached End-of-Life, the Reactor >>>>>>>> vessel will be removed and disposed of (somehow/somewhere) and a >>>>>>>> new reactor vessel fitted into the Submarine ..... and off they go! >>>>>>>>
REALLY??
Yes, really.
Its actually easier and safer than attempting to refuel or
service it.
IIRC it is not designed to be refuelled at all.
Opening up a submarine to replace the "engine" must be an
engineering feat.
How?
A huge "door" with many bolts?
Water pressure will hold the doors in place once closed
How do the people get inside? How do the missiles get inside? Or the
Torpedoes? Or the food and water?
Certainly, but those hatches are small.
A reactor-a is not that big. No space in a sub anyway.
It is way bigger than a man.
The smallest made (critical) reactor is about the size of a gas
cylinder. Plutonium decay heat ones power space probes and a are a few
kg in weight
HEU reactors can be made that will do 30 years between refuels
No designer envisaging the need to remove an entire reactor during the service life of the ship is going to require it to be cut open and
welded shut again
TRIDENT nuclear submarines have 8ft diameter hatches...
In short neither small reactors nor large hatches are particularly
rocket science. Although the missiles that are loaded into them are.
Just out of interest facts are not hard to arrive at, although
admittedly harder than idle speculation by people with imaginations
greater than their IQs...
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear- applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships
"Naval reactors (with the exception of the ill-fated Russian Alfa class described below) have been pressurised water types, which differ from commercial reactors producing electricity in that:
They deliver a *lot of power from a very small volume* and therefore
most run on highly-enriched uranium (>20% U-235, originally c 97% but apparently now 93% in latest US submarines, c 20-25% in some western
vessels, 20% in the first and second generation Russian reactors
(1957-81)*, then 21% to 45% in 3rd generation Russian units (40% in
India's Arihant). Newer French reactors run on low-enriched fuel.
The fuel is not UO2 but a uranium-zirconium or uranium-aluminium
alloy (c15%U with 93% enrichment, or more U with less rCo eg 20% rCo U-235) or a metal-ceramic (Kursk: U-Al zoned 20-45% enriched, clad in zircaloy,
with c 200kg U-235 in each 200 MW core).
-aThey have long core lives, so that refuelling is needed only after
10 or more years, and new cores are designed to last 50 years in
carriers and 30-40 years (over 1.5 million kilometres) in most
submarines, albeit with much lower capacity factors than a nuclear power plant (<30%).
The design allows for a compact pressure vessel with internal neutron
and gamma shield. The Sevmorput pressure vessel for a relatively large
marine reactor is *4.6 m high and 1.8 m diameter*, enclosing a core 1 m
high and 1.2 m diameter.
-aThermal efficiency is less than in civil nuclear power plants due to
the need for flexible power output, and space constraints for the steam system."
Note *4.6 m high and 1.8 m diameter* is not 'way bigger than a man'-a -
its about twice the size of a man and really pretty easy to move around. Through a hatch. Once every 50 years
Indeed. It's-a probably where English got the term, from from the spanish navy.Today we would probably say 'dry dock'
Yes, certainly it is in a dry dock, but the Spanish name actually used
at the ship yards and all news I read is "la gran carena", thus the
translation I found.
But its meaning stayed attached to small boats ships - not submarines
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 09:53:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Careening is a process of hauling a ship out of the water to make
repairs.
Today we would probably say 'dry dock'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_dock#Renaissance_Europe
Two different processes. The ship isn't hauled out. It's run in until it's barely afloat at high tide and you wait for the tide to ebb. The Grace
Dieu example is an exception. Usually you can scrape the hull, apply anti- fouling paint, or perform other tasks before the tide comes in.
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:17:36 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
History of a place in regard to quakes and other disruptivenatural
events
are frequently ignored otherwise the cities that replaced Pompei would
not have been built.
Or much of California. Loma Prieta was a year before I started trucking
but having I-880 fall down and go boom did nothing for the traffic around
SF.
Then there was the 1994 Northridge quake that took out the Newhall Pass interchange. That was a complex mess when it was functional and a complete horror show when it was broken.
That's the one that was destroyed in the 1971 Sylmar earthquake and Built Back Better.
PG&E seems to have searched for every fault line in California to build Diablo Canyon. Good luck with that one. At least Bodega Bay got headed off
at the pass, so to speak.
Rancho Seco didn't even need an earthquake to fail. I think shutting that
one down was the best thing that ever happened to SMUD. It would have
never survived deregulation.
I won't even go into all the mudslides waiting to happen.
On 09/25/2025 11:11 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
We have spent trillions of dollars in the past 80 years, trying to circumvent the use of nuclear energy.-a-a If that trillions of dollars had been spent in the laboratory to develop methods to handle nuclear waste we would not still be facing the problem that we recognized 80 years ago.
On 9/25/25 04:25, knuttle wrote:
On 09/25/2025 5:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
-a-a-a-a-aBig snip
The present situation is that Nuclear Power is a mature but problematic
technology.-a But where to put that spent reactor fuel waste after you
recycle because not only is it tadioactive to some degree but the
minerals left behind are toxic.-a No one seems to want them.
It it an interesting paradox.-a People decided that Nuclear power plants were bad, but everyone now has to have computers that require terabytes of storage.-a Terabytes of storage require terawatts of energy. To get the terawatts of energy, the people who provide those terabytes of storage are turning nuclear power plants to provide those terawatts of energy.-a So it is coming to the point where to have terabytes of storage, they will have to accept nuclear plants or give up the computer.
-a-a-a-a-aNow that is a good idea but better is to say give up AI data centers until
the power requirements are reduced to reasonable levels.-a After all Natural >> Intelligence runs on a few hundred or thousand calories a day for people who >> do a lot of thinking.
-a-a-a-a-aThose terawatts of energy are only important because the owners of the
plants are using them to make profits.-a Not the people deciding but the
owners of technology and data centers and right now they do not care
about how much pollution the power plants produce it seems.
-a-a-a-a-aMy personal computers, used generally one at a time provide plenty of
support to my NI for a reasonable amount of electricity.-a Maybe we should >> take big computers requiring large amounts of electrictiy and water for
cooling right off the table allowing only modern chips that use less electrictiy
be the power behind the Internet.
-a-a-a-a-aWell someone besides myself will be making the decisions and larger
profits will eventually dictate the use of less electricity with less water for
cooling.
-a-a-a-a-abliss
With research we develop the methods to concentrate uranium for the bomb in a little more that 6 years (1939 to 1945).-a Now 80 years later we have not progressed much beyond that level of technology when it comes to the nuclear waste
Yes, you can say electricity prices might go up. They have gone up.
They might close the gates at low tide.
In Cartagena there are no tides though, and that is where the submarines
are made and maintained. So either they have a huge cart on wheels, or
close the gates and pump the water out.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1006351.We_Almost_Lost_Detroit
I think the Original Occupants called it "the shaking land" and
we have has a couple of small jolts on the Hayward fault recently.
That Fault has buildings built on top of it from homes to schools,
churches and roads. Equal endangerments opportunity.
Of COURSE we have. We know how to confine toxic material in a glass
that will absolutely outlast the radioactivity in it. The pellet size
lump of this that is each humans contribution is way less lethal than
the amount of shit they produce every day.
Nobod can desighn anything for the one in ten thousand year event. Lets
face it, wind turbines are designed for the one every month event of no fucking wind, or the daily event of an eagle being smashed out of the
sky,
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 19:06:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nobod can desighn anything for the one in ten thousand year event. Lets
face it, wind turbines are designed for the one every month event of no
fucking wind, or the daily event of an eagle being smashed out of the
sky,
Turbines have a way of catching fire, usually from the batteries, throwing blades, or collapsing the tower completely.
On 9/25/25 21:56, rbowman wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 19:06:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nobod can desighn anything for the one in ten thousand year event.
Lets face it, wind turbines are designed for the one every month event
of no fucking wind, or the daily event of an eagle being smashed out
of the sky,
Turbines have a way of catching fire, usually from the batteries,
throwing blades, or collapsing the tower completely.
References, please.
bliss
I am not lying.
I do not trust any nuclear design to be safe enough, and there are
millions of people that think the same.
Even for the bombing of Hiroshima the pilots weren't sure that it wasn't going to be a one-way trip.
But its meaning stayed attached to small boats ships - not submarines
But in Spain the term is indeed applied to submarines. You can google
it. I simply do not know what is the English term, I had to ask DeepL
and ChatGPT.
The latest proposal, to "re-process high level waste", sure, it will redistribute the waste and change the height of the different piles.
But, will it eliminate the high level waste ? Of course not. Which means
that the Finnish process, is the ultimate destination of at least some
of that kind of material. There is room for us other countries, to also
work on*both* solutions at the same time, as*both* are needed. The Finnish result,
shows it can be done.
In comp.os.linux.misc Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Yes, you can say electricity prices might go up. They have gone up.
Have they though? There were recently huge peaks in the electricity
price in Australia due to peaks in international gas prices and old
coal power plants being shut down (plus a not-so-old 2001-vintage
coal power plant exploding). But apparantly here in Victoria the
price in 2024 had dived back down to where it was ten years earlier:
https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/spot-market-prices-and-revenues-ten-years-of-historical-spot-prices/
Longer-term inflation-adjusted statistics here for the USA show the
price of electricity steadily going down there since 1978:
https://www.in2013dollars.com/Electricity/price-inflation
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 19:00:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Of COURSE we have. We know how to confine toxic material in a
glass that will absolutely outlast the radioactivity in it. The
pellet size lump of this that is each humans contribution is way
less lethal than the amount of shit they produce every day.
The US has solved the problem. Nobody wants waste in their backyard
so the was is in what were meant to be temporary holding ponds or dry
casks at the plant sites. So far 'temporary' means about 40 years but
the clock is ticking.
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 19:06:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nobod can desighn anything for the one in ten thousand year event. Lets
face it, wind turbines are designed for the one every month event of no
fucking wind, or the daily event of an eagle being smashed out of the
sky,
Turbines have a way of catching fire, usually from the batteries, throwing blades, or collapsing the tower completely.
On 9/25/25 21:56, rbowman wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 19:06:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nobod can desighn anything for the one in ten thousand year event. Lets
face it, wind turbines are designed for the one every month event of no
fucking wind, or the daily event of an eagle being smashed out of the
sky,
Turbines have a way of catching fire, usually from the batteries,
throwing
blades, or collapsing the tower completely.
-a-a-a-aReferences, please.
-a-a-a-abliss--
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 22:52:28 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 9/25/25 21:56, rbowman wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 19:06:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nobod can desighn anything for the one in ten thousand year event.
Lets face it, wind turbines are designed for the one every month event >>>> of no fucking wind, or the daily event of an eagle being smashed out
of the sky,
Turbines have a way of catching fire, usually from the batteries,
throwing blades, or collapsing the tower completely.
References, please.
bliss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBLqf3Obpzw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVHzfUWul2Y https://www.americanexperiment.org/wind-turbine-owned-by-apex-clean-energy-catches-fire-in-texas/
https://www.electricaltechnology.org/2024/07/two-engineers-hug-die-top-burning-wind-turbine.html
https://www.ktvu.com/news/wind-turbine-catches-fire-in-solano-county https://futurism.com/the-byte/wind-turbine-fire-lightning https://www.kcci.com/article/adair-county-iowa-fire-destroys-wind-turbine/45563818
https://www.powerengineeringint.com/renewables/wind/the-burning-issue-of-wind-turbine-fires/
On 25/09/2025 21:26, Carlos E.R. wrote:
But its meaning stayed attached to small boats ships - not submarines
But in Spain the term is indeed applied to submarines. You can google
it. I simply do not know what is the English term, I had to ask DeepL
and ChatGPT.
I know, We call it 'putting it into dry dock'. We might make a verb out
of that and say 'dry docking it'
Careen very much is about hauling a ship out onto a beach and heeling it over ....In english
The word has its roots in the Latin fir a ships keel - exposing that was
the purpose of it
Today we use it to mean a ship heeling over dangerously, or indeed a
person who is drunk
On 2025-09-26 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/09/2025 21:26, Carlos E.R. wrote:
But its meaning stayed attached to small boats ships - not submarines
But in Spain the term is indeed applied to submarines. You can google
it. I simply do not know what is the English term, I had to ask DeepL
and ChatGPT.
I know, We call it 'putting it into dry dock'. We might make a verb
out of that and say 'dry docking it'
Ok, but the meaning in Spanish is more complicated. It means putting it
into dry dock and doing a major revision/overhauling. In Spanish "Gran carena", a big one. It is done every few years. May include replacing
the engine.
Careen very much is about hauling a ship out onto a beach and heeling
it over ....In english
The word has its roots in the Latin fir a ships keel - exposing that
was the purpose of it
Today we use it to mean a ship heeling over dangerously, or indeed a
person who is drunk
Right, I have seen that one. Maybe for cars, too.
On 09/25/2025 5:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/09/2025 23:20, Bobbie Sellers wrote:It it an interesting paradox.-a People decided that Nuclear power plants were bad, but everyone now has to have computers that require terabytes
Well exactly. You have *no idea* about the issues *at all*.
On 9/24/25 13:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-24 01:57, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
On 22/09/2025 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Indeed.
In particular when the 1960s reactors were built the regulatory
framework was very light and governments wanted them built,. The real >>>>>> death knell was Germany, the Green party, proportional
representation,
and Chernobyl.
-aFrom what I remember "Germany" was largely a reaction to Fukushima. >>>>
It was my turning point, and that of many people.
When Chernobyl exploded we though: that's Russian inefficiency.
Communists are corrupt and imbecile. Then years later comes
Fukushima disaster. No communists there to blame. State of the art
"western" industry.
-a-a-a-a-aFukushima was built in a zone where tidal waves had happened
before.
-a-a-a-a-aAnd it was internally SOTA but that was a while back.-a The siting o
Fukushima was very bad and that is the most I can say about that.
In fact the reactor survived the tsunami and the earthquake.
Just not the flooding.
Hundreds of square miles of Japan were devastated by that event.
20,000 people were killed . The only flaw in the reactor was that the
emergency diesel generators were flooded.
Nevertheless the last safety containment worked, and the reactor
melted down fully contained except a little hydrogen *which
regulations would not let the operators vent*.
So ultimately it vented itself with a bang.
Fukushima is a tribute to the incredible safety of even a reactor
built in the 1960s.
Just as Chernobyl was a wake up call to actually how much radiation
could escape with so little long term effects.
SMRs are of course designed without the need for cooling pumps when
shut down so cannot do what Fukushima did
Statistically nuclear power is the safest power generating industry
there is. In terms of deaths and injuries per unit electricity generated.
And yet the public perception is that it's extremely dangerous.
I wonder why that is?
Cui Bono?
of storage.-a Terabytes of storage require terawatts of energy. To get
the terawatts of energy, the people who provide those terabytes of
storage are turning nuclear power plants to provide those terawatts of energy.-a So it is coming to the point where to have terabytes of
storage, they will have to accept nuclear plants or give up the computer.
On 25/09/2025 19:44, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I am not lying.
I do not trust any nuclear design to be safe enough, and there are
millions of people that think the same.
Do you Believe In God, as well?
China ridicules Trump's denialism by announcing that it will increase
its wind and solar power sixfold
On 2025-09-26 11:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/09/2025 19:44, Carlos E.R. wrote:No.
I am not lying.
I do not trust any nuclear design to be safe enough, and there are
millions of people that think the same.
Do you Believe In God, as well?
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 23/09/2025 10:07 am, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2025-09-22, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
Not all reactors, are held to high standards. But, we're learning.
And that's why the documentation for a reactor, is two million sheets
of paper. It's why the high speed printer was invented. Just to make
reactor designs.
And then the politicians said, "Hey, give me one of those printers.
I have some omnibus bills [1] to run off." And then the lawyers
wanted one so they could bury their opponents in paper, and the
bureaucrats wanted one so they could print mountains of paper to
justify their existence, and, and, and...
.... and then along came The Internet .... to which we'll all be
connected so there will NEVER be the need to print out any document EVER
AGAIN ...... SURE!!
Like for The Natural Philosopher, for me it's also largely true. Of
course I still *get* quite a lot of printed stuff, but *I* print very,
very little.
Our printer is stored 'offline' in a cabinet, because it's hardly ever needed, takes up too much space in the living room and isn't quite a
pretty sight.
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 22:52:28 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 9/25/25 21:56, rbowman wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 19:06:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nobod can desighn anything for the one in ten thousand year event.
Lets face it, wind turbines are designed for the one every month event >>>> of no fucking wind, or the daily event of an eagle being smashed out
of the sky,
Turbines have a way of catching fire, usually from the batteries,
throwing blades, or collapsing the tower completely.
References, please.
bliss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBLqf3Obpzw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVHzfUWul2Y https://www.americanexperiment.org/wind-turbine-owned-by-apex-clean-energy-catches-fire-in-texas/
https://www.electricaltechnology.org/2024/07/two-engineers-hug-die-top-burning-wind-turbine.html
https://www.ktvu.com/news/wind-turbine-catches-fire-in-solano-county https://futurism.com/the-byte/wind-turbine-fire-lightning https://www.kcci.com/article/adair-county-iowa-fire-destroys-wind-turbine/45563818
https://www.powerengineeringint.com/renewables/wind/the-burning-issue-of-wind-turbine-fires/
Caesium strontium and iodine. And tritium especially. Other stuff is far
more short lived. Xenon for example. Once the above are at low levels
then you can reprocess the rods to recover plutonium U235 and U238
On 2025-09-26, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Caesium strontium and iodine. And tritium especially. Other stuff is far
more short lived. Xenon for example. Once the above are at low levels
then you can reprocess the rods to recover plutonium U235 and U238
Are you sure about tritium? Its decay releases only 18.6 keV.
I had a watch with a tritium dial and never worried about it,
since the radiation wouldn't even make it through my outer
skin layer, let alone the metal back of the watch.
On 2025-09-26, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Caesium strontium and iodine. And tritium especially. Other stuff is far
more short lived. Xenon for example. Once the above are at low levels
then you can reprocess the rods to recover plutonium U235 and U238
Are you sure about tritium? Its decay releases only 18.6 keV.
I had a watch with a tritium dial and never worried about it,
since the radiation wouldn't even make it through my outer
skin layer, let alone the metal back of the watch.
On 26/09/2025 12:43, Carlos E.R. wrote:
China ridicules Trump's denialism by announcing that it will increase
its wind and solar power sixfold
from one turbine to six?
On 25/09/2025 13:16, Pancho wrote:
On 9/25/25 10:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:That does not eliminate the need to pay the interest.
On 25/09/2025 10:10, Pancho wrote:
The problem I'm referring to is technological advance. In aI guess that is why 50 year old reactors in the UK are now the
reasonable world, we would expect future breakthroughs in technology
to make electricity cheaper. Maybe Fusion, maybe SMRs (like
Copenhagen Atomics). In 60 years, it is likely something will turn
up. I know you agree with me, that electricity could be generated
cheaper.
cheapest generators on the grid
So that is the problem for any finance based upon future cashflows
from the sale of electricity decades in the future. The amount you
can sell electricity for will likely decrease. The longer in the
future, the more likely cheaper alternatives will appear.
In fact under renewable energy and the advent of tight oil the price
of electricity has steadily *increased*.
And you have completely ignored the issue of potential refinancing if
e.g. bond rates go down.
The cost of running a reactor is *absolutely dominated* by the cost
of the capital you borrowed to build it.
No, interest rates can be fixed. You can hedge, this is a red herring.
Sheesh. Why is this so hard?
Of course its assured. Only its amount is variable.
No other structure of comparable complexity is going to cost less.
The only way to get costs down is by reducing regulatory overburden
back to the levels of the 1960s and 1970s
You simply do not understand the detail of the cost of a nuclear
power station.
It costs next to nothing to run. Only a small amount to maintain.
ALL its costs are the costs of the capital used to build it (and
ultimately to decommission it, but that's far less).
Ergo if its designed to have paid for itself after - say - 50 years
and it does another ten years after that, it can afford to sell its
electricity for the cost of the fuel and maintenance, which is so low
that NOTHING can compete with it
I understand there is a balance between plant cost (decommissioning
too, if you insist on comflexification) and revenue from sales.
You keep assuming revenue from sales is assured. In a free market, it
isn't. The amount of revenue could drop after 10 years, you might
never get to break even. This is why the government fixes a strike price.
However, the upfront plant investment in nuclear isn't just buildThat is simply not true.
cost, it is R&D. Any reactor builder is investing in learning how to
build future reactors cheaper. This isn't just big reactors, it is SMR
too. The government doesn't offer a strike price for all the reactors
you plan to build. So if the electricity price plummets, the R&D asset
disappears.
In fact its utter bollocks.
All modern designs are standrd more or less off the shelf ones.
Yes, you can say electricity prices might go up. They have gone up.
But that is due to political incompetence. Prices can only go up so
far before something snaps and much cheaper alternatives are rolled
out. Hopefully in the next 10-20 years.
Yes. Nuclear reactors. Everybody who cares to do the sums comes to that conclusion.
Which is why it's the last thing to be taken off the UK grid., Any
income at all-a is profit.
Nothing can compete with a paid for nuclear reactor on electricity
price.
Yes, I understand it is profit, but it isn't enough to balance build
cost. SumOfAllFutureProfit - BuildCost =-a ActualProfit.
Actually the interest on the build cost is far more than the build cost itself
Let's do some real sums, and say that as a medium risk, the bond holders demand 7.5% per annum. It's a lot better than general motors gets...
The total cost of that is around *76 times* the initial investment. Over
60 years.
And golly. They want reactors.
It is only now that we see that politicians have made such a pig's
ear of generation that you see big companies, ai data centres,
getting scared. They know if the governments continue to mess it up,
the first people to suffer from rationing will be ai data centres.
And to his huge credit, Bill Gates has invested in them, rather than
building silly space rockets.
The Chinese communists of course have a superior government, managed
economy, which builds them.
Exactly. The smart money, which isn't government money, or renewable
money guaranteed by governments, knows that a cheap small reactor that
can come off a production line with all its R&D paid for already that
will do 40-60 years and can be financed at a few percent, is an
extremely-a good investment.
When you look at nuclear power, what is immediately apparent is that the fuel cost is negligible. EDF reckoned that a fully processed and manufactured fuel rod only added 15% to the cost of running the reactor
and financing its debt. My calculations implied that O & M - operations
and maintenance - was less at around 5%. Which is impressive too,
Leaving 80% of the cost as *interest on the loan* taken to pay to build it.
Whether that loan is repaid early, or extended depends on money market conditions and electricity prices.
And of course on how long it takes to build it.
SMR-a design is looking at two years from planning consent to clear the
site and build the infrastructure around it, and a further two years following delivery of a factory built-a reactor to the site to install
and commission it.
Compared with an average of 9 years for an AP1000-a or in the case of Hinkley Point, 14 years.
On 2025-09-26 18:36, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2025-09-26, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Caesium strontium and iodine. And tritium especially. Other stuff is far >>> more short lived. Xenon for example.-a Once the above are at low levels
then you can reprocess the rods to recover plutonium U235 and U238
Are you sure about tritium?-a Its decay releases only 18.6 keV.
I had a watch with a tritium dial and never worried about it,
since the radiation wouldn't even make it through my outer
skin layer, let alone the metal back of the watch.
Some smoke alarms use some nuclear radiation source, americium-241. They are very cheap, used in Canada for instance.
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 20:48:33 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1006351.We_Almost_Lost_Detroit
No big loss.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1
Ignorance is bliss. I think it's one of Feynman's book where he talks
about early experiments to determine the critical mass. They had two
blocks of uranium on a workbench with a Geiger counter. The tech pushed
one towards the other with a screwdriver until the counter went nuts.
In comp.os.linux.misc rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 20:48:33 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1006351.We_Almost_Lost_Detroit
No big loss.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1
Ignorance is bliss. I think it's one of Feynman's book where he talks
about early experiments to determine the critical mass. They had two
blocks of uranium on a workbench with a Geiger counter. The tech pushed
one towards the other with a screwdriver until the counter went nuts.
It didn't end well for the tech: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1946USA1.html
In comp.os.linux.misc rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 20:48:33 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1006351.We_Almost_Lost_Detroit
No big loss.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1
Ignorance is bliss. I think it's one of Feynman's book where he talks
about early experiments to determine the critical mass. They had two
blocks of uranium on a workbench with a Geiger counter. The tech pushed
one towards the other with a screwdriver until the counter went nuts.
It didn't end well for the tech: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1946USA1.html
On Wed, 9/24/2025 6:20 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
-a-a-a-aFukushima was built in a zone where tidal waves had happened before. >> -a-a-a-aAnd it was internally SOTA but that was a while back.-a The siting o >> Fukushima was very bad and that is the most I can say about that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Japan is an island.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Japan_topo_en.jpg
You're building initially four reactors and eventually
six reactors. The ocean makes for a compact cooling system. Your choices
are to position reactors on a fresh-water river, if one of sufficient capacity and sustainable water flow is available. Or, to use the ocean.
The bluff was cleared of overburden, which lowered the height of the
bluff, but mounted the reactors on bedrock.
Tsunami events, historically, a few were very high. The Alaskan one
was 1700 feet. B.C. has some marks on a mountain somewhere, at
around 800 feet or so. Providing your emergency diesel with air
to drive it, would require a rather tall pipe to do the job
in such a way as to tolerate any incoming tsunami.
In hindsight, if "they'd made this a foot higher or that
a foot higher", it's hindsight that provides those measurements.
They could have made the seawall taller, but then the base
has to be bigger.
The area is the Ring of Fire, so surprises are to be expected.--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Fire
I'd argue it doesn't even classify as hindsight bias in this case, given
the potential issue had been previously raised.
On 2025-09-24, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 23/09/2025 21:21, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Opening up a submarine to replace the "engine" must be an engineering feat. >>Not if it's designed to be opened up
That reminds me of the "fast ferry" fiasco here in B.C. This batch
of new ferries, as it turns out, had to be red-lined in order to get
the speed that was promised - which wore out the engines in record
time. That's when it was discovered that there was no means to
easily remove the engines for servicing, so holes had to be cut
in the hull. After the provincial government's standard 100%
cost overrun building them, they were eventually pulled from
service (to the great relief of everyone who traveled on them),
and they were eventually sold for 10 cents on the dollar.
Ironically, they turned out to generate such a wake that they
had to be run slowly past the islands near each end of the trip
so that their wake wouldn't bash everything on said islands, so
the purported time savings shrank to 5 to 10 minutes on a 1:35
trip. Yawn. The only person I know of who liked them was a guy
who lived on Gabriola Island who would get out his surfboard
whenever one went by.
On 24/09/2025 3:06 pm, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2025-09-24, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:.... but at least your ferries had somewhere to berth when they did finish their voyage. Australia's Island state, Tasmania, has ordered two new ferries but the new ferries are longer then the port they use!!
On 23/09/2025 21:21, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Opening up a submarine to replace the "engine" must be an engineering feat.
Not if it's designed to be opened up
That reminds me of the "fast ferry" fiasco here in B.C.-a This batch
of new ferries, as it turns out, had to be red-lined in order to get
the speed that was promised - which wore out the engines in record
time.-a That's when it was discovered that there was no means to
easily remove the engines for servicing, so holes had to be cut
in the hull.-a After the provincial government's standard 100%
cost overrun building them, they were eventually pulled from
service (to the great relief of everyone who traveled on them),
and they were eventually sold for 10 cents on the dollar.
Ironically, they turned out to generate such a wake that they
had to be run slowly past the islands near each end of the trip
so that their wake wouldn't bash everything on said islands, so
the purported time savings shrank to 5 to 10 minutes on a 1:35
trip.-a Yawn.-a The only person I know of who liked them was a guy
who lived on Gabriola Island who would get out his surfboard
whenever one went by.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-23/spirit-of-tasmania-iv-arrives-in-hobart-from-scotland/105685256
Quote
"It's costing us so much money and it's come so far, that we really hope it will lift our state and bring plenty of visitors in and pay for itself," Chresley Elphinstone said.
-a-a-a "It's been a shambles, really, but I just hope they've got it all right now rCo but that port should have been ready a long time ago."
End Quote
and
Quote
"The bungled rollout has caused political turmoil in Tasmania, with the infrastructure minister who oversaw the project losing his job over it."
End Quote
One of the things that can go wrong with that kind of solution,
is "forgetting to close the door" while at sea. Apparently, that's bad for them EfOe
Ferry wrangling is a hard concept for politicians.
The pictures make it look like yours is the size of the Love Boat.
I was expecting something more RORO oriented (so the RORO-end
could meet the dock end).
On Sun, 9/28/2025 8:52 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
.... but at least your ferries had somewhere to berth when theyFerry wrangling is a hard concept for politicians.
did finish their voyage. Australia's Island state, Tasmania, has
ordered two new ferries but the new ferries are longer then the
port they use!!
The pictures make it look like yours is the size of the Love Boat.
I was expecting something more RORO oriented (so the RORO-end
could meet the dock end).
In this picture, there is a RORO that parks end-on. I suppose it all depends on
how rough the water is, in-port, whether docking that way is practical.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Queenscliff_ferry_terminal.jpg
In comp.os.linux.misc Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 9/28/2025 8:52 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
.... but at least your ferries had somewhere to berth when theyFerry wrangling is a hard concept for politicians.
did finish their voyage. Australia's Island state, Tasmania, has
ordered two new ferries but the new ferries are longer then the
port they use!!
The pictures make it look like yours is the size of the Love Boat.
I was expecting something more RORO oriented (so the RORO-end
could meet the dock end).
In this picture, there is a RORO that parks end-on. I suppose it all depends on
how rough the water is, in-port, whether docking that way is practical.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Queenscliff_ferry_terminal.jpg
That's the wrong ferry. It just crosses the Port Phillip bay to
save people driving through Melbourne (but they manage to charge
about as much as the fuel costs to drive). The ferry to Tassie has
always docked elsewhere, but it did recently move closer, from
Melbourne to Geelong, where I assume the new terminal there suits
the new ferries, but I haven't been following the details on that.
Both services do take cars. This page shows the car ramps that
lead up to the ship at the new dock in Geelong:
http://web.archive.org/web/20250815130213/https://engage.geelongport.com.au/spiritoftasmania
On 28/09/2025 17:00, Paul wrote:
One of the things that can go wrong with that kind of solution,
is "forgetting to close the door" while at sea. Apparently, that's bad
for them EfOe
The evening that the Herald of Free Enterpise sank, I was travelling
from Belgium back to the UK. But I always drove to Calais and took the shorter ferry trip.
The next morning my farmer landlord rushed up and hugged me and said
"You're alive!"
I had no idea what he was talking about.
On the Monday morning as I took the ferry back to Calais the music
playing on the Tannoy was Mike Oldfield's 'Never ever get to France'....
In comp.os.linux.misc Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 9/28/2025 8:52 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
.... but at least your ferries had somewhere to berth when theyFerry wrangling is a hard concept for politicians.
did finish their voyage. Australia's Island state, Tasmania, has
ordered two new ferries but the new ferries are longer then the
port they use!!
The pictures make it look like yours is the size of the Love Boat.
I was expecting something more RORO oriented (so the RORO-end
could meet the dock end).
In this picture, there is a RORO that parks end-on. I suppose it all depends on
how rough the water is, in-port, whether docking that way is practical.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Queenscliff_ferry_terminal.jpg
That's the wrong ferry. It just crosses the Port Phillip bay to
save people driving through Melbourne (but they manage to charge
about as much as the fuel costs to drive). The ferry to Tassie has
always docked elsewhere, but it did recently move closer, from
Melbourne to Geelong, where I assume the new terminal there suits
the new ferries, but I haven't been following the details on that.
Both services do take cars. This page shows the car ramps that
lead up to the ship at the new dock in Geelong:
http://web.archive.org/web/20250815130213/https://engage.geelongport.com.au/spiritoftasmania
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 21:23:33 +1000, Daniel70 wrote:
As I understand it, one criteria of the set-up is that when the
Submarine's Nuclear Reactor has reached End-of-Life, the Reactor vessel
will be removed and disposed of (somehow/somewhere) and a new reactor
vessel fitted into the Submarine ..... and off they go!
Good luck with that. If you think the waste is going to be buried
someplace in WA or SA think again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
All 3 million inhabitants will suddenly become concerned about a patch of desert they've never seen. The Abos will suddenly discover areas sacred to their ancestors. The nature lovers will take up the defense of the
numbats. The UK might have gotten away with setting off nuclear bombs in
the '50s but that was then.
On 29/09/2025 2:34 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/09/2025 17:00, Paul wrote:
One of the things that can go wrong with that kind of solution,
is "forgetting to close the door" while at sea. Apparently, that's
bad for them EfOe
The evening that the Herald of Free Enterpise sank, I was travelling
from Belgium back to the UK. But I always drove to Calais and took the
shorter ferry trip.
The next morning my farmer landlord rushed up and hugged me and said
"You're alive!"
I had no idea what he was talking about.
On the Monday morning as I took the ferry back to Calais the music
playing on the Tannoy was Mike Oldfield's 'Never ever get to France'....
"Mike Oldfield's 'Never ever get to France'...." Was that pre- or post- "Tubular Bells" He sure was/is a talented musician.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Oldfield--
Hmm! Tubular Bells II and Tubular Bell III. Must check them out!! I
already have Tubular Bells, Hergest Ridge and Ommadawn.
On 09/25/2025 11:11 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
-a-a-a-a-aWell someone besides myself will be making the decisions and largerWe have spent trillions of dollars in the past 80 years, trying to circumvent the use of nuclear energy.-a-a If that trillions of dollars had been spent in the laboratory to develop methods to handle nuclear waste
profits will eventually dictate the use of less electricity with less
water for cooling.
-a-a-a-a-abliss
we would not still be facing the problem that we recognized 80 years ago.
On 26/09/2025 3:19 am, knuttle wrote:
On 09/25/2025 11:11 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
<Snip>
-a-a-a-a-aWell someone besides myself will be making the decisions and largerWe have spent trillions of dollars in the past 80 years, trying to
profits will eventually dictate the use of less electricity with less
water for cooling.
-a-a-a-a-abliss
circumvent the use of nuclear energy.-a-a If that trillions of dollars
had been spent in the laboratory to develop methods to handle nuclear
waste we would not still be facing the problem that we recognized 80
years ago.
In my simple mind, I've often wondered why we don't just pack all the Nuclear Reactor Waste into conveniently co-located Rockets and send them
off to the Big Nuclear Reactor in the Sky.
Sure, there could be some initial teething problems to overcome .... but anything is possible .... if we set our minds to it!! ;-P
On 26/09/2025 3:19 am, knuttle wrote:
On 09/25/2025 11:11 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
<Snip>
-a-a-a-a-aWell someone besides myself will be making the decisions andWe have spent trillions of dollars in the past 80 years, trying to
larger profits will eventually dictate the use of less electricity
with less water for cooling.
-a-a-a-a-abliss
circumvent the use of nuclear energy.-a-a If that trillions of dollars
had been spent in the laboratory to develop methods to handle
nuclear waste we would not still be facing the problem that we
recognized 80 years ago.
In my simple mind, I've often wondered why we don't just pack all the Nuclear Reactor Waste into conveniently co-located Rockets and send
them off to the Big Nuclear Reactor in the Sky.
Sure, there could be some initial teething problems to overcome .... but anything is possible .... if we set our minds to it!! ;-P
On 26/09/2025 3:19 am, knuttle wrote:
On 09/25/2025 11:11 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
<Snip>
-a-a-a-a-aWell someone besides myself will be making the decisions and largerWe have spent trillions of dollars in the past 80 years, trying to
profits will eventually dictate the use of less electricity with less
water for cooling.
-a-a-a-a-abliss
circumvent the use of nuclear energy.-a-a If that trillions of dollars
had been spent in the laboratory to develop methods to handle nuclear
waste we would not still be facing the problem that we recognized 80
years ago.
In my simple mind, I've often wondered why we don't just pack all the Nuclear Reactor Waste into conveniently co-located Rockets and send them
off to the Big Nuclear Reactor in the Sky.
Sure, there could be some initial teething problems to overcome .... but anything is possible .... if we set our minds to it!! ;-P
In comp.os.linux.misc Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 26/09/2025 3:19 am, knuttle wrote:
On 09/25/2025 11:11 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
In my simple mind, I've often wondered why we don't just pack all the
Nuclear Reactor Waste into conveniently co-located Rockets and send
them off to the Big Nuclear Reactor in the Sky.
Sure, there could be some initial teething problems to overcome .... but
anything is possible .... if we set our minds to it!! ;-P
Because even if you ignore the fact that, sometimes, rockets explode at launch, orbital physics tends to get in your way in trying to hit the
sun:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a21896/why-we-cant-just-launch-waste-into-the-sun/
In comp.os.linux.misc rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 20:48:33 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1006351.We_Almost_Lost_Detroit
No big loss.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1
Ignorance is bliss. I think it's one of Feynman's book where he talks
about early experiments to determine the critical mass. They had two
blocks of uranium on a workbench with a Geiger counter. The tech pushed
one towards the other with a screwdriver until the counter went nuts.
It didn't end well for the tech: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1946USA1.html
On 27/09/2025 10:16 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:Hmm! 2100 REM!!-a How many REM per X-Ray??
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 20:48:33 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1006351.We_Almost_Lost_Detroit
No big loss.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1
Ignorance is bliss. I think it's one of Feynman's book where he talks
about early experiments to determine the critical mass. They had two
blocks of uranium on a workbench with a Geiger counter. The tech pushed
one towards the other with a screwdriver until the counter went nuts.
It didn't end well for the tech:
https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1946USA1.html
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 19:00:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Of COURSE we have. We know how to confine toxic material in a glass
that will absolutely outlast the radioactivity in it. The pellet size
lump of this that is each humans contribution is way less lethal than
the amount of shit they produce every day.
The US has solved the problem. Nobody wants waste in their backyard so the >was is in what were meant to be temporary holding ponds or dry casks at
the plant sites. So far 'temporary' means about 40 years but the clock is >ticking.
On 26 Sep 2025 04:53:48 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 19:00:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Of COURSE we have. We know how to confine toxic material in a glass
that will absolutely outlast the radioactivity in it. The pellet size
lump of this that is each humans contribution is way less lethal than
the amount of shit they produce every day.
The US has solved the problem. Nobody wants waste in their backyard so the >> was is in what were meant to be temporary holding ponds or dry casks at
the plant sites. So far 'temporary' means about 40 years but the clock is
ticking.
The Final Solution is to dump the waste at the boundary of a sub
ducting tectonic plate. This is so obvious!
**Disposing of nuclear waste at subduction zones is consideredunsafe, scientifically unreliable, and illegal under international law.**
On 2025-10-03 00:59, Peter Jason wrote:
On 26 Sep 2025 04:53:48 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 19:00:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Of COURSE we have. We know how to confine toxic material in a glass
that will absolutely outlast the radioactivity in it. The pellet size
lump of this that is each humans contribution is way less lethal than >>>> the amount of shit they produce every day.
The US has solved the problem. Nobody wants waste in their backyard so the >>> was is in what were meant to be temporary holding ponds or dry casks at
the plant sites. So far 'temporary' means about 40 years but the clock is >>> ticking.
The Final Solution is to dump the waste at the boundary of a sub
ducting tectonic plate. This is so obvious!
I asked chatgpt about this, because I do not remember why it is not a
good idea. I paste its answer here:
It all smacks of intellectual left-wing nit-picking.
Incidentally, what do the French do with their nuclear waste, given
70% of their electricity is nuclear? Their reactors never seem to
blow up either.
It all smacks of intellectual left-wing nit-picking.
Incidentally, what do the French do with their nuclear waste, given
70% of their electricity is nuclear? Their reactors never seem to
blow up either.
the danger interval in a spent fuel pool is*a hundred thousand years*. Stepping into the spent fuel pools, you'll be dead within a day or two.
On 04/10/2025 06:12, Peter Jason wrote:
It all smacks of intellectual left-wing nit-picking.
Incidentally, what do the French do with their nuclear waste, given
70% of their electricity is nuclear?-a-a-a Their reactors never seem to
blow up either.
I think we (UK) used to reprocess it for them We did for Japan certainly
Today?
Full story here. https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/France-confirms-long-term-recycling-plans
On Sun, 9/28/2025 8:52 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
On 24/09/2025 3:06 pm, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2025-09-24, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:.... but at least your ferries had somewhere to berth when they did
On 23/09/2025 21:21, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Opening up a submarine to replace the "engine" must be an engineering feat.
Not if it's designed to be opened up
That reminds me of the "fast ferry" fiasco here in B.C.-a This batch
of new ferries, as it turns out, had to be red-lined in order to get
the speed that was promised - which wore out the engines in record
time.-a That's when it was discovered that there was no means to
easily remove the engines for servicing, so holes had to be cut
in the hull.-a After the provincial government's standard 100%
cost overrun building them, they were eventually pulled from
service (to the great relief of everyone who traveled on them),
and they were eventually sold for 10 cents on the dollar.
Ironically, they turned out to generate such a wake that they
had to be run slowly past the islands near each end of the trip
so that their wake wouldn't bash everything on said islands, so
the purported time savings shrank to 5 to 10 minutes on a 1:35
trip.-a Yawn.-a The only person I know of who liked them was a guy
who lived on Gabriola Island who would get out his surfboard
whenever one went by.
finish their voyage. Australia's Island state, Tasmania, has ordered two
new ferries but the new ferries are longer then the port they use!!
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-23/spirit-of-tasmania-iv-arrives-in-hobart-from-scotland/105685256
Quote
"It's costing us so much money and it's come so far, that we really hope
it will lift our state and bring plenty of visitors in and pay for
itself," Chresley Elphinstone said.
-a-a-a "It's been a shambles, really, but I just hope they've got it all
right now rCo but that port should have been ready a long time ago."
End Quote
and
Quote
"The bungled rollout has caused political turmoil in Tasmania, with the
infrastructure minister who oversaw the project losing his job over it."
End Quote
Ferry wrangling is a hard concept for politicians.
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
Ferry wrangling is a hard concept for politicians.
Laughs in Scottish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_ferry_fiasco
When I dump my R600-generation current refrigerator on the side of someones country road, look how much better that will be EfOe Pentane or something similar to that gas. Not as bad as R12. But R12 was a beautiful gas,
as you could put it in something, braze the copper joints, it didn't
leak, it didn't need a refill. Lots of gas choices after that, leak
like a pig.
The nuclear industry has some level of rigor in what it does.
That's why some operations have a relatively clean record
on stupid stuff.
Read an article on an actual practical containment and
disposal project, to see what effort goes into the thinking.
The idea is to NOT leave a mess for others.
That's the shortest sentence to explain the objective.
The designers try to aim for a 100,000 year lifecycle.
If it happens to make it to 1000 years, that will be
a victory of sorts. Later generations won't think
we were quite as idiotic if we make it that far with
our disposal, before the earth belches it back up.
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves.
On 2025-10-04 08:01, Paul wrote:
The nuclear industry has some level of rigor in what it does.
That's why some operations have a relatively clean record
on stupid stuff.
Read an article on an actual practical containment and
disposal project, to see what effort goes into the thinking.
The idea is to NOT leave a mess for others.
That's the shortest sentence to explain the objective.
The designers try to aim for a 100,000 year lifecycle.
If it happens to make it to 1000 years, that will be
a victory of sorts. Later generations won't think
we were quite as idiotic if we make it that far with
our disposal, before the earth belches it back up.
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves. The sites are still hot, so signage has to be designed now so that the beings 50K years from
now can read them.
So create a religion. The priests guard the holy land where the gods
live. Do not enter or they will smite you.
:-}
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves. The sites are still hot, so signage has to be designed now so that the beings 50K years from
now can read them.
So create a religion. The priests guard the holy land where the gods
live. Do not enter or they will smite you.
:-}
On 05/10/2025 20:47, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves. The sites are still hot, so signage has to be designed now so that the beings 50K years from now can read them.Oh dear.
Another person who believes that nuclear waste can last 'thousands of years ' (but lead or mercury which last forever are just fine) AND that this *very same* wastes is violently radioactive.
Sorry pal, You can have one or the other. Not both.
High level waste is gone in 300 years for the most part.
On Mon, 10/6/2025 3:52 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/10/2025 20:47, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves. The sites are still hot, so signage has to be designed now so that the beings 50K years from now can read them.Oh dear.
Another person who believes that nuclear waste can last 'thousands of years ' (but lead or mercury which last forever are just fine) AND that this *very same* wastes is violently radioactive.
Sorry pal, You can have one or the other. Not both.
High level waste is gone in 300 years for the most part.
There are some curves here. The original article is likely
not written in English.
https://radioactivity.eu.com/articles/radioactive_waste/radioactive_waste_duration
Paul
On 05/10/2025 20:47, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves. The sites areOh dear.
still hot, so signage has to be designed now so that the beings 50K
years from now can read them.
Another person who believes that nuclear waste can last 'thousands of
years ' (but lead or mercury which last forever are just fine) AND that
this *very same* wastes is violently radioactive.
Sorry pal, You can have one or the other. Not both.
High level waste is gone in 300 years for the most part.
On Sun, 10/5/2025 3:47 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves.
it's not that far away actually.
Ask your AI for details, check for technical limits.
On 6/10/2025 6:52 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/10/2025 20:47, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves. The sites areOh dear.
still hot, so signage has to be designed now so that the beings 50K
years from now can read them.
Another person who believes that nuclear waste can last 'thousands of
years ' (but lead or mercury which last forever are just fine) AND
that this *very same* wastes is violently radioactive.
Sorry pal, You can have one or the other. Not both.
Sorry. How is Lead (which, supposedly, protect us from Radioactivity)
ALSO be "violently radioactive"??
I'll go for 'the other', please.
High level waste is gone in 300 years for the most part.
.... as long as anyone/thing lasts those 300 years.
On 2025-10-06 03:08, Paul wrote:
On Sun, 10/5/2025 3:47 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves.
it's not that far away actually.
Ask your AI for details, check for technical limits.
Yeah, there is a new guy with yellow or orange hair, actively seeking it.
On 06/10/2025 11:49, Daniel70 wrote:
On 6/10/2025 6:52 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Well exactly., But it does last forever and its poisonous.
On 05/10/2025 20:47, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves. The sites areOh dear.
still hot, so signage has to be designed now so that the beings 50K
years from now can read them.
Another person who believes that nuclear waste can last 'thousands of
years ' (but lead or mercury which last forever are just fine) AND
that this *very same* wastes is violently radioactive.
Sorry pal, You can have one or the other. Not both.
Sorry. How is Lead (which, supposedly, protect us from Radioactivity)
ALSO be "violently radioactive"??
I never said that lead or mercury were radioactive. I just said - or at least implied - that they were toxic, and lasted fiorever.
I'll go for 'the other', please.
High level waste is gone in 300 years for the most part.
.... as long as anyone/thing lasts those 300 years.
It's not THAT radioactive to start with, The REALLY nasty shit is gone
in a couple of decades.
Dure8ng which time the reactor site is securely manned and its left
where it is, as that is, in fact, safer than moving it.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 11:49, Daniel70 wrote:
On 6/10/2025 6:52 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Well exactly., But it does last forever and its poisonous.
On 05/10/2025 20:47, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves. The sites areOh dear.
still hot, so signage has to be designed now so that the beings 50K
years from now can read them.
Another person who believes that nuclear waste can last 'thousands of
years ' (but lead or mercury which last forever are just fine) AND
that this *very same* wastes is violently radioactive.
Sorry pal, You can have one or the other. Not both.
Sorry. How is Lead (which, supposedly, protect us from Radioactivity)
ALSO be "violently radioactive"??
I never said that lead or mercury were radioactive. I just said - or at
least implied - that they were toxic, and lasted fiorever.
I'll go for 'the other', please.
High level waste is gone in 300 years for the most part.
.... as long as anyone/thing lasts those 300 years.
It's not THAT radioactive to start with, The REALLY nasty shit is gone
in a couple of decades.
Dure8ng which time the reactor site is securely manned and its left
where it is, as that is, in fact, safer than moving it.
So what's the situation with Chernobyl, then? Or Sellafield? They both had accidents decades ago and are still very high risk areas.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 11:49, Daniel70 wrote:
On 6/10/2025 6:52 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Well exactly., But it does last forever and its poisonous.
On 05/10/2025 20:47, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves. The sites areOh dear.
still hot, so signage has to be designed now so that the beings 50K
years from now can read them.
Another person who believes that nuclear waste can last 'thousands of
years ' (but lead or mercury which last forever are just fine) AND
that this *very same* wastes is violently radioactive.
Sorry pal, You can have one or the other. Not both.
Sorry. How is Lead (which, supposedly, protect us from Radioactivity)
ALSO be "violently radioactive"??
I never said that lead or mercury were radioactive. I just said - or at
least implied - that they were toxic, and lasted fiorever.
I'll go for 'the other', please.
High level waste is gone in 300 years for the most part.
.... as long as anyone/thing lasts those 300 years.
It's not THAT radioactive to start with, The REALLY nasty shit is gone
in a couple of decades.
Dure8ng which time the reactor site is securely manned and its left
where it is, as that is, in fact, safer than moving it.
So what's the situation with Chernobyl, then? Or Sellafield? They both had accidents decades ago and are still very high risk areas.
On 2025-10-06 17:08, Chris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 11:49, Daniel70 wrote:
On 6/10/2025 6:52 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Well exactly., But it does last forever and its poisonous.
On 05/10/2025 20:47, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves. The sites are >>>>>> still hot, so signage has to be designed now so that the beings 50K >>>>>> years from now can read them.Oh dear.
Another person who believes that nuclear waste can last 'thousands of >>>>> years ' (but lead or mercury which last forever are just fine) AND
that this *very same* wastes is violently radioactive.
Sorry pal, You can have one or the other. Not both.
Sorry. How is Lead (which, supposedly, protect us from Radioactivity)
ALSO be "violently radioactive"??
I never said that lead or mercury were radioactive. I just said - or at
least implied - that they were toxic, and lasted fiorever.
I'll go for 'the other', please.
High level waste is gone in 300 years for the most part.
.... as long as anyone/thing lasts those 300 years.
It's not THAT radioactive to start with, The REALLY nasty shit is gone
in a couple of decades.
Dure8ng which-a time the reactor site is securely manned and its left
where it is, as that is, in fact, safer than moving it.
So what's the situation with Chernobyl, then? Or Sellafield? They both
had
accidents decades ago and are still very high risk areas.
Because he is simply wrong. I trust the authorities that prohibit going there, not him.
On 06/10/2025 12:37, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-10-06 03:08, Paul wrote:Stacey Dooley? She only wants to film it...
On Sun, 10/5/2025 3:47 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves.
it's not that far away actually.
Ask your AI for details, check for technical limits.
Yeah, there is a new guy with yellow or orange hair, actively seeking it.
On 10/6/25 13:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/10/2025 12:37, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-10-06 03:08, Paul wrote:Stacey Dooley? She only wants to film it...
On Sun, 10/5/2025 3:47 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves.
it's not that far away actually.
Ask your AI for details, check for technical limits.
Yeah, there is a new guy with yellow or orange hair, actively seeking
it.
I think he meant Trump, rather than Stacey. If you get confused between
the two, try imagining which one you would like to see naked.
On Mon, 10/6/2025 3:52 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/10/2025 20:47, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves. The sites are still hot, so signage has to be designed now so that the beings 50K years from now can read them.Oh dear.
Another person who believes that nuclear waste can last 'thousands of years ' (but lead or mercury which last forever are just fine) AND that this *very same* wastes is violently radioactive.
Sorry pal, You can have one or the other. Not both.
High level waste is gone in 300 years for the most part.
There are some curves here. The original article is likely
not written in English.
https://radioactivity.eu.com/articles/radioactive_waste/radioactive_waste_duration
Paul
On 07/10/2025 10:28, Pancho wrote:
On 10/6/25 13:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/10/2025 12:37, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-10-06 03:08, Paul wrote:Stacey Dooley? She only wants to film it...
On Sun, 10/5/2025 3:47 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves.
it's not that far away actually.
Ask your AI for details, check for technical limits.
Yeah, there is a new guy with yellow or orange hair, actively
seeking it.
I think he meant Trump, rather than Stacey. If you get confused
between the two, try imagining which one you would like to see naked.
Old age renders that rather meaningless...
All my life people have been prophesying Doom. Making films about Doom. Using Doom to sell products I don't want, to me.
Somehow, however, the human race staggers on, finding a way to survive (after trying every other alternative).
Eventually nuclear power will be understood to be the only way to
survive. And 'renewable energy' will go into the box of 'stuff we
pretend we didn't believe in really' like eugenics and Christianity.
On 10/7/25 10:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/10/2025 10:28, Pancho wrote:
On 10/6/25 13:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/10/2025 12:37, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-10-06 03:08, Paul wrote:Stacey Dooley? She only wants to film it...
On Sun, 10/5/2025 3:47 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves.
it's not that far away actually.
Ask your AI for details, check for technical limits.
Yeah, there is a new guy with yellow or orange hair, actively
seeking it.
I think he meant Trump, rather than Stacey. If you get confused
between the two, try imagining which one you would like to see naked.
Old age renders that rather meaningless...
All my life people have been prophesying Doom. Making films about
Doom. Using Doom to sell products I don't want, to me.
Somehow, however, the human race staggers on, finding a way to survive
(after trying every other alternative).
Eventually nuclear power will be understood to be the only way to
survive. And 'renewable energy' will go into the box of 'stuff we
pretend we didn't believe in really' like eugenics and Christianity.
Yeah, I think we always disagree on this. I believe probability distributions, normal approximations, are wrong due to fat tails. This
means exceptional events are more likely than we believe.
AI, nuclear war, pandemics, climate change do scare me.
The
non-proliferation risks of nuclear power don't scare me. Or more
precisely, they scare me a lot less than the alternative of not using nuclear power.
On 2025-10-06 17:08, Chris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 11:49, Daniel70 wrote:
On 6/10/2025 6:52 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Well exactly., But it does last forever and its poisonous.
On 05/10/2025 20:47, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves. The sites are >>>>>> still hot, so signage has to be designed now so that the beings 50K >>>>>> years from now can read them.Oh dear.
Another person who believes that nuclear waste can last 'thousands of >>>>> years ' (but lead or mercury which last forever are just fine) AND
that this *very same* wastes is violently radioactive.
Sorry pal, You can have one or the other. Not both.
Sorry. How is Lead (which, supposedly, protect us from Radioactivity)
ALSO be "violently radioactive"??
I never said that lead or mercury were radioactive. I just said - or at
least implied - that they were toxic, and lasted fiorever.
I'll go for 'the other', please.
High level waste is gone in 300 years for the most part.
.... as long as anyone/thing lasts those 300 years.
It's not THAT radioactive to start with, The REALLY nasty shit is gone
in a couple of decades.
Dure8ng which time the reactor site is securely manned and its left
where it is, as that is, in fact, safer than moving it.
So what's the situation with Chernobyl, then? Or Sellafield? They both had >> accidents decades ago and are still very high risk areas.
Because he is simply wrong. I trust the authorities that prohibit going there, not him.
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-10-06 17:08, Chris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 11:49, Daniel70 wrote:
On 6/10/2025 6:52 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Well exactly., But it does last forever and its poisonous.
On 05/10/2025 20:47, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves. The sites are >>>>>>> still hot, so signage has to be designed now so that the beings 50K >>>>>>> years from now can read them.Oh dear.
Another person who believes that nuclear waste can last 'thousands of >>>>>> years ' (but lead or mercury which last forever are just fine) AND >>>>>> that this *very same* wastes is violently radioactive.
Sorry pal, You can have one or the other. Not both.
Sorry. How is Lead (which, supposedly, protect us from Radioactivity) >>>>> ALSO be "violently radioactive"??
I never said that lead or mercury were radioactive. I just said - or at >>>> least implied - that they were toxic, and lasted fiorever.
I'll go for 'the other', please.
High level waste is gone in 300 years for the most part.
.... as long as anyone/thing lasts those 300 years.
It's not THAT radioactive to start with, The REALLY nasty shit is gone >>>> in a couple of decades.
Dure8ng which time the reactor site is securely manned and its left
where it is, as that is, in fact, safer than moving it.
So what's the situation with Chernobyl, then? Or Sellafield? They both had >>> accidents decades ago and are still very high risk areas.
Because he is simply wrong. I trust the authorities that prohibit going
there, not him.
I don't actually disagree with his general view; that the risks from
nuclear power (including waste) are massively overblown. I'm just
questioning the specifics. Although, in Chernobyl we do know that animal
life is thriving within the exclusion zone.
The german policy after Fukushima was not based in science or fact and now they are very dependent on russian gas. Which is far from ideal these days.
I saw a representation of the total global volume of radioactive and it's tiny! Compared to the huge swathes of the planet that are no-go zones due
to fossil fuels, I just don't get the problem.
You don't poop in the grass, and say "on the balance
of probabilities, I am unlikely to be eating me lunch
on this spot next week". That's careless rationalization.
You want to be able to say later "I really did try to do
my best".
On Tue, 10/7/2025 11:39 AM, Chris wrote:
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-10-06 17:08, Chris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 11:49, Daniel70 wrote:
On 6/10/2025 6:52 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Well exactly., But it does last forever and its poisonous.
On 05/10/2025 20:47, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves. The sites are >>>>>>>> still hot, so signage has to be designed now so that the beings 50K >>>>>>>> years from now can read them.Oh dear.
Another person who believes that nuclear waste can last 'thousands of >>>>>>> years ' (but lead or mercury which last forever are just fine) AND >>>>>>> that this *very same* wastes is violently radioactive.
Sorry pal, You can have one or the other. Not both.
Sorry. How is Lead (which, supposedly, protect us from Radioactivity) >>>>>> ALSO be "violently radioactive"??
I never said that lead or mercury were radioactive. I just said - or at >>>>> least implied - that they were toxic, and lasted fiorever.
I'll go for 'the other', please.
High level waste is gone in 300 years for the most part.
.... as long as anyone/thing lasts those 300 years.
It's not THAT radioactive to start with, The REALLY nasty shit is gone >>>>> in a couple of decades.
Dure8ng which time the reactor site is securely manned and its left >>>>> where it is, as that is, in fact, safer than moving it.
So what's the situation with Chernobyl, then? Or Sellafield? They both had >>>> accidents decades ago and are still very high risk areas.
Because he is simply wrong. I trust the authorities that prohibit going >>> there, not him.
I don't actually disagree with his general view; that the risks from
nuclear power (including waste) are massively overblown. I'm just
questioning the specifics. Although, in Chernobyl we do know that animal
life is thriving within the exclusion zone.
The german policy after Fukushima was not based in science or fact and now >> they are very dependent on russian gas. Which is far from ideal these days. >>
I saw a representation of the total global volume of radioactive and it's
tiny! Compared to the huge swathes of the planet that are no-go zones due
to fossil fuels, I just don't get the problem.
There's a difference between "prompt" health and long term exposure.
And there is a difference between "I am eating the fucking stuff"
and "I am just walking by the site in my bunny suit". For example,
if you eat things that accumulate in your bone marrow, this is
really bad as a hobby.
As an example of the "prompt" exposure effect, when one of
those silly criticality experiments was done, there was
a scientist in the middle of the room, and a military guard
on duty at the door of the room. When the scientist accidentally
brought "two things" close together, and sprayed himself with
a lethal gamma, the scientist as usual, did the math on the
spot and concluded he was dead. And a day or two later, he
was gone (as predicted).
Well, what of the guard in the room ? The dude lived into his
late 60's! His prompt dose, didn't "tip him over" in the
same two day stretch that finished off the scientist.
But matters take a turn, when the variety of nucleotides
enters the food chain. Cows and cows milk with strontium
in them and so on. Or the incorporation of iodine 137
after a nuke releases a gas cloud from a case of
indigestion (for which we give the citizens around
the plant, a jar of iodine tablets to dilute the
radioactive iodine potentially incoming).
The animals walking around Chernobyl, if they were grass
eaters and raising young by breast feeding, the state
of their health through their lifetime might be
quite different than an animal which just happens to
"walk through a dirty spot".
Take the airport firefighter chemicals, which airport
firefighters used to practice with at practice sites.
There was an environmental mess at multiple of these sites.
Great. So authorities thought "oh my, there's a
concentrated dirty spot right here" on the map. well,
a university professor, purely on a whim when reading
about this in his area, had water samples gathered
from wells some distance from the site. What did the
lab results show ? The fucking chemicals had gone
at least two miles and were above the allowed threshold.
Well, no one had predicted such a result.
The officials
thought "all is well, little dirty spot, now stop
bothering me".
There is background radiation around you right now.
You body has the ability to clean up some amount
of damaged DNA material. We don't absolutely need
a perfectly clean environment. But just throwing
care to the wind and saying "there probably won't
be enough plutonium in that drum to cause a problem",
that's just careless thinking. Pooping on the lawn
is likely safe too, except if it is E.Coli O157:H7,
which is... really dangerous and killed people as
a poop. That's our Walkerton Incident. Who knows,
maybe we're a bit more careful now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkerton_E._coli_outbreak # pathetic, really...
# human nature, on display
So that's an example of having thrown caution to the
winds, and not keeping the required level of biosecurity
on a water supply. When I'm at the cottage, do I poop
next to my drinking water well ? The country folk will
likely look at your cottage layout and pick a spot
for you to poop :-) And they have Mike (good name choice)
in the Microbiology lab at my government job, to
thank for checking water samples for stuff like the
E.coli . Mike wouldn't let you into his lab either.
We had a heavy metals lab (atomic absorption spectroscopy
check for heavy metals) and the microbiology
lab, for running drinking water samples (and that would
not be the only labs doing that in town).
On 06/10/2025 16:08, Chris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 11:49, Daniel70 wrote:
On 6/10/2025 6:52 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Well exactly., But it does last forever and its poisonous.
On 05/10/2025 20:47, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves. The sites are >>>>>> still hot, so signage has to be designed now so that the beings 50K >>>>>> years from now can read them.Oh dear.
Another person who believes that nuclear waste can last 'thousands of >>>>> years ' (but lead or mercury which last forever are just fine) AND
that this *very same* wastes is violently radioactive.
Sorry pal, You can have one or the other. Not both.
Sorry. How is Lead (which, supposedly, protect us from Radioactivity)
ALSO be "violently radioactive"??
I never said that lead or mercury were radioactive. I just said - or at
least implied - that they were toxic, and lasted fiorever.
I'll go for 'the other', please.
High level waste is gone in 300 years for the most part.
.... as long as anyone/thing lasts those 300 years.
It's not THAT radioactive to start with, The REALLY nasty shit is gone
in a couple of decades.
Dure8ng which time the reactor site is securely manned and its left
where it is, as that is, in fact, safer than moving it.
So what's the situation with Chernobyl, then? Or Sellafield? They both had >> accidents decades ago and are still very high risk areas.
Chernobyl suffered an unplanned shutdown and the reactor core was never taken far out of critical. It's still fissioning. So that is a special case.
Even so a few hundred years should see it safe enough. The same
probably applies to 3MI and Fukushima.
No one is going to open up the
biological containment shields in a hurry. Its far far safer to let them just sit there.
Sellafield is a legacy site. It is busy reprocessing waste. I am not
sure why you included it
There is background radiation around you right now.
You body has the ability to clean up some amount
of damaged DNA material. We don't absolutely need
a perfectly clean environment. But just throwing
care to the wind and saying "there probably won't
be enough plutonium in that drum to cause a problem",
that's just careless thinking.
On 2025-10-07, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
You don't poop in the grass, and say "on the balance
of probabilities, I am unlikely to be eating me lunch
on this spot next week". That's careless rationalization.
You want to be able to say later "I really did try to do
my best".
But, but, but... it's good for The Economy! :-p
I actually see Fukushima as a success. The containment vessel survived
three catastrophic events which in earlier designs any one would have been sufficient to create a serious radioactive breach: earthquake, tsunami,
water cooling failure. The majority of the radioactivity was washed out to sea and atmospheric levels of radiation only exceeded international norms
for a short period of time. The pressure vessel survived and is still
intact.
No-one died during the accident and up to six people died from supposed radiation-related cancer.
No one is going to open up theBecause it is still a no-go zone. Although, that's likely due to its reprocessing activities, to be fair.
biological containment shields in a hurry. Its far far safer to let them
just sit there.
Sellafield is a legacy site. It is busy reprocessing waste. I am not
sure why you included it
Douneray (closed in the 1970s) is still an environmental risk, however. https://www.thenational.scot/news/25525191.radioactive-water-highland-nuclear-site-leaked-major-breach/
On 10/6/25 13:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/10/2025 12:37, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-10-06 03:08, Paul wrote:Stacey Dooley? She only wants to film it...
On Sun, 10/5/2025 3:47 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves.
it's not that far away actually.
Ask your AI for details, check for technical limits.
Yeah, there is a new guy with yellow or orange hair, actively
seeking it.
I think he meant Trump, rather than Stacey.
If you get confused between the two, try imagining which one you
would like to see naked.
On 7/10/2025 8:28 pm, Pancho wrote:Well exactly.
On 10/6/25 13:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/10/2025 12:37, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-10-06 03:08, Paul wrote:Stacey Dooley? She only wants to film it...
On Sun, 10/5/2025 3:47 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves.
it's not that far away actually.
Ask your AI for details, check for technical limits.
Yeah, there is a new guy with yellow or orange hair, actively
seeking it.
I think he meant Trump, rather than Stacey.
I was trying to get my head around Carlos referring to "a new *guy* "
and thinking "Is "Stacey" a guys name. Who knows now-a-days!!
If you get confused between the two, try imagining which one you
would like to see naked.
Not knowing "Stacey", can I opt for "Neither"??
On 07/10/2025 11:15, Pancho wrote:
Yeah, I think we always disagree on this. I believe probabilitySure. Except they aren't 'wrong' just 'not necessarily a risk worth taking'
distributions, normal approximations, are wrong due to fat tails. This
means exceptional events are more likely than we believe.
AI, nuclear war, pandemics, climate change do scare me.
Me too, but a lot less than a comet strike, a Labour government or bronchitis and pneumonia...
On 06/10/2025 11:49, Daniel70 wrote:
On 6/10/2025 6:52 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Well exactly., But it does last forever and its poisonous.
On 05/10/2025 20:47, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves. The sites areOh dear.
still hot, so signage has to be designed now so that the beings 50K
years from now can read them.
Another person who believes that nuclear waste can last 'thousands of
years ' (but lead or mercury which last forever are just fine) AND
that this *very same* wastes is violently radioactive.
Sorry pal, You can have one or the other. Not both.
Sorry. How is Lead (which, supposedly, protect us from Radioactivity)
ALSO be "violently radioactive"??
I never said that lead or mercury were radioactive. I just said - or at least implied - that they were toxic, and lasted fiorever.
On 7/10/2025 9:37 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/10/2025 11:15, Pancho wrote:
<Snip>
Yeah, I think we always disagree on this. I believe probabilitySure. Except they aren't 'wrong' just 'not necessarily a risk worth
distributions, normal approximations, are wrong due to fat tails.
This means exceptional events are more likely than we believe.
taking'
AI, nuclear war, pandemics, climate change do scare me.
Me too, but a lot less than a comet strike, a Labour government or
bronchitis and pneumonia...
Well, here in Australia, we DO have a Labor (yes, that's how they spell
it out here in the colonies!!) Government and I'm just getting over Bronchitis .... so that's two of your Four Horsemen! :-P
On 6/10/2025 11:42 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/10/2025 11:49, Daniel70 wrote:
On 6/10/2025 6:52 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Well exactly., But it does last forever and its poisonous.
On 05/10/2025 20:47, Carlos E.R. wrote:
At some point in the future, civilization dissolves. The sites areOh dear.
still hot, so signage has to be designed now so that the beings 50K >>>>> years from now can read them.
Another person who believes that nuclear waste can last 'thousands
of years ' (but lead or mercury which last forever are just fine)
AND that this *very same* wastes is violently radioactive.
Sorry pal, You can have one or the other. Not both.
Sorry. How is Lead (which, supposedly, protect us from Radioactivity)
ALSO be "violently radioactive"??
I never said that lead or mercury were radioactive. I just said - or
at least implied - that they were toxic, and lasted fiorever.
AH!! Sorry, I was reading too much into it.
On 08/10/2025 08:36, Chris wrote:
I actually see Fukushima as a success. The containment vessel survived
three catastrophic events which in earlier designs any one would have been >> sufficient to create a serious radioactive breach: earthquake, tsunami,
water cooling failure. The majority of the radioactivity was washed out to >> sea and atmospheric levels of radiation only exceeded international norms
for a short period of time. The pressure vessel survived and is still
intact.
No-one died during the accident and up to six people died from supposed
radiation-related cancer.
Or did they? It is hard to see how they could because so little was released.
I am on my second, rare, cancer, No one knows why I got them. I could
claim it was from radiation. I could claim it was from agrochemicals
since I have lived alongside farms since1982.
But no one really knows.
No one is going to open up theBecause it is still a no-go zone. Although, that's likely due to its
biological containment shields in a hurry. Its far far safer to let them >>> just sit there.
Sellafield is a legacy site. It is busy reprocessing waste. I am not
sure why you included it
reprocessing activities, to be fair.
Douneray (closed in the 1970s) is still an environmental risk, however.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25525191.radioactive-water-highland-nuclear-site-leaked-major-breach/
Well let's examine the real situation. Bits of Dounreay are (slightly)
above *regulatory limits* for radioactivity. As was the radium dialled
alarm clock I slept next to as a teenager.
But 'regulatory limits' do not equal 'environmental risk'
Parts of Dartmoor are also above 'regulatory limits' due to the uranium
rich granite
Many piles of coal fly ash were similar, and were made into cinder
blocks for housing...
As far as Sellafield goes, yes its a mucky site created before any real regulations were in effect. To make plutonium for bombs and bugger the
risk, because having Moscow drop one on our heads was a lot worse.
It has very little relevance to new nuclear and its not clear that it's
ever been a health hazard to anyone living nearby.
Despite claims to the contrary. Yes vaccines give you autism as well, I
read it in the guardian yada yada so it must be true
It is the disjunct between 'regulatory limits' and actual 'danger to
health' that so pisses me off.
On 07/10/2025 20:57, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2025-10-07, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
You don't poop in the grass, and say "on the balance
of probabilities, I am unlikely to be eating me lunch
on this spot next week". That's careless rationalization.
You want to be able to say later "I really did try to do
my best".
But, but, but... it's good for The Economy! :-p
Well no, its not actually.
What is good for the economy is creating stuff that helps people be
happier, live longer and gives them something to do.
Not making up jobs to keep them enslaved to a government that hasn't a
clue about wealth production.
Well yeah. At least with a comet strike we should know pretty much for
sure a decade or two in advance, so time to get Bruce Willis out of his mental home and on a spaceship...
On Sat, 10/4/2025 1:12 AM, Peter Jason wrote:
It all smacks of intellectual left-wing nit-picking.
Incidentally, what do the French do with their nuclear waste, given
70% of their electricity is nuclear? Their reactors never seem to
blow up either.
The nuclear industry has some level of rigor in what it does.
That's why some operations have a relatively clean record
on stupid stuff.
Read an article on an actual practical containment and
disposal project, to see what effort goes into the thinking.
The idea is to NOT leave a mess for others.
That's the shortest sentence to explain the objective.
The designers try to aim for a 100,000 year lifecycle.
If it happens to make it to 1000 years, that will be
a victory of sorts. Later generations won't think
we were quite as idiotic if we make it that far with
our disposal, before the earth belches it back up.
As an undergraduate chemist, I managed to do one experiment
in the reactor room at our university, along with my classmates
in analytical chemistry. Run a sample into a 10kW reactor
core, leave it for a minute or two, a pneumatic tube dispenses
the "hot" capsule in a tray at surface level. You step away from
that for ten minutes while it "cools off". There are short-lived
isotopes created during a nuclear activation analysis run.
After ten minutes, you can carry it with tongs ("for fun")
to the gamma spectrometer, and the spikes measured there tell
you what materials are inside the capsule. If you dropped the
item, you'd just pick it up with your fingers and put it in
the spectrometer (it's not that hot).
In that example, the "danger interval" is ten minutes.
the danger interval in a spent fuel pool is *a hundred thousand years*. >Stepping into the spent fuel pools, you'll be dead within a day or two.
This stuff is not a joke. To dispose of it in a fissure in the Earth, the >plates do not move that rapidly. They don't have the "reliability" of
the compaction mechanism on the garbage truck. The waste would still need
the same kind of container used for deep earth burial. The waste container >prevents solvation, it's not a radiation shield as such. The container
could be punctured, instead of buried, and belched back up. In the Ring Of Fire,
there could be volcanic activity, and some lava (with your container)
could return to radiate another day.
The controlled storage underground, the packing of bentonite clay
around the item, these are ideas to protect the container and try to
keep groundwater away from it. Disturbance in the Earth (earthquake
that cracks the storage tunnel and offsets the two halves of it),
could still work at compromising the containment. But the fact
that multiple layers of container are present, is intended to make total >compromise less likely. That's why, as a practical person,
I see this sort of thing as "thousand year material". But the
care that goes into the thinking, has to be the hundred thousand
year kind of thinking.
The idea of a subduction zone, is just the same kind of careful
thinking that goes into the "launch it into space" idea. Another non-starter. >It's going to be another ten thousand years, before there is
"reliable bus service, to the Sun".
We don't want solutions that bear a resemblance to driving out
in the country, and dumping that sofa and fridge, on the side
of a rural road. The out of sight out of mind disposal method.
The most egregious part of sights like that I've seen in our rural areas,
is the refrigerators did not have the R12 removed. Which means eventually
the materials will decay and the gas will escape. There is a procedure for >safely moving the gas into a zeolite container, for recycling.
And that is part of the reason why proper disposal of refrigerators
is such slow going (nobody wants to pay someone to do it).
When I dump my R600-generation current refrigerator on the side of someones >country road, look how much better that will be :-) Pentane or something >similar to that gas. Not as bad as R12. But R12 was a beautiful gas,I'll bet there's a black market for the old fluorinated refrigerants.
as you could put it in something, braze the copper joints, it didn't
leak, it didn't need a refill. Lots of gas choices after that, leak
like a pig.
Paul--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Unless you're a NASA Astronaut/scientist. They objectively know the real
risk and have parametrised their limits of acceptability. For example, they knew the shuttle programme would result in deaths and it was cancelled because the failure rate was unacceptably high.
It is the disjunct between 'regulatory limits' and actual 'danger toOne is informed by the other,
health' that so pisses me off.
deciding what the actual limit is. When faced with the question people's appetite is generally very low and the assumed optimum is zero deaths/injuries.
Unless you're a NASA Astronaut/scientist. They objectively know the real
risk and have parametrised their limits of acceptability. For example, they knew the shuttle programme would result in deaths and it was cancelled because the failure rate was unacceptably high.
On 08/10/2025 14:00, Daniel70 wrote:
On 7/10/2025 9:37 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/10/2025 11:15, Pancho wrote:
<Snip>
Yeah, I think we always disagree on this. I believe probabilitySure. Except they aren't 'wrong' just 'not necessarily a risk worth
distributions, normal approximations, are wrong due to fat tails.
This means exceptional events are more likely than we believe.
taking'
AI, nuclear war, pandemics, climate change do scare me.
Me too, but a lot less than a comet strike, a Labour government or
bronchitis and pneumonia...
Well, here in Australia, we DO have a Labor (yes, that's how they spell
it out here in the colonies!!) Government and I'm just getting over
Bronchitis .... so that's two of your Four Horsemen! :-P
Well yeah. At least with a comet strike we should know pretty much for
sure a decade or two in advance, so time to get Bruce Willis out of his mental home and on a spaceship...
On 2025-10-08, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 07/10/2025 20:57, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2025-10-07, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
You don't poop in the grass, and say "on the balance
of probabilities, I am unlikely to be eating me lunch
on this spot next week". That's careless rationalization.
You want to be able to say later "I really did try to do
my best".
But, but, but... it's good for The Economy! :-p
Well no, its not actually.
What is good for the economy is creating stuff that helps people be
happier, live longer and gives them something to do.
Not making up jobs to keep them enslaved to a government that hasn't a
clue about wealth production.
Agreed; you missed my "sarcasm caps". I use the term "The Economy"
(note the capitalization) to distinguish it from the good old-fashioned small-E "economy", which I define as "the collective financial ebb and
flow of an entire society". Note the word "entire".
The Economy, on the other hand, is a game played by the very rich
to make each other richer at the expense of the rest of us.
The other reason I capitalize "The Economy" is that in most societies
it's a convention to capitalize the names of one's deities. And when
you hear the religious zeal with which many people worship The Economy,
and the pious tones in which they tell us of the sacrifices we must
willingly make in Its Holy Name, it becomes pretty obvious which side
their bread is buttered on.
On 2025-10-08, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Well yeah. At least with a comet strike we should know pretty much for
sure a decade or two in advance, so time to get Bruce Willis out of his
mental home and on a spaceship...
What's more likely to happen is that Meryl Streep will tell
Leonardo DiCaprio, "Don't look up..."
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 14:00, Daniel70 wrote:
On 7/10/2025 9:37 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/10/2025 11:15, Pancho wrote:
<Snip>
Yeah, I think we always disagree on this. I believe probabilitySure. Except they aren't 'wrong' just 'not necessarily a risk worth
distributions, normal approximations, are wrong due to fat tails.
This means exceptional events are more likely than we believe.
taking'
AI, nuclear war, pandemics, climate change do scare me.
Me too, but a lot less than a comet strike, a Labour government or
bronchitis and pneumonia...
Well, here in Australia, we DO have a Labor (yes, that's how they spell
it out here in the colonies!!) Government and I'm just getting over
Bronchitis .... so that's two of your Four Horsemen! :-P
Well yeah. At least with a comet strike we should know pretty much for
sure a decade or two in advance, so time to get Bruce Willis out of his
mental home and on a spaceship...
Only if it doesn't hit us on its first approach.
Am somewhat surprised you're more worried by an astronomically rare event than the genuine existential threat of climate change.
More than having some figures for failure rate, Appendix F of the Rogers Commission Report covers the vastly varying failure estimations, and
thus paints a bleak picture of the lack of awareness of the true risks.
I think I recall a documentary (possibly from PBS? was it NOVA?) about STS-107 where the husband of Laurel Blair Salton Clark described
worrying about risks and Laurel telling him "if it were that dangerous,
NASA would tell me". (Not sure if I'm recalling correctly, or how
accurate that is. It was something I watched many years ago.)
I apologise Charlie, you are near enough correct for government work, as
we used to say.
Its the same with Jobs and Money. Neither of which are directly related
to wealth - personal or otherwise.
I have been retired for 25 years and I don't miss most of 'work'
whatsoever. As in dealing with stupid people being told what to do, etc. etc.
I have enough money to be reasonably wealthy - nothing outrageous, I
just don't check the supermarket bill item by item. Or switch off my
router at night. I am comfortable because a lifetime of relative poverty
has eliminated any expensive habits.
In other words I live comfortably within my means. And it is, as Michael Caine said, if not something that makes one happy, at least something
that takes the misery out of being poor.
My observation is that no one needs a career, work, or a job. Or even
money.
What they need is *wealth*. To be warm, comfortable, healthy and free
of worry and with sufficient distractions to pass the time agreeably.
But that is not what Government seeks to provide them is it?
Socialism is all about 'who gets the money' Capitalism is all about
'we get the money'
Neither are in the least bit interested in 'who gets a nice safe
comfortable quiet life'
Neither are about 'how do we create enough *wealth* that everybody gets enough of it.
We are being lied to shat upon and enslaved all the time we are not 'wealthy'
And both sides of the political party like to keep it that way.
I have been retired for 25 years and I don't miss most of 'work'
whatsoever. As in dealing with stupid people being told what to do, etc. etc.
I have enough money to be reasonably wealthy - nothing outrageous, I
just don't check the supermarket bill item by item. Or switch off my
router at night. I am comfortable because a lifetime of relative poverty
has eliminated any expensive habits.
In other words I live comfortably within my means. And it is, as Michael Caine said, if not something that makes one happy, at least something
that takes the misery out of being poor.
My observation is that no one needs a career, work, or a job. Or even
money.
What they need is *wealth*. To be warm, comfortable, healthy and free
of worry and with sufficient distractions to pass the time agreeably.
But that is not what Government seeks to provide them is it?
Socialism is all about 'who gets the money' Capitalism is all about 'we
get the money'
Neither are in the least bit interested in 'who gets a nice safe
comfortable quiet life'
Neither are about 'how do we create enough *wealth* that everybody gets enough of it.
We are being lied to shat upon and enslaved all the time we are not 'wealthy'
And both sides of the political party like to keep it that way.
On 2025-10-09, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
We are being lied to shat upon and enslaved all the time we are not
'wealthy'
And both sides of the political party like to keep it that way.
And you call _me_ a doom pixie... :-)
On 09/10/2025 20:55, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2025-10-09, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Now that's Greta Thunberg, the 100% dyed in the wool definitely notWe are being lied to shat upon and enslaved all the time we are not
'wealthy'
And both sides of the political party like to keep it that way.
And you call _me_ a doom pixie...-a :-)
Yuman doom pixie.
The rumour is that she was recorded every minute of her time in Israeli hands and her claims of being maltreated have been quietly-a responded to with a 'STFU. We have the tapes. And can prove you are a lying fraud.'
On 09/10/2025 20:55, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2025-10-09, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Now that's Greta Thunberg, the 100% dyed in the wool definitely notWe are being lied to shat upon and enslaved all the time we are not
'wealthy'
And both sides of the political party like to keep it that way.
And you call _me_ a doom pixie... :-)
Yuman doom pixie.
The rumour is that she was recorded every minute of her time in Israeli hands and her claims of being maltreated have been quietly responded to with a 'STFU. We have the tapes. And can prove you are a lying fraud.'
On 08/10/2025 14:00, Daniel70 wrote:
On 7/10/2025 9:37 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/10/2025 11:15, Pancho wrote:
<Snip>
Yeah, I think we always disagree on this. I believe probabilitySure. Except they aren't 'wrong' just 'not necessarily a risk
distributions, normal approximations, are wrong due to fat
tails. This means exceptional events are more likely than we
believe.
worth taking'
AI, nuclear war, pandemics, climate change do scare me.
Me too, but a lot less than a comet strike, a Labour government
or bronchitis and pneumonia...
Well, here in Australia, we DO have a Labor (yes, that's how they
spell it out here in the colonies!!) Government and I'm just
getting over Bronchitis .... so that's two of your Four Horsemen!
:-P
Well yeah. At least with a comet strike we should know pretty much
for sure a decade or two in advance,
so time to get Bruce Willis out of his mental home and on a--
spaceship...
On 2025-10-10 11:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/2025 20:55, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2025-10-09, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Now that's Greta Thunberg, the 100% dyed in the wool definitely not
We are being lied to shat upon and enslaved all the time we are not
'wealthy'
And both sides of the political party like to keep it that way.
And you call _me_ a doom pixie...-a :-)
Yuman doom pixie.
The rumour is that she was recorded every minute of her time in
Israeli hands and her claims of being maltreated have been quietly
responded to with a 'STFU. We have the tapes. And can prove you are a
lying fraud.'
Doctored tapes.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 20:55, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2025-10-09, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Now that's Greta Thunberg, the 100% dyed in the wool definitely not
We are being lied to shat upon and enslaved all the time we are not
'wealthy'
And both sides of the political party like to keep it that way.
And you call _me_ a doom pixie... :-)
Yuman doom pixie.
The rumour is that she was recorded every minute of her time in Israeli
hands and her claims of being maltreated have been quietly responded to
with a 'STFU. We have the tapes. And can prove you are a lying fraud.'
Sure. The IDF are *absolutely* the most trustworthy party here with no history of extrajudicial activity, lies and murder. <eye roll>
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 20:55, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2025-10-09, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Now that's Greta Thunberg, the 100% dyed in the wool definitely not
We are being lied to shat upon and enslaved all the time we are not
'wealthy'
And both sides of the political party like to keep it that way.
And you call _me_ a doom pixie... :-)
Yuman doom pixie.
The rumour is that she was recorded every minute of her time in Israeli
hands and her claims of being maltreated have been quietly responded to
with a 'STFU. We have the tapes. And can prove you are a lying fraud.'
Sure. The IDF are *absolutely* the most trustworthy party here with no history of extrajudicial activity, lies and murder. <eye roll>
On 10/10/2025 13:24, Chris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Yes, they are.
On 09/10/2025 20:55, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2025-10-09, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Now that's Greta Thunberg, the 100% dyed in the wool definitely not
We are being lied to shat upon and enslaved all the time we are not
'wealthy'
And both sides of the political party like to keep it that way.
And you call _me_ a doom pixie...-a :-)
Yuman doom pixie.
The rumour is that she was recorded every minute of her time in Israeli
hands and her claims of being maltreated have been quietly-a responded to >>> with a 'STFU. We have the tapes. And can prove you are a lying fraud.'
Sure. The IDF are *absolutely* the most trustworthy party here with no
history of extrajudicial activity, lies and murder. <eye roll>
Way better than e.g. HAMAS whose story of genocide is not backed up by anyone else
On 09/10/2025 20:55, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2025-10-09, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Now that's Greta Thunberg, the 100% dyed in the wool definitely notWe are being lied to shat upon and enslaved all the time we are not
'wealthy'
And both sides of the political party like to keep it that way.
And you call _me_ a doom pixie... :-)
Yuman doom pixie.
The rumour is that she was recorded every minute of her time in Israeli
hands and her claims of being maltreated have been quietly responded to
with a 'STFU. We have the tapes. And can prove you are a lying fraud.'
On 10/10/2025 13:24, Chris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Yes, they are.
On 09/10/2025 20:55, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2025-10-09, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Now that's Greta Thunberg, the 100% dyed in the wool definitely not
We are being lied to shat upon and enslaved all the time we are not
'wealthy'
And both sides of the political party like to keep it that way.
And you call _me_ a doom pixie... :-)
Yuman doom pixie.
The rumour is that she was recorded every minute of her time in Israeli
hands and her claims of being maltreated have been quietly responded to >>> with a 'STFU. We have the tapes. And can prove you are a lying fraud.'
Sure. The IDF are *absolutely* the most trustworthy party here with no
history of extrajudicial activity, lies and murder. <eye roll>
Way better than e.g. HAMAS whose story of genocide is not backed up by anyone else
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 13:24, Chris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Yes, they are.
On 09/10/2025 20:55, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2025-10-09, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Now that's Greta Thunberg, the 100% dyed in the wool definitely not
We are being lied to shat upon and enslaved all the time we are not >>>>>> 'wealthy'
And both sides of the political party like to keep it that way.
And you call _me_ a doom pixie... :-)
Yuman doom pixie.
The rumour is that she was recorded every minute of her time in Israeli >>>> hands and her claims of being maltreated have been quietly responded to >>>> with a 'STFU. We have the tapes. And can prove you are a lying fraud.'
Sure. The IDF are *absolutely* the most trustworthy party here with no
history of extrajudicial activity, lies and murder. <eye roll>
WTF? What planet are you on?!
Way better than e.g. HAMAS whose story of genocide is not backed up by
anyone else
Except for the very Genocide Convention established after WWII following
the Nazi atrocities. The UNHCR commissioned report has indeed called out Israel for committing genocide in gaza with direct reference to the Convention. https://www.thegenocidereport.org/dispatches/un-commission-of-inquiry-genocide-in-gaza/
There is very little debate that the IDF has committed atrocities on civilians in Gaza over the last two years in contravention of international law and war-time convention.
None of this detracts from the Hamas-led terrorist murders of 7th October. Both sides are guilty, but the disproportionate use of force by the IDF and the Isreali state has taken it to another level.
Any attempt to diminish criticism by calling it antisemitic is cheap and disrespectful of actual antisemitism.
They should be armed, then reclaim their country from a settler, by any legal defintion is a genocidal terrorist.
There is very little debate that the IDF has committed atrocities on
civilians in Gaza over the last two years in contravention of international >> law and war-time convention.
None of this detracts from the Hamas-led terrorist murders of 7th October. >> Both sides are guilty, but the disproportionate use of force by the IDF and >> the Isreali state has taken it to another level.
Any attempt to diminish criticism by calling it antisemitic is cheap and
disrespectful of actual antisemitism.
Also, accusing Hamas of Genocide doesn't hold. It doesn't fit the
definition.
-2Genocide is violence that targets individuals because of their
membership of a group and aims at the destruction of a people.[a][1]
Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term, defined genocide as "the
destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group" by means such as "the >disintegration of [its] political and social institutions, of [its]
culture, language, national feelings, religion, and [its] economic >existence".[2] During the struggle to ratify the Genocide Convention, >powerful countries restricted Lemkin's definition to exclude their own>actions from being classified as genocide,[3][4] ultimately limiting it
to any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in
part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".[5] While there>are many scholarly definitions of genocide,[6] almost all international
bodies of law officially adjudicate the crime of genocide pursuant to
the Genocide Convention.[7]
Genocide has occurred throughout human history, even during prehistoric >times, but it is particularly likely in situations of imperial expansion
and power consolidation. It is associated with colonial empires and
settler colonies, as well as with both world wars and repressive
governments in the twentieth century. The colloquial understanding of >genocide is heavily influenced by the Holocaust as its archetype and is >conceived as innocent victims being targeted for their ethnic identity>rather than for any political reason.
Genocide is widely considered to be the epitome of human evil and is
often referred to as the "crime of crimes"; consequently, events are
often denounced as genocide.-+
(Wikipedia)
Hamas might like to commit Genocide on Israel, but they don't have the>means. Terrorism, certainly. Although there is no formal definition of>terrorism accepted internationally If you win, then what was terrorism>gets whitewashed.
Israel committed terrorism when attempting to create their state. Like>the bomb on the King David Hotel.
On 08/10/2025 18:27, Chris wrote:
It is the disjunct between 'regulatory limits' and actual 'danger toOne is informed by the other,
health' that so pisses me off.
The problem is, that actually, it wasn't.
Not when there is literally no data on which to base any sort of
regulation, but there is a real perceived need for one.
At the time regulations were framed we knew...
1. How much radiation it took to kill a person outright within days from radiation poisoning.
2. That regular exposure to *high* but not lethal doses of radiation
caused cancer. The radium girls painting dials with radium and licking
their paintbrushes. Marie Curie.
And that was *all* we knew.
Out of that the LNR myth was born. That the chances of developing cancer were a *simple* product of the dose, times the time you were exposed to it.
And the regulations were then framed on that assumption and on the basis that any cancers so arising would be lost in the noise of all other causes.
Even though at the time it was ell known that parts of Britain were
subject to natural radiation that prohibited people being employed in
any nuclear industry there due to the high cumulative doses they received. And yet there were no apparent excess cancer rates there.
The regulations were framed politically, informed by politics and the deliberately induced climate of fear of the Cold War.
They had almost nothing to do with facts data or science.
but it does come down to risk appetite when
deciding what the actual limit is. When faced with the question people's
appetite is generally very low and the assumed optimum is zero
deaths/injuries.
Except when it comes to *every other human activity*.
Unless you're a NASA Astronaut/scientist. They objectively know the real
risk and have parametrised their limits of acceptability. For example, they >> knew the shuttle programme would result in deaths and it was cancelled
because the failure rate was unacceptably high.
We haven't cancelled :
Horse riding
Climbing mountains
Swimming
Driving cars
Riding bicycles
Coal power stations
Wind farms
Solar panels
Lying in the sun
Drinking alcohol
Flying.
All of which are demonstrably far far greater risks than nuclear power.
Sorry. Your argument makes no sense.
Just like the regulations.
They aren't about *real* risks, they are about (deliberately engendered)
public *perceptions*.
It's like street lamps. As a boy raised on the outer limits of suburbia, roaming through the woods and fields at night was a completely
comfortable experience for me. Indeed so were walking the roads. One
could be completely invisible just by stepping into shadow.
And yet councillors everywhere will tell you that 'people feel safer
with street lamps on all night'
Its complete nonsense. Far safer to learn to walk in the dark Or cycle
by moonlight etc. Lights make you visible. Lights make you a target.
The facts say one thing,
the regulations say something else and the
public perception is informed by the regulations.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 18:27, Chris wrote:
It is the disjunct between 'regulatory limits' and actual 'danger toOne is informed by the other,
health' that so pisses me off.
The problem is, that actually, it wasn't.
Not when there is literally no data on which to base any sort of
regulation, but there is a real perceived need for one.
At the time regulations were framed we knew...
1. How much radiation it took to kill a person outright within days
from radiation poisoning.
2. That regular exposure to *high* but not lethal doses of radiation
caused cancer. The radium girls painting dials with radium and licking
their paintbrushes. Marie Curie.
And that was *all* we knew.
Out of that the LNR myth was born. That the chances of developing
cancer were a *simple* product of the dose, times the time you were
exposed to it.
And the regulations were then framed on that assumption and on the
basis that any cancers so arising would be lost in the noise of all
other causes.
Even though at the time it was ell known that parts of Britain were
subject to natural radiation that prohibited people being employed in
any nuclear industry there due to the high cumulative doses they
received. And yet there were no apparent excess cancer rates there.
The regulations were framed politically, informed by politics and the
deliberately induced climate of fear of the Cold War.
They had almost nothing to do with facts data or science.
but it does come down to risk appetite when
deciding what the actual limit is. When faced with the question
people's appetite is generally very low and the assumed optimum is
zero deaths/injuries.
Except when it comes to *every other human activity*.
Unless you're a NASA Astronaut/scientist. They objectively know the
real risk and have parametrised their limits of acceptability. For
example, they knew the shuttle programme would result in deaths and it
was cancelled because the failure rate was unacceptably high.
We haven't cancelled :
Nuclear hasn't been cancelled either. We are literally building new ones
in the UK.
Horse riding Climbing mountains Swimming Driving cars Riding bicycles
Coal power stations Wind farms Solar panels Lying in the sun Drinking
alcohol Flying.
All of which are demonstrably far far greater risks than nuclear power.
Other than power stations or wind farms the comparison is a non
sequitur. They're all voluntary and down to personal choice.
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 21:18:51 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 18:27, Chris wrote:
It is the disjunct between 'regulatory limits' and actual 'danger to >>>>> health' that so pisses me off.One is informed by the other,
The problem is, that actually, it wasn't.
Not when there is literally no data on which to base any sort of
regulation, but there is a real perceived need for one.
At the time regulations were framed we knew...
1. How much radiation it took to kill a person outright within days
from radiation poisoning.
2. That regular exposure to *high* but not lethal doses of radiation
caused cancer. The radium girls painting dials with radium and licking
their paintbrushes. Marie Curie.
And that was *all* we knew.
Out of that the LNR myth was born. That the chances of developing
cancer were a *simple* product of the dose, times the time you were
exposed to it.
And the regulations were then framed on that assumption and on the
basis that any cancers so arising would be lost in the noise of all
other causes.
Even though at the time it was ell known that parts of Britain were
subject to natural radiation that prohibited people being employed in
any nuclear industry there due to the high cumulative doses they
received. And yet there were no apparent excess cancer rates there.
The regulations were framed politically, informed by politics and the
deliberately induced climate of fear of the Cold War.
They had almost nothing to do with facts data or science.
but it does come down to risk appetite when
deciding what the actual limit is. When faced with the question
people's appetite is generally very low and the assumed optimum is
zero deaths/injuries.
Except when it comes to *every other human activity*.
Unless you're a NASA Astronaut/scientist. They objectively know the
real risk and have parametrised their limits of acceptability. For
example, they knew the shuttle programme would result in deaths and it >>>> was cancelled because the failure rate was unacceptably high.
We haven't cancelled :
Nuclear hasn't been cancelled either. We are literally building new ones
in the UK.
Horse riding Climbing mountains Swimming Driving cars Riding bicycles
Coal power stations Wind farms Solar panels Lying in the sun Drinking
alcohol Flying.
All of which are demonstrably far far greater risks than nuclear power.
Other than power stations or wind farms the comparison is a non
sequitur. They're all voluntary and down to personal choice.
apropos: theregister.com/2025/10/10/datacenter_coal_power/
"Climate goals go up in smoke as US datacenters turn to coal
High gas prices and surging AI demand send operators back to the dirtiest fuel in the stack"
No problem, we've got you covered OpenAI.
https://www.montanacoalcouncil.org/reserves
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 13:24, Chris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Yes, they are.
On 09/10/2025 20:55, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2025-10-09, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Now that's Greta Thunberg, the 100% dyed in the wool definitely not
We are being lied to shat upon and enslaved all the time we are not >>>>>> 'wealthy'
And both sides of the political party like to keep it that way.
And you call _me_ a doom pixie... :-)
Yuman doom pixie.
The rumour is that she was recorded every minute of her time in Israeli >>>> hands and her claims of being maltreated have been quietly responded to >>>> with a 'STFU. We have the tapes. And can prove you are a lying fraud.'
Sure. The IDF are *absolutely* the most trustworthy party here with no
history of extrajudicial activity, lies and murder. <eye roll>
WTF? What planet are you on?!
Way better than e.g. HAMAS whose story of genocide is not backed up by
anyone else
Except for the very Genocide Convention established after WWII following
the Nazi atrocities. The UNHCR commissioned report has indeed called out Israel for committing genocide in gaza with direct reference to the Convention. https://www.thegenocidereport.org/dispatches/un-commission-of-inquiry-genocide-in-gaza/
There is very little debate that the IDF has committed atrocities on civilians in Gaza over the last two years in contravention of international law and war-time convention.
None of this detracts from the Hamas-led terrorist murders of 7th October. Both sides are guilty, but the disproportionate use of force by the IDF and the Isreali state has taken it to another level.
Any attempt to diminish criticism by calling it antisemitic is cheap and disrespectful of actual antisemitism.
"coal reserves would last about 422 years"
So if the TechBro manage to double or quadruple the
consumption rate, 100 years is plenty of time for the
TechBro to reach interstellar space, isn't it ?
And as the price of the coal rises, as it gets harder
and harder to extract that reserve, hardly anyone
is going to wince or complain. I have forseen it.
They shouldn't need the whole hundred years to
reach AGI. Maybe a miracle will happen. Only
50 years to go.
On 10/12/25 05:05, Paul wrote:
"coal reserves would last about 422 years"
So if the TechBro manage to double or quadruple the consumption
rate, 100 years is plenty of time for the TechBro to reach
interstellar space, isn't it ? And as the price of the coal rises,
as it gets harder and harder to extract that reserve, hardly
anyone is going to wince or complain. I have forseen it. They
shouldn't need the whole hundred years to reach AGI. Maybe a
miracle will happen. Only 50 years to go.
TechBro wants security. They want power for the next 10-25 years.
Coal provides an alternative to gas and provides energy security.
Carbon capture provides an excuse to build coal power stations. In an
energy crisis, people will forget about global warming.
They will use the coal power without carbon capture. Hydrogen power
stations provide much the same excuse, they can be used to burn
natural gas.
Some people in the UK and Germany argue it is OK to pay more for--
energy, because it is saving the planet. It won't because poor people
want cheap energy. If we want to stop carbon emissions, we need to
develop cheap alternatives. In many places, the only potential
candidate for suitable cheap energy is nuclear. Nuclear has huge
potential to become cheaper, much cheaper.
https://www.thegenocidereport.org/dispatches/un-commission-of-inquiry-genocide-in-gaza/
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 13:24, Chris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Yes, they are.
On 09/10/2025 20:55, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2025-10-09, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Now that's Greta Thunberg, the 100% dyed in the wool definitely not
We are being lied to shat upon and enslaved all the time we are not >>>>>> 'wealthy'
And both sides of the political party like to keep it that way.
And you call _me_ a doom pixie... :-)
Yuman doom pixie.
The rumour is that she was recorded every minute of her time in Israeli >>>> hands and her claims of being maltreated have been quietly responded to >>>> with a 'STFU. We have the tapes. And can prove you are a lying fraud.'
Sure. The IDF are *absolutely* the most trustworthy party here with no
history of extrajudicial activity, lies and murder. <eye roll>
WTF? What planet are you on?!
Way better than e.g. HAMAS whose story of genocide is not backed up by
anyone else
Except for the very Genocide Convention established after WWII following
the Nazi atrocities. The UNHCR commissioned report has indeed called out Israel for committing genocide in gaza with direct reference to the Convention. https://www.thegenocidereport.org/dispatches/un-commission-of-inquiry-genocide-in-gaza/
There is very little debate that the IDF has committed atrocities on civilians in Gaza over the last two years in contravention of international law and war-time convention.
None of this detracts from the Hamas-led terrorist murders of 7th October. Both sides are guilty, but the disproportionate use of force by the IDF and the Isreali state has taken it to another level.
Any attempt to diminish criticism by calling it antisemitic is cheap and disrespectful of actual antisemitism.
apropos: theregister.com/2025/10/10/datacenter_coal_power/
"Climate goals go up in smoke as US datacenters turn to coal
High gas prices and surging AI demand send operators back to the dirtiest fuel in the stack"
No problem, we've got you covered OpenAI.
https://www.montanacoalcouncil.org/reserves
The reason they don't just do it with natural gas...
is there aren't enough gas turbines. It's got nothing
to do with stomping all over the natural gas distribution
network.
TechBro wants security. They want power for the next 10-25 years. Coal provides an alternative to gas and provides energy security.
Carbon capture provides an excuse to build coal power stations. In an
energy crisis, people will forget about global warming. They will use
the coal power without carbon capture. Hydrogen power stations provide
much the same excuse, they can be used to burn natural gas.
Some people in the UK and Germany argue it is OK to pay more for energy, because it is saving the planet. It won't because poor people want cheap energy. If we want to stop carbon emissions, we need to develop cheap alternatives. In many places, the only potential candidate for suitable cheap energy is nuclear. Nuclear has huge potential to become cheaper,+3.
much cheaper.
On 12/10/2025 9:19 pm, Pancho wrote:
On 10/12/25 05:05, Paul wrote:
"coal reserves would last about 422 years"
So if the TechBro manage to double or quadruple the consumption
rate, 100 years is plenty of time for the TechBro to reach
interstellar space, isn't it ? And as the price of the coal rises,
as it gets harder and harder to extract that reserve, hardly
anyone is going to wince or complain. I have forseen it. They
shouldn't need the whole hundred years to reach AGI. Maybe a
miracle will happen. Only 50 years to go.
TechBro wants security. They want power for the next 10-25 years.
Coal provides an alternative to gas and provides energy security.
Carbon capture provides an excuse to build coal power stations. In an
-aenergy crisis, people will forget about global warming.
Global Warming will mean a warmer Planet .... so less need to use Coal
to warm us up! ;-P
They will use the coal power without carbon capture. Hydrogen power
stations provide much the same excuse, they can be used to burn
natural gas.
Sorry. WHAT?? "Hydrogen Power Stations" burning "Natural Gas"!! Really?
On 12/10/2025 6:41 am, Fritz Wuehler wrote:
https://www.thegenocidereport.org/dispatches/un-commission-of-inquiry-genocide-in-gaza/
And this has WHAT to do with Win-11 and/or Linux??
On 12/10/2025 02:09, rbowman wrote:
apropos: theregister.com/2025/10/10/datacenter_coal_power/
"Climate goals go up in smoke as US datacenters turn to coal
High gas prices and surging AI demand send operators back to the
dirtiest fuel in the stack"
No problem, we've got you covered OpenAI.
https://www.montanacoalcouncil.org/reserves
Well coal is dirty and I wouldn't want to reintroduce it without being
sure the stack scrubbers were installed and working.
And it isn't an option in the UK at scale because we don't have the
cheap coal any more
It will all be nuclear eventually because northing else is as cheap or
as safe or as low pollution *overall*
Sorry. WHAT?? "Hydrogen Power Stations" burning "Natural Gas"!! Really?
On 12/10/2025 6:41 am, Fritz Wuehler wrote:
https://www.thegenocidereport.org/dispatches/un-commission-of-inquiry-genocide-in-gaza/
And this has WHAT to do with Win-11 and/or Linux??
On 11/10/2025 12:22, Chris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:I am sorry, but the UN agencies have blotted their copybooks once too
On 10/10/2025 13:24, Chris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Yes, they are.
On 09/10/2025 20:55, Charlie Gibbs wrote:Sure. The IDF are *absolutely* the most trustworthy party here with no >>>> history of extrajudicial activity, lies and murder. <eye roll>
On 2025-10-09, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>Now that's Greta Thunberg, the 100% dyed in the wool definitely not
We are being lied to shat upon and enslaved all the time we are not >>>>>>> 'wealthy'
And both sides of the political party like to keep it that way.
And you call _me_ a doom pixie... :-)
Yuman doom pixie.
The rumour is that she was recorded every minute of her time in Israeli >>>>> hands and her claims of being maltreated have been quietly responded to >>>>> with a 'STFU. We have the tapes. And can prove you are a lying fraud.' >>>>
WTF? What planet are you on?!
Way better than e.g. HAMAS whose story of genocide is not backed up by
anyone else
Except for the very Genocide Convention established after WWII following
the Nazi atrocities. The UNHCR commissioned report has indeed called out
Israel for committing genocide in gaza with direct reference to the
Convention.
https://www.thegenocidereport.org/dispatches/un-commission-of-inquiry-genocide-in-gaza/
often to be reliable either.
According to HAMAS more civilians have been killed than lived in Gaza
to start with,
Palestinians spit on Hamas. Everything they do is a
'spectacular' designed to generate anti-semitism around the world.
No one knows what is going on in Gaza except Hamas, and they will be
lying, and to an extent the IDF, who may or may not be.
And the UN bases
its judgement on what HAMAS tells it.
There is very little debate that the IDF has committed atrocities on
civilians in Gaza over the last two years in contravention of international >> law and war-time convention.
Amongst the Librlal Left, no. Amongst people who understand the
duplicity of islamic terrorism, very much so.
None of this detracts from the Hamas-led terrorist murders of 7th October. >> Both sides are guilty, but the disproportionate use of force by the IDF and >> the Isreali state has taken it to another level.You really do not know.
You are simply accepting the claims of
terrorist who have every reason to lie, as fact.
Any attempt to diminish criticism by calling it antisemitic is cheap and
disrespectful of actual antisemitism.
What I am seeing in Britain is 100% anti-semitism.
Jews in fear of their
lives. Not Israelis. Not Zionists. Just ordinary quiet peace loving Jews.
According to HAMAS more civilians have been killed than lived in Gaza
to start with, Palestinians spit on Hamas. Everything they do is a 'spectacular' designed to generate anti-semitism around the world.
No one knows what is going on in Gaza except Hamas, and they will be
lying, and to an extent the IDF, who may or may not be. And the UN bases
its judgement on what HAMAS tells it.
On 2025-10-11 13:22, Chris wrote:
-2Genocide is violence that targets individuals because of their
membership of a group and aims at the destruction of a people.[a][1]
Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term, defined genocide as "the
destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group" by means such as "the >disintegration of [its] political and social institutions, of [its]
culture, language, national feelings, religion, and [its] economic >existence".[2] During the struggle to ratify the Genocide Convention, >powerful countries restricted Lemkin's definition to exclude their own >actions from being classified as genocide,[3][4] ultimately limiting it
to any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in
part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".[5] While there
are many scholarly definitions of genocide,[6] almost all international >bodies of law officially adjudicate the crime of genocide pursuant to
the Genocide Convention.[7]
Genocide has occurred throughout human history, even during prehistoric >times, but it is particularly likely in situations of imperial expansion
and power consolidation. It is associated with colonial empires and
settler colonies, as well as with both world wars and repressive
governments in the twentieth century. The colloquial understanding of >genocide is heavily influenced by the Holocaust as its archetype and is >conceived as innocent victims being targeted for their ethnic identity >rather than for any political reason.
Genocide is widely considered to be the epitome of human evil and is
often referred to as the "crime of crimes"; consequently, events are
often denounced as genocide.-+
(Wikipedia)
Hamas might like to commit Genocide on Israel, but they don't have the >means. Terrorism, certainly. Although there is no formal definition of >terrorism accepted internationally If you win, then what was terrorism
gets whitewashed.
Israel committed terrorism when attempting to create their state. Like
the bomb on the King David Hotel.
The point is that there are no independent witnesses in Gaza. Only HamasAnd the UN basesThat's clearly a lie.
its judgement on what HAMAS tells it.
On 2025-10-12, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
According to HAMAS more civilians have been killed than lived in Gaza
to start with, Palestinians spit on Hamas. Everything they do is a
'spectacular' designed to generate anti-semitism around the world.
No one knows what is going on in Gaza except Hamas, and they will be
lying, and to an extent the IDF, who may or may not be. And the UN bases
its judgement on what HAMAS tells it.
The generally accepted number (from the Gaza Health Administration) is
around 60,000 dead. The population of Gaza is well over a million,
probably nearer 2 million.
So your first claim is obviously false.
Besides Hamas (and remember that Hamas is not only an army, but also a political party elected to power and in charge of the civilian administration) many news organizations have hired citizens such as
nurses, doctors and schoolteachers as reporters. This daily reporting is readily disseminated.
Mr TNP, I like much of your personal and technical contributions, but
this is beneath you.
On 12/10/2025 22:24, Chris wrote:
The point is that there are no independent witnesses in Gaza. Only HamasAnd the UN basesThat's clearly a lie.
its judgement on what HAMAS tells it.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/10/2025 22:24, Chris wrote:
The point is that there are no independent witnesses in Gaza. Only HamasAnd the UN basesThat's clearly a lie.
its judgement on what HAMAS tells it.
That's also not true.
On 12/10/2025 22:24, Chris wrote:
The point is that there are no independent witnesses in Gaza. Only HamasAnd the UN basesThat's clearly a lie.
its judgement on what HAMAS tells it.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 12:22, Chris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:I am sorry, but the UN agencies have blotted their copybooks once too
On 10/10/2025 13:24, Chris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Yes, they are.
On 09/10/2025 20:55, Charlie Gibbs wrote:Sure. The IDF are *absolutely* the most trustworthy party here with no >>>>> history of extrajudicial activity, lies and murder. <eye roll>
On 2025-10-09, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>Now that's Greta Thunberg, the 100% dyed in the wool definitely not >>>>>> Yuman doom pixie.
We are being lied to shat upon and enslaved all the time we are not >>>>>>>> 'wealthy'And you call _me_ a doom pixie... :-)
And both sides of the political party like to keep it that way. >>>>>>>
The rumour is that she was recorded every minute of her time in Israeli >>>>>> hands and her claims of being maltreated have been quietly responded to >>>>>> with a 'STFU. We have the tapes. And can prove you are a lying fraud.' >>>>>
WTF? What planet are you on?!
Way better than e.g. HAMAS whose story of genocide is not backed up by >>>> anyone else
Except for the very Genocide Convention established after WWII following >>> the Nazi atrocities. The UNHCR commissioned report has indeed called out >>> Israel for committing genocide in gaza with direct reference to the
Convention.
https://www.thegenocidereport.org/dispatches/un-commission-of-inquiry-genocide-in-gaza/
often to be reliable either.
Even if that were true, you trust the IDF more? Sorry, but that's just laughable.
According to HAMAS more civilians have been killed than lived in Gaza
to start with,
I mean, no-one is taking solely Hamas's point of view.
Palestinians spit on Hamas. Everything they do is a
'spectacular' designed to generate anti-semitism around the world.
Yes, they are a terrorist organisation. There's no debate there.
No one knows what is going on in Gaza except Hamas, and they will be
lying, and to an extent the IDF, who may or may not be.
Both will be definitely lying.
Fortunately, there are plenty of third party reports available since the beginning of the war.
And the UN bases
its judgement on what HAMAS tells it.
That's clearly a lie.
There is very little debate that the IDF has committed atrocities on
civilians in Gaza over the last two years in contravention of international >>> law and war-time convention.
Amongst the Librlal Left, no. Amongst people who understand the
duplicity of islamic terrorism, very much so.
I see you're fine with the murder of women and children through the
attempted pursuit of extermination of an ideology which is both futile and illegal.
None of this detracts from the Hamas-led terrorist murders of 7th October. >>> Both sides are guilty, but the disproportionate use of force by the IDF and >>> the Isreali state has taken it to another level.You really do not know.
I know that there are plenty of credible reports supporting only one side's narrative. 1m Palestinians have been displaced multiple times. Journalists have been targeted and murdered. Food, water and medicines have been weaponised resulting in famine. Hospitals destroyed. Civilians targeted and killed in the 10s of thousands.
Whereas the IDF and the Israeli state has a decades long history of
excessive force with impunity both inside and outside of its borders. They attacked Qatar FFS. They have very little credibility especially under Netanyahu.
You are simply accepting the claims of
terrorist who have every reason to lie, as fact.
I'm accepting nothing from terrorists. Only the most blinkered or partisan will refuse to believe what can be seen with your own eyes.
The Israeli government have every reason to lie. Otherwise they would have
to admit to having committed atrocities.
Any attempt to diminish criticism by calling it antisemitic is cheap and >>> disrespectful of actual antisemitism.
What I am seeing in Britain is 100% anti-semitism.
What does that even mean? 100% of what?
Jews in fear of their
lives. Not Israelis. Not Zionists. Just ordinary quiet peace loving Jews.
That is unfortunately true.
On 2025-10-12, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
According to HAMAS more civilians have been killed than lived in Gaza
to start with, Palestinians spit on Hamas. Everything they do is a
'spectacular' designed to generate anti-semitism around the world.
No one knows what is going on in Gaza except Hamas, and they will be
lying, and to an extent the IDF, who may or may not be. And the UN bases
its judgement on what HAMAS tells it.
The generally accepted number (from the Gaza Health Administration) is
around 60,000 dead. The population of Gaza is well over a million,
probably nearer 2 million.
So your first claim is obviously false.
Besides Hamas (and remember that Hamas is not only an army, but also a political party elected to power and in charge of the civilian administration) many news organizations have hired citizens such as
nurses, doctors and schoolteachers as reporters. This daily reporting is readily disseminated.
Mr TNP, I like much of your personal and technical contributions, but
this is beneath you.
Absolutely.
The destruction of hospitals and murdering of journalists can not be justified. Nor the killing by famine, this is a war crime. No matter if
your enemy is evil.
On 2025-10-13 06:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/10/2025 22:24, Chris wrote:
The point is that there are no independent witnesses in Gaza. Only HamasAnd the UN basesThat's clearly a lie.
its judgement on what HAMAS tells it.
That's the fault of Israel, who prohibits foreign news media from
entering, and if they do, they risk being murdered by tank or shell or
air bomb.
On 13/10/2025 03:47, Lars Poulsen wrote:
On 2025-10-12, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:I suspect this is beyond you.
According to HAMAS more civilians have been killed than lived-a in Gaza
to start with, Palestinians spit on Hamas. Everything they do is a
'spectacular' designed to generate anti-semitism around the world.
No one knows what is going on in Gaza except Hamas, and they will be
lying, and to an extent the IDF, who may or may not be. And the UN bases >>> its judgement on what HAMAS tells it.
The generally accepted number (from the Gaza Health Administration) is
around 60,000 dead. The population of Gaza is well over a million,
probably nearer 2 million.
So your first claim is obviously false.
Besides Hamas (and remember that Hamas is not only an army, but also a
political party elected to power and in charge of the civilian
administration) many news organizations have hired citizens such as
nurses, doctors and schoolteachers as reporters. This daily reporting is
readily disseminated.
Mr TNP, I like much of your personal and technical contributions, but
this is beneath you.
From the very first rape at the festival, this has all been about
provoking a reaction against Israel and Jews. Just like 911.
And you swallowed it
The demographics of Israel, and the West, meant that the survival of
the Jewish state was always touch and go, but now I think it is
doomed. They should have accepted a two-state solution 40 years ago,
but due to settlement, I don't think that is a practical option any
more. Instead, they have spent 40 years kicking the can down the
road. Appeasing the Settlers. Hoping something would turn up.
On 2025-10-13, Pancho wrote:
The demographics of Israel, and the West, meant that the survival of
the Jewish state was always touch and go, but now I think it is
doomed. They should have accepted a two-state solution 40 years ago,
but due to settlement, I don't think that is a practical option any
more. Instead, they have spent 40 years kicking the can down the
road. Appeasing the Settlers. Hoping something would turn up.
Wasn't a two-state solution accepted at least twice by the State of
Israel? Or is this a matter of a divide between the state and its
people?
On 13/10/2025 18:31, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2025-10-13, Pancho wrote:It doesn't suit the 'victim' status of Hamas to accept a State to run.
The demographics of Israel, and the West, meant that the survival of
the Jewish state was always touch and go, but now I think it is
doomed. They should have accepted a two-state solution 40 years ago,
but due to settlement, I don't think that is a practical option any
more. Instead, they have spent 40 years kicking the can down the road.
Appeasing the Settlers. Hoping something would turn up.
Wasn't a two-state solution accepted at least twice by the State of
Israel? Or is this a matter of a divide between the state and its
people?
And when they did all its money went into killing Israelis.
I see now that Hamas has already started beating up on rival Islamic
groups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PhwLrFcwUY
Americans really thought NORAID was a genuine charity...
On 13/10/2025 07:33, Chris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Saying so doesn't make it a fact...
On 12/10/2025 22:24, Chris wrote:
The point is that there are no independent witnesses in Gaza. Only HamasAnd the UN basesThat's clearly a lie.
its judgement on what HAMAS tells it.
That's also not true.
On 13/10/2025 11:15, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Absolutely.
The destruction of hospitals and murdering of journalists can not be
justified. Nor the killing by famine, this is a war crime. No matter if
your enemy is evil.
If you have a cancer in a testicle, you take the testicle out.
Hamas use
human shields deliberately for propaganda reasons.
The IRA were the same back in the day. Shoot at the British Army from behind a crowd and hope the Army shoots back.
Also set up 'charities' to help 'victims' and use the money for Armalites. Americans really thought NORAID was a genuine charity...
It's all about 'spectaculars' and generating negative propaganda and
playing the victim.
Cynical use of innocent lives to create a narrative of victimhood.
And 'Librals' believe in it...
On 13/10/2025 18:31, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2025-10-13, Pancho wrote:It doesn't suit the 'victim' status of Hamas to accept a State to run.
The demographics of Israel, and the West, meant that the survival of
the Jewish state was always touch and go, but now I think it is
doomed. They should have accepted a two-state solution 40 years ago,
but due to settlement, I don't think that is a practical option any
more. Instead, they have spent 40 years kicking the can down the
road. Appeasing the Settlers. Hoping something would turn up.
Wasn't a two-state solution accepted at least twice by the State of
Israel? Or is this a matter of a divide between the state and its
people?
And when they did all its money went into killing Israelis.
I see now that Hamas has already started beating up on rival Islamic groups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PhwLrFcwUY
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 13/10/2025 11:15, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Absolutely.
The destruction of hospitals and murdering of journalists can not be
justified. Nor the killing by famine, this is a war crime. No matter if
your enemy is evil.
If you have a cancer in a testicle, you take the testicle out.
Right. You don't shoot the patient in the head.
Hamas use
human shields deliberately for propaganda reasons.
A cowardly act doesn't excuse war crimes. Not a single video from the IDF after attacking hospitals shows categorical evidence in support of their claims. They couldn't even state it.
The IRA were the same back in the day. Shoot at the British Army from
behind a crowd and hope the Army shoots back.
They were also a terrorist organisation. Your point?
On 2025-10-13, Pancho wrote:
The demographics of Israel, and the West, meant that the survival of
the Jewish state was always touch and go, but now I think it is
doomed. They should have accepted a two-state solution 40 years ago,
but due to settlement, I don't think that is a practical option any
more. Instead, they have spent 40 years kicking the can down the
road. Appeasing the Settlers. Hoping something would turn up.
Wasn't a two-state solution accepted at least twice by the State of
Israel? Or is this a matter of a divide between the state and its
people?
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 19:05:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/10/2025 18:31, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2025-10-13, Pancho wrote:It doesn't suit the 'victim' status of Hamas to accept a State to run.
The demographics of Israel, and the West, meant that the survival of
the Jewish state was always touch and go, but now I think it is
doomed. They should have accepted a two-state solution 40 years ago,
but due to settlement, I don't think that is a practical option any
more. Instead, they have spent 40 years kicking the can down the road. >>>> Appeasing the Settlers. Hoping something would turn up.
Wasn't a two-state solution accepted at least twice by the State of
Israel? Or is this a matter of a divide between the state and its
people?
And when they did all its money went into killing Israelis.
I see now that Hamas has already started beating up on rival Islamic
groups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PhwLrFcwUY
No problem. Tony Blair will fix everything up.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 13/10/2025 11:15, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Absolutely.
The destruction of hospitals and murdering of journalists can not be
justified. Nor the killing by famine, this is a war crime. No matter if
your enemy is evil.
If you have a cancer in a testicle, you take the testicle out.
Right. You don't shoot the patient in the head.
Hamas use
human shields deliberately for propaganda reasons.
A cowardly act doesn't excuse war crimes. Not a single video from the IDF after attacking hospitals shows categorical evidence in support of their claims. They couldn't even state it.
The IRA were the same back in the day. Shoot at the British Army from
behind a crowd and hope the Army shoots back.
They were also a terrorist organisation. Your point?
Also set up 'charities' to help 'victims' and use the money for Armalites. >> Americans really thought NORAID was a genuine charity...
It's all about 'spectaculars' and generating negative propaganda and
playing the victim.
Cynical use of innocent lives to create a narrative of victimhood.
And 'Librals' believe in it...
You reducing this complex issue affecting millions of lives to identity politics is desperate.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 13/10/2025 18:31, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2025-10-13, Pancho wrote:It doesn't suit the 'victim' status of Hamas to accept a State to run.
The demographics of Israel, and the West, meant that the survival of
the Jewish state was always touch and go, but now I think it is
doomed. They should have accepted a two-state solution 40 years ago,
but due to settlement, I don't think that is a practical option any
more. Instead, they have spent 40 years kicking the can down the
road. Appeasing the Settlers. Hoping something would turn up.
Wasn't a two-state solution accepted at least twice by the State of
Israel? Or is this a matter of a divide between the state and its
people?
And when they did all its money went into killing Israelis.
I see now that Hamas has already started beating up on rival Islamic groups >>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PhwLrFcwUY
Why can't you get over the fact that Hamas is not the palestinian people
nor representatives of a palestinian state? They are terrorists that want
the destruction of Israel. The palestinians want to live in peace with self-determination and without oppression.
On 10/13/25 18:31, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2025-10-13, Pancho wrote:
The demographics of Israel, and the West, meant that the survival of
the Jewish state was always touch and go, but now I think it is
doomed. They should have accepted a two-state solution 40 years ago,
but due to settlement, I don't think that is a practical option any
more. Instead, they have spent 40 years kicking the can down the
road. Appeasing the Settlers. Hoping something would turn up.
Wasn't a two-state solution accepted at least twice by the State of
Israel? Or is this a matter of a divide between the state and its
people?
I don't think a two-state solution was ever agreed.
It certainly didn't occur. With settlements, Israel has mingled the
two potential states into one.
On 2025-10-14, Pancho wrote:
On 10/13/25 18:31, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2025-10-13, Pancho wrote:
The demographics of Israel, and the West, meant that the survival of
the Jewish state was always touch and go, but now I think it is
doomed. They should have accepted a two-state solution 40 years ago,
but due to settlement, I don't think that is a practical option any
more. Instead, they have spent 40 years kicking the can down the
road. Appeasing the Settlers. Hoping something would turn up.
Wasn't a two-state solution accepted at least twice by the State of
Israel? Or is this a matter of a divide between the state and its
people?
I don't think a two-state solution was ever agreed.
It has been, at least once by the two parties:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Bill_Clinton%2C_Yitzhak_Rabin%2C_Yasser_Arafat_at_the_White_House_1993-09-13.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords
Besides this, I think the creation of what became the State of Israel
arised out of the decision to foster a two-state solution at the UN
level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
(And I distinctly remember it being said that, when discussing names for
the state that ended up as "[State of] Israel", "Palestine" was turned
down because there was the expectation that it'd be the name of the Palestinian state.)
It certainly didn't occur. With settlements, Israel has mingled the
two potential states into one.
Yeah, the situation with settlements has made this harder to solve (in
the sense of adhering to the two-state plans). I wish the only point of contention were East Jerusalem...
Ultimately you have an irresolvable problem in the Jews Christians and Muslims all regard that part if the world as theirs and sacred to them.
the IDFHamas use
human shields deliberately for propaganda reasons.
A cowardly act doesn't excuse war crimes. Not a single video from
theirafter attacking hospitals shows categorical evidence in support of
fromclaims. They couldn't even state it.
The IRA were the same back in the day. Shoot at the British Army
Armalites.behind a crowd and hope the Army shoots back.
They were also a terrorist organisation. Your point?
Also set up 'charities' to help 'victims' and use the money for
identityAmericans really thought NORAID was a genuine charity...
It's all about 'spectaculars' and generating negative propaganda and
playing the victim.
Cynical use of innocent lives to create a narrative of victimhood.
And 'Librals' believe in it...
You reducing this complex issue affecting millions of lives to
politics is desperate.I didnt do that. The Librals did.
Bleeding hearts need victims that Hamas are only too happy to supplyare
I see now the IDF has gone there is a power vacuum and the warlords
quietly killing each other without a comment from the:Libral Press.
On 2025-10-14, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Ultimately you have an irresolvable problem in the Jews Christians and
Muslims all regard that part if the world as theirs and sacred to them.
Didn't you hear? Trump solved all that on the weekend. Just ask him.
On 14/10/2025 19:12, Charlie Gibbs wrote:and
On 2025-10-14, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Ultimately you have an irresolvable problem in the Jews Christians
them.Muslims all regard that part if the world as theirs and sacred to
him.
Didn't you hear? Trump solved all that on the weekend. Just ask
...whatever...
