| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 16:12:10 |
| Calls: | 629 |
| Files: | 1,186 |
| D/L today: |
18 files (29,890K bytes) |
| Messages: | 166,545 |
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/
On 2025-10-01 14:44, Rich wrote:
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/
Interesting.
The farther a planet is from the Sun, the slower the orbit is. So close
to the Sun it would go very fast.
What would happen if we fire something from the Earth in opposite
direction of Earth's orbit. I understand it would not hold in orbit but start falling towards the Sun, accelerating because of the fall. My
guess is, this acceleration means it would then reach another stable
orbit, closer to the Sun.
This is not explained in the text (the video glances on it). What it
says is rCLAnything short of that just puts the spacecraft in an
elliptical orbit that never hits the star.rCY
On 2025-10-01 14:44, Rich wrote:https://xkcd.com/1356/
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/
Interesting.
The farther a planet is from the Sun, the slower the orbit is. So close
to the Sun it would go very fast.
What would happen if we fire something from the Earth in opposite
direction of Earth's orbit. I understand it would not hold in orbit but start falling towards the Sun, accelerating because of the fall. My
guess is, this acceleration means it would then reach another stable
orbit, closer to the Sun. This is not explained in the text (the video glances on it). What it says is |o-C-LAnything short of that just puts the> spacecraft in an elliptical orbit that never hits the star.|o-C-
I have no idea how long that would take, but it wouldn't
be a problem for Earth anymore...unless we missed Venus, but
got close enough for it to throw the payload Heaven knows
where.
In comp.os.linux.misc Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-10-01 14:44, Rich wrote:
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/
Interesting.
The farther a planet is from the Sun, the slower the orbit is. So close
to the Sun it would go very fast.
What would happen if we fire something from the Earth in opposite
direction of Earth's orbit. I understand it would not hold in orbit but
start falling towards the Sun, accelerating because of the fall. My
guess is, this acceleration means it would then reach another stable
orbit, closer to the Sun.
Unless the something loses all of its angular velocity [1] then yes, it
will end up in some other orbital path around the sun.
This is not explained in the text (the video glances on it). What it
says is rCLAnything short of that just puts the spacecraft in an
elliptical orbit that never hits the star.rCY
Well, that quote *is* the explanation, but that explanation does
presume a certian understanding of orbital mechanics that not every
reader will have.
The problem here becomes the fact that if we decelerate the object
sufficient to make it fall towards the sun, but insufficient to
actually hit the sun, it is now very likely to enter into a "comet like orbit" where the orbital ellipse is very elongated rather than being
closer to circular. If that elongated ellipse is such that it
intersects Earth's orbit (as the object would have begun at Earth's
orbit, it has a higher likelyood of intersecting than any random bit of
space debris) then we have a situation where, at some point in the
future, it may intersect with Earth's orbit while Earth is occupying
the same space at the same time, and we now have a risk of our own radioactive asteroid "dirty bomb" returning home, if the object was originally a radioactive waste disposal container.
[1] Due to the diameter of the sun, there is a minimum angular velocity threshold below which the object would impact some portion of the sun.
I don't know the number (but it is way less than the earth's angular velocity) and I've no interest in going through the calculations to
determine the minimum angular velocity that still results in a "hit" of
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 2025-10-02 03:03, Rich wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-10-01 14:44, Rich wrote:
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/
Interesting.
The farther a planet is from the Sun, the slower the orbit is. So close
to the Sun it would go very fast.
What would happen if we fire something from the Earth in opposite
direction of Earth's orbit. I understand it would not hold in orbit but
start falling towards the Sun, accelerating because of the fall. My
guess is, this acceleration means it would then reach another stable
orbit, closer to the Sun.
Unless the something loses all of its angular velocity [1] then yes, it
will end up in some other orbital path around the sun.
This is not explained in the text (the video glances on it). What it
says is rCLAnything short of that just puts the spacecraft in an
elliptical orbit that never hits the star.rCY
Well, that quote *is* the explanation, but that explanation does
presume a certian understanding of orbital mechanics that not every
reader will have.
I understand when explained, but I did not know what would happen when trying to hit the sun.
The problem here becomes the fact that if we decelerate the object
sufficient to make it fall towards the sun, but insufficient to
actually hit the sun, it is now very likely to enter into a "comet like
orbit" where the orbital ellipse is very elongated rather than being
closer to circular. If that elongated ellipse is such that it
intersects Earth's orbit (as the object would have begun at Earth's
orbit, it has a higher likelyood of intersecting than any random bit of
space debris) then we have a situation where, at some point in the
future, it may intersect with Earth's orbit while Earth is occupying
the same space at the same time, and we now have a risk of our own
radioactive asteroid "dirty bomb" returning home, if the object was
originally a radioactive waste disposal container.
LOL (not).
[1] Due to the diameter of the sun, there is a minimum angular velocity
threshold below which the object would impact some portion of the sun.
I don't know the number (but it is way less than the earth's angular
velocity) and I've no interest in going through the calculations to
determine the minimum angular velocity that still results in a "hit" of
the sun.
braking with the solar wind, perhaps.
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-10-02 03:03, Rich wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-10-01 14:44, Rich wrote:
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/
Interesting.
The farther a planet is from the Sun, the slower the orbit is. So close >>>> to the Sun it would go very fast.
What would happen if we fire something from the Earth in opposite
direction of Earth's orbit. I understand it would not hold in orbit but >>>> start falling towards the Sun, accelerating because of the fall. My
guess is, this acceleration means it would then reach another stable
orbit, closer to the Sun.
Unless the something loses all of its angular velocity [1] then yes, it
will end up in some other orbital path around the sun.
This is not explained in the text (the video glances on it). What it
says is rCLAnything short of that just puts the spacecraft in an
elliptical orbit that never hits the star.rCY
Well, that quote *is* the explanation, but that explanation does
presume a certian understanding of orbital mechanics that not every
reader will have.
I understand when explained, but I did not know what would happen when
trying to hit the sun.
It is an aspect that is quite unintuitive vs. how we experience forces
and acceleration ourselves.
The problem here becomes the fact that if we decelerate the object
sufficient to make it fall towards the sun, but insufficient to
actually hit the sun, it is now very likely to enter into a "comet like
orbit" where the orbital ellipse is very elongated rather than being
closer to circular. If that elongated ellipse is such that it
intersects Earth's orbit (as the object would have begun at Earth's
orbit, it has a higher likelyood of intersecting than any random bit of
space debris) then we have a situation where, at some point in the
future, it may intersect with Earth's orbit while Earth is occupying
the same space at the same time, and we now have a risk of our own
radioactive asteroid "dirty bomb" returning home, if the object was
originally a radioactive waste disposal container.
LOL (not).
???
[1] Due to the diameter of the sun, there is a minimum angular velocity
threshold below which the object would impact some portion of the sun.
I don't know the number (but it is way less than the earth's angular
velocity) and I've no interest in going through the calculations to
determine the minimum angular velocity that still results in a "hit" of
the sun.
braking with the solar wind, perhaps.
One could, possibly, use the solar wind as a braking force, but unless
one deploys some form of "solar wind sail" the net force on a small
object is going to be negligible compared to the objects mass.
My point with the footnote is that to hit the sun, one has a 1391400km diameter target that one has to hit. If one could launch a
container and exactly zero out the orbital velocity obtained from
Earth, the object should (ignoring gravity effects from other planets)
fall straight at and hit dead center upon the sun.
Any net positive (or negative) orbital velocity on the object means
that the impact point on the sun moves from the exact center towards an
edge. The radius from center to edge is half the diameter, so the hit
point can move up to 695700km before it "just grazes" (tangent) the
edge of the sun. There is some orbital velocity amount above which the object misses (and goes into orbit) and below which it impacts some
portion of the sun. That value is the value that one has to decelerate
the object below in order to be sure of a hit instead of a miss. So
one does not have to decelerate to "exactly zero" (which is implied by
the webpage and video) but instead one has to decelerate below
abs(episilon) where episilon is that "minimum amount" value.
On 2025-10-02 20:47, Rich wrote:
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-10-02 03:03, Rich wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
wrote:
On 2025-10-01 14:44, Rich wrote:
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/
Interesting.
The farther a planet is from the Sun, the slower the orbit
is. So close to the Sun it would go very fast.
What would happen if we fire something from the Earth in
opposite direction of Earth's orbit. I understand it would
not hold in orbit but start falling towards the Sun,
accelerating because of the fall. My guess is, this
acceleration means it would then reach another stable orbit,
closer to the Sun.
Unless the something loses all of its angular velocity [1]
then yes, it will end up in some other orbital path around the
sun.
This is not explained in the text (the video glances on
it). What it says is rCLAnything short of that just puts the
spacecraft in an elliptical orbit that never hits the star.rCY
Well, that quote *is* the explanation, but that explanation
does presume a certian understanding of orbital mechanics that
not every reader will have.
I understand when explained, but I did not know what would
happen when trying to hit the sun.
It is an aspect that is quite unintuitive vs. how we experience
forces and acceleration ourselves.
At Star Trek they do it, with dead people, don't they?
I laugh at the idea of throwing garbage to the Sun, but fear some fool actually mandating doing it.
On 2025-10-02 20:47, Rich wrote:
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-10-02 03:03, Rich wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-10-01 14:44, Rich wrote:
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/
Interesting.
The farther a planet is from the Sun, the slower the orbit is. So close >>>>> to the Sun it would go very fast.
What would happen if we fire something from the Earth in opposite
direction of Earth's orbit. I understand it would not hold in orbit but >>>>> start falling towards the Sun, accelerating because of the fall. My
guess is, this acceleration means it would then reach another stable >>>>> orbit, closer to the Sun.
Unless the something loses all of its angular velocity [1] then yes, it >>>> will end up in some other orbital path around the sun.
This is not explained in the text (the video glances on it). What it >>>>> says is rCLAnything short of that just puts the spacecraft in an
elliptical orbit that never hits the star.rCY
Well, that quote *is* the explanation, but that explanation does
presume a certian understanding of orbital mechanics that not every
reader will have.
I understand when explained, but I did not know what would happen when
trying to hit the sun.
It is an aspect that is quite unintuitive vs. how we experience forces
and acceleration ourselves.
At Star Trek they do it, with dead people, don't they?
The problem here becomes the fact that if we decelerate the object
sufficient to make it fall towards the sun, but insufficient to
actually hit the sun, it is now very likely to enter into a "comet like >>>> orbit" where the orbital ellipse is very elongated rather than being
closer to circular. If that elongated ellipse is such that it
intersects Earth's orbit (as the object would have begun at Earth's
orbit, it has a higher likelyood of intersecting than any random bit of >>>> space debris) then we have a situation where, at some point in the
future, it may intersect with Earth's orbit while Earth is occupying
the same space at the same time, and we now have a risk of our own
radioactive asteroid "dirty bomb" returning home, if the object was
originally a radioactive waste disposal container.
LOL (not).
???
I laugh at the idea of throwing garbage to the Sun, but fear some fool actually mandating doing it.
[1] Due to the diameter of the sun, there is a minimum angular velocity >>>> threshold below which the object would impact some portion of the sun. >>>> I don't know the number (but it is way less than the earth's angular
velocity) and I've no interest in going through the calculations to
determine the minimum angular velocity that still results in a "hit" of >>>> the sun.
braking with the solar wind, perhaps.
One could, possibly, use the solar wind as a braking force, but unless
one deploys some form of "solar wind sail" the net force on a small
object is going to be negligible compared to the objects mass.
My point with the footnote is that to hit the sun, one has a 1391400km
diameter target that one has to hit. If one could launch a
container and exactly zero out the orbital velocity obtained from
Earth, the object should (ignoring gravity effects from other planets)
fall straight at and hit dead center upon the sun.
Yes. But that's a lot wasted energy to do it.
Any net positive (or negative) orbital velocity on the object means
that the impact point on the sun moves from the exact center towards an
edge. The radius from center to edge is half the diameter, so the hit
point can move up to 695700km before it "just grazes" (tangent) the
edge of the sun. There is some orbital velocity amount above which the
object misses (and goes into orbit) and below which it impacts some
portion of the sun. That value is the value that one has to decelerate
the object below in order to be sure of a hit instead of a miss. So
one does not have to decelerate to "exactly zero" (which is implied by
the webpage and video) but instead one has to decelerate below
abs(episilon) where episilon is that "minimum amount" value.
Interesting.
On 2025-10-02 21:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-10-02 20:47, Rich wrote:At Battlestar Galactica they also do it, it is a crucial part of the
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-10-02 03:03, Rich wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
wrote:
On 2025-10-01 14:44, Rich wrote:
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/
Interesting.
The farther a planet is from the Sun, the slower the orbit
is. So close to the Sun it would go very fast.
What would happen if we fire something from the Earth in
opposite direction of Earth's orbit. I understand it would
not hold in orbit but start falling towards the Sun,
accelerating because of the fall. My guess is, this
acceleration means it would then reach another stable orbit,
closer to the Sun.
Unless the something loses all of its angular velocity [1]
then yes, it will end up in some other orbital path around the
sun.
This is not explained in the text (the video glances on
it). What it says is rCLAnything short of that just puts the
spacecraft in an elliptical orbit that never hits the star.rCY
Well, that quote *is* the explanation, but that explanation
does presume a certian understanding of orbital mechanics that
not every reader will have.
I understand when explained, but I did not know what would
happen when trying to hit the sun.
It is an aspect that is quite unintuitive vs. how we experience
forces and acceleration ourselves.
At Star Trek they do it, with dead people, don't they?
end. Arguably, the masses are powered.
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 27/09/2025 09:45, Nuno Silva wrote:
The problem is that it isn'tIn comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> 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.
(We're now at "blame proportional representation for being
representative"!?)
In that government the Greens as a small minority were necessary for a
more popular party to govern,. That gave them disproportionate power
over the government.
It was a very old design of reactor indeedOh. So now you tell me to trust other designs, that they will be
It simply had not been designed for a once in a thousand years tsunami. >>>
"safe"? That _nothing_ bad will ever happen?
This really starts looking like a blatant misrepresentation of facts,
IIRC the placement of generators had been raised several times years
before, both as a general caution, and specifically regarding Fukushima
Daiichi. This isn't a failure to account to something in the design
that hadn't been considered before an accident, it might be closer to
STS-107 (disintegration of OV-102 Columbia) in that *despite* concerns,
nothing was done.
https://enwp.org/Fukushima_Daiichi#Warnings_and_design_critique
You can say whatever you want about the age of the initial plant design
or the reactor design itself. But it doesn't really apply much in a
situation where part of that could have been changed, possibly
completely avoiding the *disaster*.
I repeat, at te time that reactor was designed, the detailed risk
analysius of tsunamis had never been done, But despite that, the
reactor failed safe and the secondary containment performed as
designed to limit the damage to the reactor only.
Your thesis relies on two blatant lies.
On 2025-09-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
In that government the Greens as a small minority were necessary for a
more popular party to govern,. That gave them disproportionate power
over the government.
Ok, this is something else that has indeed been brewing in the
far-right, the idea that only something like first-past-the-post is legitimate, and I've seen this go in hand with blatant misunderstandings
of how proportionally representative democracy works.
For one thing, I've see these comments applied to *governments* in
countries where voters do not elect governments, not even the head of government.
In short, what you're missing here is that Greens + the more popular
party is *more* representative than just that more popular party.
Maybe you'll see the problem once you stop considering the greens like a discardable party and start considering them as another party?
On 2025-09-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/2025 09:45, Nuno Silva wrote:
The problem is that it isn'tIn comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> 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.
(We're now at "blame proportional representation for being
representative"!?)
In that government the Greens as a small minority were necessary for a
more popular party to govern,. That gave them disproportionate power
over the government.
Ok, this is something else that has indeed been brewing in the
far-right, the idea that only something like first-past-the-post is legitimate, and I've seen this go in hand with blatant misunderstandings
of how proportionally representative democracy works.
For one thing, I've see these comments applied to *governments* in
countries where voters do not elect governments, not even the head of government.
In short, what you're missing here is that Greens + the more popular
party is *more* representative than just that more popular party.
Maybe you'll see the problem once you stop considering the greens like a discardable party and start considering them as another party?
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.
Your fantasy that I am in anyway 'far right'
It is charactersistc of the Left to see right wing conspiracies where
there are none.
Le 03-10-2025, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> a |-crit-a:
Your fantasy that I am in anyway 'far right'
I really believed you were far right. Every one of your political
messages spread far right ideas. If you are not far right, the imitation
is pretty good. It's like some people who said that Musk didn't do a
nazi salute: if he didn't, the imitation was perfect.
It is charactersistc of the Left to see right wing conspiracies where
there are none.
You see?
It's like some people who said that Musk didn't do a nazi salute: if
he didn't, the imitation was perfect.
Le 03-10-2025, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> a |-crit-a:
Your fantasy that I am in anyway 'far right'
I really believed you were far right. Every one of your political
messages spread far right ideas. If you are not far right, the imitation
is pretty good. It's like some people who said that Musk didn't do a
nazi salute: if he didn't, the imitation was perfect.
It is charactersitic of the Left to see right wing conspiracies where
there are none.
You see?
-a-aThe Natch has never heard of Project 2025More lies
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.
Because he is simply wrong. I trust the authorities that prohibit going there, not him.
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.
In <h4ldrlx2r5.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> Carlos E.R.:
[Snip ...]
Because he is simply wrong. I trust the authorities that prohibit going
there, not him.
+1
DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!
He's a bit late joining other candidates (RIP) for the 2023 Darwin Awards:
<Quote>
Russian Soldiers Struck With Radiation Sickness After Digging by Chernobyl ...
May 01, 2023
,,,
Other residents indicated that the soldiers knew the risks posed by the area, but opted to go through with their plans due to what the residents claimed to be
their incompetence.
</Quote>
https://www.newsweek.com/ russian-soldiers-struck-radiation-sickness-after-digging-chernobyl-1797649
Well, DUH ...
Just. Phricking. Brilliant.
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.
In <h4ldrlx2r5.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> Carlos E.R.:
[Snip ...]
Because he is simply wrong. I trust the authorities that prohibit going
there, not him.
+1
DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!
He's a bit late joining other candidates (RIP) for the 2023 Darwin Awards:
<Quote>
Russian Soldiers Struck With Radiation Sickness After Digging by Chernobyl
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 10/6/25 21:56, Harold Stevens wrote:
In <h4ldrlx2r5.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> Carlos E.R.:
[Snip ...]
Because he is simply wrong. I trust the authorities that prohibit going
there, not him.
+1
DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!
He's a bit late joining other candidates (RIP) for the 2023 Darwin
Awards:
<Quote>
Russian Soldiers Struck With Radiation Sickness After Digging by
Chernobyl
You have to be a bit careful about wartime stories, propaganda and whatnot.
A more accurate indicator of the risk in the Chernobyl region might be
the wildlife. There have been some consequences, shorter lifespans, evolution to become cancer tolerant. The impact doesn't seem to have
been terrible.
It is very hard to see how slow, long term release of a small amount of buried nuclear waste would dominate natural background radioactivity,
let alone cause a catastrophic effect.
Personally, I wouldn't bury transuranic waste, or stuff containing a significant proportion of transuranics. I would store them as they may
be useful in future.
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.
A more accurate indicator of the risk in the Chernobyl region might be
the wildlife. There have been some consequences, shorter lifespans, evolution to become cancer tolerant. The impact doesn't seem to have
been terrible.
On 07/10/2025 10:46, Pancho wrote:
On 10/6/25 21:56, Harold Stevens wrote:
In <h4ldrlx2r5.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> Carlos E.R.:
Personally, I wouldn't bury transuranic waste, or stuff containing aTransuranics don't last. It's that simple. That's why they don't exist naturally.
significant proportion of transuranics. I would store them as they may
be useful in future.
On 2025-10-07 12:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/10/2025 10:46, Pancho wrote:
On 10/6/25 21:56, Harold Stevens wrote:
In <h4ldrlx2r5.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> Carlos E.R.:
...
Personally, I wouldn't bury transuranic waste, or stuff containing aTransuranics don't last. It's that simple. That's why they don't exist
significant proportion of transuranics. I would store them as they
may be useful in future.
naturally.
Effa Short-to-Medium-Lived Isotopes (High initial radioactivity, faster decay)
Isotope-a-a-a Half-life-a-a-a Notes
Iodine-131-a-a-a ~8 days-a-a-a Major concern in early fallout, accumulates in
thyroid.
Cesium-137-a-a-a ~30 years-a-a-a Highly soluble, spreads easily, major long- term concern.
Strontium-90-a-a-a ~29 years-a-a-a Chemically similar to calcium, can accumulate in bones.
Tritium (H-3)-a-a-a ~12.3 years-a-a-a Found in water; relatively low-energy beta emitter.
Effi Long-Lived Isotopes (Lower initial radiation, but persist for millennia) Isotope-a-a-a Half-life-a-a-a Notes
Plutonium-239-a-a-a ~24,100 years-a-a-a Alpha emitter; extremely toxic if inhaled or ingested.
Neptunium-237-a-a-a ~2.14 million years-a-a-a Found in spent fuel, concern for
long-term storage.
Technetium-99-a-a-a ~211,000 years-a-a-a Mobile in groundwater; hard to contain over long times.
Uranium-238
On 10/7/25 12:05, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-10-07 12:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/10/2025 10:46, Pancho wrote:
On 10/6/25 21:56, Harold Stevens wrote:
In <h4ldrlx2r5.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> Carlos E.R.:
...
Personally, I wouldn't bury transuranic waste, or stuff containing aTransuranics don't last. It's that simple. That's why they don't
significant proportion of transuranics. I would store them as they
may be useful in future.
exist naturally.
Effa Short-to-Medium-Lived Isotopes (High initial radioactivity, faster
decay)
Isotope-a-a-a Half-life-a-a-a Notes
Iodine-131-a-a-a ~8 days-a-a-a Major concern in early fallout, accumulates >> in thyroid.
Cesium-137-a-a-a ~30 years-a-a-a Highly soluble, spreads easily, major long-
term concern.
Strontium-90-a-a-a ~29 years-a-a-a Chemically similar to calcium, can
accumulate in bones.
Tritium (H-3)-a-a-a ~12.3 years-a-a-a Found in water; relatively low-energy >> beta emitter.
Effi Long-Lived Isotopes (Lower initial radiation, but persist for
millennia)
Isotope-a-a-a Half-life-a-a-a Notes
Plutonium-239-a-a-a ~24,100 years-a-a-a Alpha emitter; extremely toxic if >> inhaled or ingested.
Neptunium-237-a-a-a ~2.14 million years-a-a-a Found in spent fuel, concern >> for long-term storage.
Technetium-99-a-a-a ~211,000 years-a-a-a Mobile in groundwater; hard to
contain over long times.
Uranium-238
Yes, Plutonium-239 having a half-life of ~24,100 years didn't fit with
the graphs in the url Harold posted. Also, the bumps in the curve didn't match plutonium having a single half-life.
The graphs were of the nuclear core waste from 1 ton of uranium. It surprised me that plutonium was the highest radioactivity emitter
(decays per second). This didn't fit with having a much longer half-life than caesium. Basically, you would need-a 800 times more plutonium atoms than caesium to produce the same number of decays. So, a potential explanation is that the initial high level of plutonium radiation is produced by Pu-238 (half-life 87.7years).
I'm still having a lot of trouble understanding how the plutonium
radiation contribution-a is greater than the caesium.
It is a pity the posted url didn't explain it better.
On 10/7/25 12:05, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-10-07 12:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/10/2025 10:46, Pancho wrote:
On 10/6/25 21:56, Harold Stevens wrote:
In <h4ldrlx2r5.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> Carlos E.R.:
...
Personally, I wouldn't bury transuranic waste, or stuff containing aTransuranics don't last. It's that simple. That's why they don't
significant proportion of transuranics. I would store them as they
may be useful in future.
exist naturally.
Effa Short-to-Medium-Lived Isotopes (High initial radioactivity, faster
decay)
Isotope-a-a-a Half-life-a-a-a Notes
Iodine-131-a-a-a ~8 days-a-a-a Major concern in early fallout, accumulates >> in thyroid.
Cesium-137-a-a-a ~30 years-a-a-a Highly soluble, spreads easily, major long-
term concern.
Strontium-90-a-a-a ~29 years-a-a-a Chemically similar to calcium, can
accumulate in bones.
Tritium (H-3)-a-a-a ~12.3 years-a-a-a Found in water; relatively low-energy >> beta emitter.
Effi Long-Lived Isotopes (Lower initial radiation, but persist for
millennia)
Isotope-a-a-a Half-life-a-a-a Notes
Plutonium-239-a-a-a ~24,100 years-a-a-a Alpha emitter; extremely toxic if >> inhaled or ingested.
Neptunium-237-a-a-a ~2.14 million years-a-a-a Found in spent fuel, concern >> for long-term storage.
Technetium-99-a-a-a ~211,000 years-a-a-a Mobile in groundwater; hard to
contain over long times.
Uranium-238
Yes, Plutonium-239 having a half-life of ~24,100 years didn't fit with
the graphs in the url Harold posted. Also, the bumps in the curve didn't match plutonium having a single half-life.
The graphs were of the nuclear core waste from 1 ton of uranium. It surprised me that plutonium was the highest radioactivity emitter
(decays per second). This didn't fit with having a much longer half-life than caesium. Basically, you would need-a 800 times more plutonium atoms than caesium to produce the same number of decays. So, a potential explanation is that the initial high level of plutonium radiation is produced by Pu-238 (half-life 87.7years).
I'm still having a lot of trouble understanding how the plutonium
radiation contribution-a is greater than the caesium.
It is a pity the posted url didn't explain it better.--
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, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
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.
Richard Feynman, in his book "What Do You Care What Other People Think?", paints an equally bleak picture, while solving several problems that
some people apparently didn't want solved.
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... :-)
IS interesting that the lost shuttles were all done
-a in by ICE/cold. It's something nobody, esp in Florida,
-a really thinks about.
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 10/10/2025 07:23, c186282 wrote:
IS interesting that the lost shuttles were all done
-a in by ICE/cold. It's something nobody, esp in Florida,
-a really thinks about.
No indeed. In WWII many people were caught out by climates different
from the one their kit was developed in.
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
On 10/10/2025 07:23, c186282 wrote:
IS interesting that the lost shuttles were all done
-a in by ICE/cold. It's something nobody, esp in Florida,
-a really thinks about.
No indeed. In WWII many people were caught out by climates different
from the one their kit was developed in.
Clear desert skies in the USA do not equate to the overcast multiple
layers of clag in a wet and windy Europe.
British grass does not generate dust like a desert breeze.
And neither equate to the sub zero and beyond operations up towards
the arctic circle.
Nor yet do wooden aeroplanes do well in 100% humidity and 30-#C
temperatures found in SE Asia...
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.
On 2025-10-11 13:22, Chris wrote:
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: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...-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.' >>>>
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.
Also, accusing Hamas of Genocide doesn't hold. It doesn't fit the definition.
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 10/11/25 08:46, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-10-11 13:22, Chris wrote:
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 >>>>>> 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...-a :-)
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.'
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.
Also, accusing Hamas of Genocide doesn't hold. It doesn't fit the
definition.
-a-a Ummm ... basically, YES. They used their whole
-a-a population as "human shields" - even babies.
-a-a Fanatics.
-a-a Alas, saw a photo today, Hamas soldier surrounded
-a-a by smiling admiring little kids.
-a NEXT gen fanatics.
-a NOTHING is ever over in the middle-east,
-a grudges and blood wars spanning thousands
-a of years.
-a Pretty horrible - but that's how it is.
-a "You raped Goliath's Sister !!! You must
-a die horribly !!!"
-a That's how it is. No slack, no forgiveness.
On 10/11/25 08:46, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-10-11 13:22, Chris wrote:
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 >>>>>> 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...-a :-)
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.'
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.
Also, accusing Hamas of Genocide doesn't hold. It doesn't fit the
definition.
-a-a Ummm ... basically, YES. They used their whole
-a-a population as "human shields" - even babies.
-a-a Fanatics.
-a-a Alas, saw a photo today, Hamas soldier surrounded
-a-a by smiling admiring little kids.
-a NEXT gen fanatics.
-a NOTHING is ever over in the middle-east,
-a grudges and blood wars spanning thousands
-a of years.
-a Pretty horrible - but that's how it is.
-a "You raped Goliath's Sister !!! You must
-a die horribly !!!"
-a That's how it is. No slack, no forgiveness.
The point is that Hamas do not *want* peace. They want genocide and the destruction of Israel.
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 2025-10-13 11:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The point is that Hamas do not *want* peace. They want genocide and
the destruction of Israel.
Would you want differently, in their boots?
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 11:06, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-10-13 11:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Of course. It's completely stupid and barbaric.
The point is that Hamas do not *want* peace. They want genocide and
the destruction of Israel.
Would you want differently, in their boots?
On 2025-10-13 12:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/10/2025 11:06, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-10-13 11:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Of course. It's completely stupid and barbaric.
The point is that Hamas do not *want* peace. They want genocide and
the destruction of Israel.
Would you want differently, in their boots?
I don't believe you.
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
On 2025-10-13 12:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/10/2025 11:06, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-10-13 11:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Of course. It's completely stupid and barbaric.
The point is that Hamas do not *want* peace. They want genocide
and the destruction of Israel.
Would you want differently, in their boots?
I don't believe you.
On 2025-10-13, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-10-13 12:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/10/2025 11:06, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-10-13 11:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Of course. It's completely stupid and barbaric.
The point is that Hamas do not *want* peace. They want genocide
and the destruction of Israel.
Would you want differently, in their boots?
I don't believe you.
It's not like Palestine and Israel have never been interested in a more peaceful solution, maybe if we go look in a few months before a
far-right nutjob killed Yitzhak Rabin... (or at the reason why said
nutjob killed Rabin...)
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 13/10/2025 11:50, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-10-13 12:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:I am not like you are, Carlos. We have established that.
On 13/10/2025 11:06, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-10-13 11:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Of course. It's completely stupid and barbaric.
The point is that Hamas do not *want* peace. They want genocide and >>>>> the destruction of Israel.
Would you want differently, in their boots?
I don't believe you.
"Spain removed its Muslim population through a series of military
conquest, forced conversion, and ultimately, mass expulsion. The
Reconquista ended with the fall of Granada in 1492, followed by decrees
that forced Muslims to either convert to Christianity or leave the
country. Those who outwardly converted, known as Moriscos, faced intense scrutiny and restrictions, and were eventually expelled between 1609 and 1614. "
Nothing like a bit of genocide to get rid of Muslims eh?
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.
Didn't you hear? Trump solved all that on the weekend.
Just ask him.
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.
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
identitybehind 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
arepolitics is desperate.I didnt do that. The Librals did.
Bleeding hearts need victims that Hamas are only too happy to supply
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.
tnp = terrorist nambla pedo.. you are so much in love with the worst. >Another "bleddin heat librual".
It is well known that the oinks aka iof strap pregnant and babies to
its Western given trucks / military.
The Hannibal directive soon put itself in action. You have nothing to
say except repeat whatever is on the bbc. Now that
is a "Western and Christian" organisation. Soon, really very soon your
lot will be carpet nuked by either China or Pakistan.
Then ukraine, who were caught so many time burning babies in the ME..
its turn next.
WTF are you talking about here? This is a LINUX group, so move to politics. THANKS!There is a pattern there. Show compassion
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...
