| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jan Panteltje" |
| Date: |
08 Jun 2004 06:35:55 AM |
| Object: |
So radioactive is not REALLY radioactive? |
Bush sets out to kill Americans:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/06/04/nuclearsludge.ap/index.html
JP
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So radioactive is not REALLY radioactive? |
08 Jun 2004 01:46:38 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<22928f8e865b83a657da5ff55e7f244c@news.teranews.com>...
Jan Panteltje sets out to fool Americans:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/06/04/nuclearsludge.ap/index.html
That article is pretty weasely about what is actually in those
tanks. For example, is it low level waste such as from washing
coveralls and protective clothing? Is it the result of washing
the floors in labs used for radioactive material? Or is it the
chemicals left over from various processes involved in enrichment?
Exactly how such things should be disposed of should be based on
proper engineering judgement, not on the loud, near hysterical
mutterings of the uninformed, and not on political horse trading.
The only information supplied so far is that it's the "Bush
administration" (actually the Senate) making the decision.
The shrill insistence that it's Bush's fault is pretty sad.
Just as an example of why JP *might* be full of *****: Digging this
stuff up and carting it off to Nevada is not a trivial task. Such
an undertaking involves risk. Risk to workers, risk to those who
happen to be nearby, risk to water and farmland all along the
transport path. So the differential improvement to safety would
have to be larger than this risk. And, without knowing what the
hell "sludge" is, it's pretty tough to make such decisions.
Maybe it's actually safer to leave the stuff where it is and
do what is proposed. The article quoted does not provide enough
information.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: So radioactive is not REALLY radioactive? |
08 Jun 2004 03:19:37 PM |
|
|
<puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7976c46.0406081046.7633ffb1@posting.google.com...
<...>
Digging this
stuff up and carting it off to Nevada is not a trivial task. Such
an undertaking involves risk. Risk to workers, risk to those who
happen to be nearby, risk to water and farmland all along the
transport path. So the differential improvement to safety would
have to be larger than this risk. And, without knowing what the
hell "sludge" is, it's pretty tough to make such decisions.
Maybe it's actually safer to leave the stuff where it is and
do what is proposed. The article quoted does not provide enough
information.
If the containment is not leaking into groundwater or riverflows, it makes
sense to leave it where it is. Assuming the containment is expected to
outlast the toxic life fo the material.
Unless there are schools and orphanages nearby. Think of the children!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: So radioactive is not REALLY radioactive? |
08 Jun 2004 05:35:24 PM |
|
|
And I forgot to mention that it is FAR cheaper to move the stuff, then to monitor
the ground water at every possible location in a radius of 100km for the next 1000 years.
Impeach the Bushman
JP
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So radioactive is not REALLY radioactive? |
09 Jun 2004 12:18:54 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<abb19b7cddd8ee30678df282a113b339@news.teranews.com>...
And I forgot to mention that it is FAR cheaper to move the stuff, then to monitor
the ground water at every possible location in a radius of 100km for the next 1000 years.
Ahem. So you require a solid sphere if detectors, 100 km in radius.
What an ignorant git.
The expected costs quoted in the article are $16 billion. This would
easily pay 16,000 persons for their entire lives, or something over
half a million person years. This would easily pay to have a crew
of 3 guys come check the ground around the tanks once a month,
and to have a visual inspection of the interior of the tanks
on a similar schedule.
Now, since you want to kill people in Nevada, and all the way
along the transport route, and at the current site when this
stuff is dug up and sprayed around in the wind and rain, and
everybody down stream,
Impeach the Bushman
JP
it makes a great deal more sense to put you in jail and leave the
stuff in these tanks where it is.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: So radioactive is not REALLY radioactive? |
09 Jun 2004 03:17:15 PM |
|
|
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
On a sunny day (9 Jun 2004 10:18:54 -0700) it happened
wrote in <c7976c46.0406090918.31af16b8@posting.google.com>:
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<abb19b7cddd8ee30678df282a113b339@news.teranews.com>...
And I forgot to mention that it is FAR cheaper to move the stuff, then to monitor
the ground water at every possible location in a radius of 100km for the next 1000 years.
Ahem. So you require a solid sphere if detectors, 100 km in radius.
What an ignorant git.
The expected costs quoted in the article are $16 billion. This would
easily pay 16,000 persons for their entire lives, or something over
half a million person years. This would easily pay to have a crew
of 3 guys come check the ground around the tanks once a month,
and to have a visual inspection of the interior of the tanks
on a similar schedule.
Now, since you want to kill people in Nevada, and all the way
along the transport route, and at the current site when this
stuff is dug up and sprayed around in the wind and rain, and
everybody down stream,
Impeach the Bushman
JP
it makes a great deal more sense to put you in jail and leave the
stuff in these tanks where it is.
Socks
Oh, yeah everyone who critizes facist Bush, in Cuba right?
So you can torture, aha.
Was that not the old saying : A sick mind is a joy forever.
Oh no it was different
Well, you do not live in that area do you (betting)?
And, when stuff leaks in the ground water, it need not come out
at the same place at all (not even mentioning concentrations).
And WHEN it does, are you going to dig up that 100km radius area
several meters deep?
Or are you going to move all people out of there, crops suck the
stuff up too, so all farming ends...
If US would not have been so careless, the stuff would not be
there in the fist place.
But continue shooting yourself in the feet, no problem, I am 3000 miles aways.
Now Socks, that sucks does it not?
JP
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: So radioactive is not REALLY radioactive? |
08 Jun 2004 05:09:16 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:19:37 -0700) it happened "Richard Henry"
<rphenry@home.com> wrote in <ybpxc.3202$1c4.3160@fed1read06>:
<puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7976c46.0406081046.7633ffb1@posting.google.com...
<...>
Digging this
stuff up and carting it off to Nevada is not a trivial task. Such
an undertaking involves risk. Risk to workers, risk to those who
happen to be nearby, risk to water and farmland all along the
transport path. So the differential improvement to safety would
have to be larger than this risk. And, without knowing what the
hell "sludge" is, it's pretty tough to make such decisions.
Maybe it's actually safer to leave the stuff where it is and
do what is proposed. The article quoted does not provide enough
information.
If the containment is not leaking into groundwater or riverflows, it makes
sense to leave it where it is. Assuming the containment is expected to
outlast the toxic life fo the material.
Unless there are schools and orphanages nearby. Think of the children!
Precisely, also leaving it their makes it sensitive to disaster, like
for example a plain crash in that area, not to mention terrorists.
Not one container will last for a thousand years! Especially not when
filled with hot radiating chemicals.
It is indeed mass murder of Americans, by a club that only want profit,
blinded by greed, for a few dollars, disregarding any life.
The enemy is righ there in the white house, you are their victims, while
thinking perhaps you did a service to your country voting for the monsters,
or for a quick fast tax rebate.
War criminals, peace criminals, no respect for human life, no brains (Iraq
was easy no), no morals, no fun.
JP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: So radioactive is not REALLY radioactive? |
08 Jun 2004 04:10:59 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (8 Jun 2004 11:46:38 -0700) it happened
wrote in <c7976c46.0406081046.7633ffb1@posting.google.com>:
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<22928f8e865b83a657da5ff55e7f244c@news.teranews.com>...
Jan Panteltje sets out to fool Americans:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/06/04/nuclearsludge.ap/index.html
That article is pretty weasely about what is actually in those
tanks. For example, is it low level waste such as from washing
coveralls and protective clothing? Is it the result of washing
the floors in labs used for radioactive material? Or is it the
chemicals left over from various processes involved in enrichment?
Exactly how such things should be disposed of should be based on
proper engineering judgement, not on the loud, near hysterical
mutterings of the uninformed, and not on political horse trading.
The only information supplied so far is that it's the "Bush
administration" (actually the Senate) making the decision.
The shrill insistence that it's Bush's fault is pretty sad.
Just as an example of why JP *might* be full of *****: Digging this
stuff up and carting it off to Nevada is not a trivial task. Such
an undertaking involves risk. Risk to workers, risk to those who
happen to be nearby, risk to water and farmland all along the
transport path. So the differential improvement to safety would
have to be larger than this risk. And, without knowing what the
hell "sludge" is, it's pretty tough to make such decisions.
Maybe it's actually safer to leave the stuff where it is and
do what is proposed. The article quoted does not provide enough
information.
Socks
Sucks?
You sound like a highly biased US republican terrrorist,
if you cannot grab what it is, why do you not go and taste it?
Sort of looks like you have a reading problem too, as there is
plenty of info.
JP
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So radioactive is not REALLY radioactive? |
09 Jun 2004 12:12:31 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<31794b33981e8504d776a0450f23fec7@news.teranews.com>...
[ignorant rantings]
Hang it up JP. You don't know the first thing about it.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: So radioactive is not REALLY radioactive? |
09 Jun 2004 03:17:14 PM |
|
|
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
On a sunny day (9 Jun 2004 10:12:31 -0700) it happened
wrote in <c7976c46.0406090912.52832367@posting.google.com>:
Hang it up JP. You don't know the first thing about it.
Socks
No content in your posting.
Try again.
JP
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: So radioactive is not REALLY radioactive? |
08 Jun 2004 09:59:54 AM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Bush sets out to kill Americans:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/06/04/nuclearsludge.ap/index.html
Almost 40 years of vigorous cancerous social engineering has left
America impoverished, stupid, and hopeless. The best possible
alernative would be to mount the same efforts to create poverty, end
education, and prey upon the citzenry like a wolf amidist sheep.
Even better would be for the Federal government to get the Hell out of
local affairs. The Civil Service would not tolerate that. Power
flows from the tip of a million pencils if you have a good union.
Let's bus children again. Let's put every ailing 80-year old in
$5000/day intensive care. Let's feed the poor! We are on a wooden
ship and we have burned almost all its timbers for warmth. Why are
there leaks?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: So radioactive is not REALLY radioactive? |
08 Jun 2004 11:36:03 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40C5D46A.2698F49B@hate.spam.net...
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Bush sets out to kill Americans:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/06/04/nuclearsludge.ap/index.html
Almost 40 years of vigorous cancerous social engineering has left
America impoverished, stupid, and hopeless. The best possible
alernative would be to mount the same efforts to create poverty, end
education, and prey upon the citzenry like a wolf amidist sheep.
Even better would be for the Federal government to get the Hell out of
local affairs. The Civil Service would not tolerate that. Power
flows from the tip of a million pencils if you have a good union.
Let's bus children again. Let's put every ailing 80-year old in
$5000/day intensive care. Let's feed the poor! We are on a wooden
ship and we have burned almost all its timbers for warmth. Why are
there leaks?
--
Uncle Al
Unc, this time your dead wrong about the social factors behind leaving the
tanks in place. GW has just finished reading the Readers Digest condensation
of Darwin's Theory, "Darwin for Idiots", and is simply hoping that
sufficient leakage will cause social change through increased mutation.
Maybe a better breed of consumer will come out of the stew, one with 2
mouths to feed, and 3 assholes to wipe, but only half a brain....they would
count for 2 votes each.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: So radioactive is not REALLY radioactive? |
08 Jun 2004 05:54:02 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<40C5D46A.2698F49B@hate.spam.net>...
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Bush sets out to kill Americans:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/06/04/nuclearsludge.ap/index.html
Almost 40 years of vigorous cancerous social engineering has left
America impoverished, stupid, and hopeless. The best possible
alernative would be to mount the same efforts to create poverty, end
education, and prey upon the citzenry like a wolf amidist sheep.
Even better would be for the Federal government to get the Hell out of
local affairs. The Civil Service would not tolerate that. Power
flows from the tip of a million pencils if you have a good union.
Let's bus children again. Let's put every ailing 80-year old in
$5000/day intensive care. Let's feed the poor! We are on a wooden
ship and we have burned almost all its timbers for warmth. Why are
there leaks?
Did you ever pause to wonder why medical care costs $5000/day?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rene Tschaggelar" |
|
| Title: Re: So radioactive is not REALLY radioactive? |
08 Jun 2004 08:18:57 AM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Bush sets out to kill Americans:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/06/04/nuclearsludge.ap/index.html
Wasn't that expectable ? The standard approach when some safety limits
are exceeded are to lower them. They'd sell the sludge as health food if
the profit was clean and hasslefree.
Rene
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: So radioactive is not REALLY radioactive? |
08 Jun 2004 09:55:19 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:18:57 +0200) it happened Rene Tschaggelar
<none@none.net> wrote in <40c5bd08$0$21345$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Bush sets out to kill Americans:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/06/04/nuclearsludge.ap/index.html
Wasn't that expectable ? The standard approach when some safety limits
are exceeded are to lower them. They'd sell the sludge as health food if
the profit was clean and hasslefree.
Rene
I am of health food now ;-)
Do not give them any ideas! hehe
JP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says????
Re: Not really sqrt()
Re: Condensed or not, what is really the matter :
Unlike me, Nietzsche knew not who or what God really was.
To know at last, what is not mathematically but really, concretely, simply the universe, and what we have to do in it :
Re: Are "shredded" computer files really gone? Probably NOT 66673
Time is not a property of space.............................................................................................................................
Violations of C, P, and T in electromagnetic and strong but not weak.
| Black hole in one frame of reference, not in another?
Re: Pentagon 9/11 Fraud was Re: No Second Engine at the Pentagon was Re: The Ultimate Pentagon 9/11 Question Andy Carol couldn't answer. was Re: Flight 175 WAS a FUEL TANKER, for REAL. This is not a "theory".
chances are greater of this being alien contact than not; signal inPisces and Aries
GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE
Not for Christmas
In a model where angular momentum is not conserved...
De Laval Nozzle Problem or Not?
|
|
|
