article: Plug-in Hybrid
08-20-2005, 07:28 PM
#121
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid
Bubba <wdg@[204.52.135.1]> wrote in
news:7greg117u9iu821r9c4je798g1o2v505fd@4ax.com:
> In some respects the "greenies" may be our own worst enemies. For
> example look at the debacle they've created in California. Poor
> Californians have had to screw around with special "California
> Emissions" vehicles for over 20 years. The vehicles cost incrementally
> more and are hard to sell outside of California. They also require
> special additives in their gasoline, making theirs the most expensive
> fuwl in the contiguous 48 states, more than 50¢ gallon higher than
> some states.
>
> During the California "energy crisis" a few years ago my employer
> tried to build a clean, natural gas-fired electric generating plant in
> Simi Valley but couldn't get the damn thing licensed in Calif. because
> of the absurd regulations and punitive licensing fees.
>
> Californians did this to themselves and the same group 9or rather same
> mindset) is now trying to do it everywhere.
>
> Blocking the long term storage of spent fuel rods at Yucca Mountain
> has effectively shut down *ALL* future nuclear powered elect
> generating stations. Why? Because your Federal Govt enacted
> legislation that says you cannot get a license to build a nuke plant
> if you don't have available storage for spent fuel rods. Of course you
> can store them on site at the nuke station itself but then that means
> having a nuclear waste site at every new generating station and we
> know the greenies will never stand for that.
>
>
>
> In article <jason-2008051045400001@pm4-broad-39.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
> jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes:
>
>>In article <Xns96B7D9967D438jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84>, Jim Yanik
>><jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
>>
>>> flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in
>>> news:0p6cg1hcvdoorqlq04oluh3cfjq0sn9231@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:45:51 GMT, Brian Stell
>>> > <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's
>>> >>>>>secure.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who
>>> >>>>feel differently.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Purely NIMBY.
>>> >>
>>> >>So, back to my question: do you want a nuclear
>>> >>waste dump in YOUR town?
>>> >
>>> > Doesn't bother me, but then, i used to work at a nuclear
>>> > reprocessing facility...
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>> Many cities ALREADY HAVE a nuclear waste dump nearby,and very
>>> vulnerable to terrorists.Many also get nuclear shipments trucked
>>> through them,too. Any city with a fair-sized hospital.
>>>
>>> I believe that many of the nearby residents are looking forward to
>>> good,high-paying government jobs from Yucca Mtn.
>>
>>Hello,
>>Those facts don't matter to the greenies. They just want to close down
>>nuclear power plants. There was a protest at the local nuclear power
>>plant about 15 years ago. I drove by the plant very early in the
>>morning and saw about a dozen really expensive cars and motor homes. I
>>later watched the nightly news shows and saw several famous actors
>>being interviewed. I realized that those expensive cars and motor
>>homes belonged to those rich actors and other rich people that drove
>>from their million dollar homes in Hollywood. They used lots of
>>gasoline to travel to my small town and only God knows how much wood
>>was used to make their million dollar homes. I would NEVER donate
>>money to any greenie group.
>>Jason
>
I have to laugh at the enviro-nuts;they want everyone to use renewable
energy sources,one being windpower,and now they are trying to get a
California windfarm shut down because the windmills are chopping up birds.
And Sen.Kennedy is pissed bacause power companies want to put a windfarm
waaay far out on the horizon of his Cape Cod home,-ruining his view-!!.
(a barely noticeable windfarm,a mote on the horizon.)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
news:7greg117u9iu821r9c4je798g1o2v505fd@4ax.com:
> In some respects the "greenies" may be our own worst enemies. For
> example look at the debacle they've created in California. Poor
> Californians have had to screw around with special "California
> Emissions" vehicles for over 20 years. The vehicles cost incrementally
> more and are hard to sell outside of California. They also require
> special additives in their gasoline, making theirs the most expensive
> fuwl in the contiguous 48 states, more than 50¢ gallon higher than
> some states.
>
> During the California "energy crisis" a few years ago my employer
> tried to build a clean, natural gas-fired electric generating plant in
> Simi Valley but couldn't get the damn thing licensed in Calif. because
> of the absurd regulations and punitive licensing fees.
>
> Californians did this to themselves and the same group 9or rather same
> mindset) is now trying to do it everywhere.
>
> Blocking the long term storage of spent fuel rods at Yucca Mountain
> has effectively shut down *ALL* future nuclear powered elect
> generating stations. Why? Because your Federal Govt enacted
> legislation that says you cannot get a license to build a nuke plant
> if you don't have available storage for spent fuel rods. Of course you
> can store them on site at the nuke station itself but then that means
> having a nuclear waste site at every new generating station and we
> know the greenies will never stand for that.
>
>
>
> In article <jason-2008051045400001@pm4-broad-39.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
> jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes:
>
>>In article <Xns96B7D9967D438jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84>, Jim Yanik
>><jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
>>
>>> flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in
>>> news:0p6cg1hcvdoorqlq04oluh3cfjq0sn9231@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:45:51 GMT, Brian Stell
>>> > <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's
>>> >>>>>secure.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who
>>> >>>>feel differently.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Purely NIMBY.
>>> >>
>>> >>So, back to my question: do you want a nuclear
>>> >>waste dump in YOUR town?
>>> >
>>> > Doesn't bother me, but then, i used to work at a nuclear
>>> > reprocessing facility...
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>> Many cities ALREADY HAVE a nuclear waste dump nearby,and very
>>> vulnerable to terrorists.Many also get nuclear shipments trucked
>>> through them,too. Any city with a fair-sized hospital.
>>>
>>> I believe that many of the nearby residents are looking forward to
>>> good,high-paying government jobs from Yucca Mtn.
>>
>>Hello,
>>Those facts don't matter to the greenies. They just want to close down
>>nuclear power plants. There was a protest at the local nuclear power
>>plant about 15 years ago. I drove by the plant very early in the
>>morning and saw about a dozen really expensive cars and motor homes. I
>>later watched the nightly news shows and saw several famous actors
>>being interviewed. I realized that those expensive cars and motor
>>homes belonged to those rich actors and other rich people that drove
>>from their million dollar homes in Hollywood. They used lots of
>>gasoline to travel to my small town and only God knows how much wood
>>was used to make their million dollar homes. I would NEVER donate
>>money to any greenie group.
>>Jason
>
I have to laugh at the enviro-nuts;they want everyone to use renewable
energy sources,one being windpower,and now they are trying to get a
California windfarm shut down because the windmills are chopping up birds.
And Sen.Kennedy is pissed bacause power companies want to put a windfarm
waaay far out on the horizon of his Cape Cod home,-ruining his view-!!.
(a barely noticeable windfarm,a mote on the horizon.)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
08-20-2005, 08:36 PM
#122
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid
In article <Xns96B8C5A3E50EDjyanikkuanet@129.250.170.83>, Jim Yanik
<jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
> Bubba <wdg@[204.52.135.1]> wrote in
> news:7greg117u9iu821r9c4je798g1o2v505fd@4ax.com:
>
> > In some respects the "greenies" may be our own worst enemies. For
> > example look at the debacle they've created in California. Poor
> > Californians have had to screw around with special "California
> > Emissions" vehicles for over 20 years. The vehicles cost incrementally
> > more and are hard to sell outside of California. They also require
> > special additives in their gasoline, making theirs the most expensive
> > fuwl in the contiguous 48 states, more than 50¢ gallon higher than
> > some states.
> >
> > During the California "energy crisis" a few years ago my employer
> > tried to build a clean, natural gas-fired electric generating plant in
> > Simi Valley but couldn't get the damn thing licensed in Calif. because
> > of the absurd regulations and punitive licensing fees.
> >
> > Californians did this to themselves and the same group 9or rather same
> > mindset) is now trying to do it everywhere.
> >
> > Blocking the long term storage of spent fuel rods at Yucca Mountain
> > has effectively shut down *ALL* future nuclear powered elect
> > generating stations. Why? Because your Federal Govt enacted
> > legislation that says you cannot get a license to build a nuke plant
> > if you don't have available storage for spent fuel rods. Of course you
> > can store them on site at the nuke station itself but then that means
> > having a nuclear waste site at every new generating station and we
> > know the greenies will never stand for that.
> >
> >
> >
> > In article <jason-2008051045400001@pm4-broad-39.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
> > jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes:
> >
> >>In article <Xns96B7D9967D438jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84>, Jim Yanik
> >><jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
> >>
> >>> flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in
> >>> news:0p6cg1hcvdoorqlq04oluh3cfjq0sn9231@4ax.com:
> >>>
> >>> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:45:51 GMT, Brian Stell
> >>> > <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >>>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's
> >>> >>>>>secure.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who
> >>> >>>>feel differently.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Purely NIMBY.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>So, back to my question: do you want a nuclear
> >>> >>waste dump in YOUR town?
> >>> >
> >>> > Doesn't bother me, but then, i used to work at a nuclear
> >>> > reprocessing facility...
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Many cities ALREADY HAVE a nuclear waste dump nearby,and very
> >>> vulnerable to terrorists.Many also get nuclear shipments trucked
> >>> through them,too. Any city with a fair-sized hospital.
> >>>
> >>> I believe that many of the nearby residents are looking forward to
> >>> good,high-paying government jobs from Yucca Mtn.
> >>
> >>Hello,
> >>Those facts don't matter to the greenies. They just want to close down
> >>nuclear power plants. There was a protest at the local nuclear power
> >>plant about 15 years ago. I drove by the plant very early in the
> >>morning and saw about a dozen really expensive cars and motor homes. I
> >>later watched the nightly news shows and saw several famous actors
> >>being interviewed. I realized that those expensive cars and motor
> >>homes belonged to those rich actors and other rich people that drove
> >>from their million dollar homes in Hollywood. They used lots of
> >>gasoline to travel to my small town and only God knows how much wood
> >>was used to make their million dollar homes. I would NEVER donate
> >>money to any greenie group.
> >>Jason
> >
>
> I have to laugh at the enviro-nuts;they want everyone to use renewable
> energy sources,one being windpower,and now they are trying to get a
> California windfarm shut down because the windmills are chopping up birds.
>
> And Sen.Kennedy is pissed bacause power companies want to put a windfarm
> waaay far out on the horizon of his Cape Cod home,-ruining his view-!!.
> (a barely noticeable windfarm,a mote on the horizon.)
I agree with you related to this issue. Thanks for making me laugh--I had
forgot about the Sen. Kennedy story that you mentioned. Did you hear this
other Sen. Kennedy story:
Sen. Kennedy took a ocean trip in his boat with his girlfriend. Someone
took a picture of him and his girl friend having sex on the deck of the
boat. The following day, the photo appeared in a newspaper or magazine. A
news reporter stated: "It appears from this photo that Sen. Kennedy has
changed his mind related to off shore drilling."
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
<jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
> Bubba <wdg@[204.52.135.1]> wrote in
> news:7greg117u9iu821r9c4je798g1o2v505fd@4ax.com:
>
> > In some respects the "greenies" may be our own worst enemies. For
> > example look at the debacle they've created in California. Poor
> > Californians have had to screw around with special "California
> > Emissions" vehicles for over 20 years. The vehicles cost incrementally
> > more and are hard to sell outside of California. They also require
> > special additives in their gasoline, making theirs the most expensive
> > fuwl in the contiguous 48 states, more than 50¢ gallon higher than
> > some states.
> >
> > During the California "energy crisis" a few years ago my employer
> > tried to build a clean, natural gas-fired electric generating plant in
> > Simi Valley but couldn't get the damn thing licensed in Calif. because
> > of the absurd regulations and punitive licensing fees.
> >
> > Californians did this to themselves and the same group 9or rather same
> > mindset) is now trying to do it everywhere.
> >
> > Blocking the long term storage of spent fuel rods at Yucca Mountain
> > has effectively shut down *ALL* future nuclear powered elect
> > generating stations. Why? Because your Federal Govt enacted
> > legislation that says you cannot get a license to build a nuke plant
> > if you don't have available storage for spent fuel rods. Of course you
> > can store them on site at the nuke station itself but then that means
> > having a nuclear waste site at every new generating station and we
> > know the greenies will never stand for that.
> >
> >
> >
> > In article <jason-2008051045400001@pm4-broad-39.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
> > jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes:
> >
> >>In article <Xns96B7D9967D438jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84>, Jim Yanik
> >><jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
> >>
> >>> flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in
> >>> news:0p6cg1hcvdoorqlq04oluh3cfjq0sn9231@4ax.com:
> >>>
> >>> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:45:51 GMT, Brian Stell
> >>> > <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >>>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's
> >>> >>>>>secure.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who
> >>> >>>>feel differently.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Purely NIMBY.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>So, back to my question: do you want a nuclear
> >>> >>waste dump in YOUR town?
> >>> >
> >>> > Doesn't bother me, but then, i used to work at a nuclear
> >>> > reprocessing facility...
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Many cities ALREADY HAVE a nuclear waste dump nearby,and very
> >>> vulnerable to terrorists.Many also get nuclear shipments trucked
> >>> through them,too. Any city with a fair-sized hospital.
> >>>
> >>> I believe that many of the nearby residents are looking forward to
> >>> good,high-paying government jobs from Yucca Mtn.
> >>
> >>Hello,
> >>Those facts don't matter to the greenies. They just want to close down
> >>nuclear power plants. There was a protest at the local nuclear power
> >>plant about 15 years ago. I drove by the plant very early in the
> >>morning and saw about a dozen really expensive cars and motor homes. I
> >>later watched the nightly news shows and saw several famous actors
> >>being interviewed. I realized that those expensive cars and motor
> >>homes belonged to those rich actors and other rich people that drove
> >>from their million dollar homes in Hollywood. They used lots of
> >>gasoline to travel to my small town and only God knows how much wood
> >>was used to make their million dollar homes. I would NEVER donate
> >>money to any greenie group.
> >>Jason
> >
>
> I have to laugh at the enviro-nuts;they want everyone to use renewable
> energy sources,one being windpower,and now they are trying to get a
> California windfarm shut down because the windmills are chopping up birds.
>
> And Sen.Kennedy is pissed bacause power companies want to put a windfarm
> waaay far out on the horizon of his Cape Cod home,-ruining his view-!!.
> (a barely noticeable windfarm,a mote on the horizon.)
I agree with you related to this issue. Thanks for making me laugh--I had
forgot about the Sen. Kennedy story that you mentioned. Did you hear this
other Sen. Kennedy story:
Sen. Kennedy took a ocean trip in his boat with his girlfriend. Someone
took a picture of him and his girl friend having sex on the deck of the
boat. The following day, the photo appeared in a newspaper or magazine. A
news reporter stated: "It appears from this photo that Sen. Kennedy has
changed his mind related to off shore drilling."
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
08-20-2005, 08:36 PM
#123
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid
In article <Xns96B8C5A3E50EDjyanikkuanet@129.250.170.83>, Jim Yanik
<jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
> Bubba <wdg@[204.52.135.1]> wrote in
> news:7greg117u9iu821r9c4je798g1o2v505fd@4ax.com:
>
> > In some respects the "greenies" may be our own worst enemies. For
> > example look at the debacle they've created in California. Poor
> > Californians have had to screw around with special "California
> > Emissions" vehicles for over 20 years. The vehicles cost incrementally
> > more and are hard to sell outside of California. They also require
> > special additives in their gasoline, making theirs the most expensive
> > fuwl in the contiguous 48 states, more than 50¢ gallon higher than
> > some states.
> >
> > During the California "energy crisis" a few years ago my employer
> > tried to build a clean, natural gas-fired electric generating plant in
> > Simi Valley but couldn't get the damn thing licensed in Calif. because
> > of the absurd regulations and punitive licensing fees.
> >
> > Californians did this to themselves and the same group 9or rather same
> > mindset) is now trying to do it everywhere.
> >
> > Blocking the long term storage of spent fuel rods at Yucca Mountain
> > has effectively shut down *ALL* future nuclear powered elect
> > generating stations. Why? Because your Federal Govt enacted
> > legislation that says you cannot get a license to build a nuke plant
> > if you don't have available storage for spent fuel rods. Of course you
> > can store them on site at the nuke station itself but then that means
> > having a nuclear waste site at every new generating station and we
> > know the greenies will never stand for that.
> >
> >
> >
> > In article <jason-2008051045400001@pm4-broad-39.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
> > jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes:
> >
> >>In article <Xns96B7D9967D438jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84>, Jim Yanik
> >><jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
> >>
> >>> flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in
> >>> news:0p6cg1hcvdoorqlq04oluh3cfjq0sn9231@4ax.com:
> >>>
> >>> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:45:51 GMT, Brian Stell
> >>> > <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >>>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's
> >>> >>>>>secure.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who
> >>> >>>>feel differently.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Purely NIMBY.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>So, back to my question: do you want a nuclear
> >>> >>waste dump in YOUR town?
> >>> >
> >>> > Doesn't bother me, but then, i used to work at a nuclear
> >>> > reprocessing facility...
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Many cities ALREADY HAVE a nuclear waste dump nearby,and very
> >>> vulnerable to terrorists.Many also get nuclear shipments trucked
> >>> through them,too. Any city with a fair-sized hospital.
> >>>
> >>> I believe that many of the nearby residents are looking forward to
> >>> good,high-paying government jobs from Yucca Mtn.
> >>
> >>Hello,
> >>Those facts don't matter to the greenies. They just want to close down
> >>nuclear power plants. There was a protest at the local nuclear power
> >>plant about 15 years ago. I drove by the plant very early in the
> >>morning and saw about a dozen really expensive cars and motor homes. I
> >>later watched the nightly news shows and saw several famous actors
> >>being interviewed. I realized that those expensive cars and motor
> >>homes belonged to those rich actors and other rich people that drove
> >>from their million dollar homes in Hollywood. They used lots of
> >>gasoline to travel to my small town and only God knows how much wood
> >>was used to make their million dollar homes. I would NEVER donate
> >>money to any greenie group.
> >>Jason
> >
>
> I have to laugh at the enviro-nuts;they want everyone to use renewable
> energy sources,one being windpower,and now they are trying to get a
> California windfarm shut down because the windmills are chopping up birds.
>
> And Sen.Kennedy is pissed bacause power companies want to put a windfarm
> waaay far out on the horizon of his Cape Cod home,-ruining his view-!!.
> (a barely noticeable windfarm,a mote on the horizon.)
I agree with you related to this issue. Thanks for making me laugh--I had
forgot about the Sen. Kennedy story that you mentioned. Did you hear this
other Sen. Kennedy story:
Sen. Kennedy took a ocean trip in his boat with his girlfriend. Someone
took a picture of him and his girl friend having sex on the deck of the
boat. The following day, the photo appeared in a newspaper or magazine. A
news reporter stated: "It appears from this photo that Sen. Kennedy has
changed his mind related to off shore drilling."
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
<jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
> Bubba <wdg@[204.52.135.1]> wrote in
> news:7greg117u9iu821r9c4je798g1o2v505fd@4ax.com:
>
> > In some respects the "greenies" may be our own worst enemies. For
> > example look at the debacle they've created in California. Poor
> > Californians have had to screw around with special "California
> > Emissions" vehicles for over 20 years. The vehicles cost incrementally
> > more and are hard to sell outside of California. They also require
> > special additives in their gasoline, making theirs the most expensive
> > fuwl in the contiguous 48 states, more than 50¢ gallon higher than
> > some states.
> >
> > During the California "energy crisis" a few years ago my employer
> > tried to build a clean, natural gas-fired electric generating plant in
> > Simi Valley but couldn't get the damn thing licensed in Calif. because
> > of the absurd regulations and punitive licensing fees.
> >
> > Californians did this to themselves and the same group 9or rather same
> > mindset) is now trying to do it everywhere.
> >
> > Blocking the long term storage of spent fuel rods at Yucca Mountain
> > has effectively shut down *ALL* future nuclear powered elect
> > generating stations. Why? Because your Federal Govt enacted
> > legislation that says you cannot get a license to build a nuke plant
> > if you don't have available storage for spent fuel rods. Of course you
> > can store them on site at the nuke station itself but then that means
> > having a nuclear waste site at every new generating station and we
> > know the greenies will never stand for that.
> >
> >
> >
> > In article <jason-2008051045400001@pm4-broad-39.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
> > jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes:
> >
> >>In article <Xns96B7D9967D438jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84>, Jim Yanik
> >><jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
> >>
> >>> flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in
> >>> news:0p6cg1hcvdoorqlq04oluh3cfjq0sn9231@4ax.com:
> >>>
> >>> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:45:51 GMT, Brian Stell
> >>> > <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >>>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's
> >>> >>>>>secure.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who
> >>> >>>>feel differently.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Purely NIMBY.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>So, back to my question: do you want a nuclear
> >>> >>waste dump in YOUR town?
> >>> >
> >>> > Doesn't bother me, but then, i used to work at a nuclear
> >>> > reprocessing facility...
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Many cities ALREADY HAVE a nuclear waste dump nearby,and very
> >>> vulnerable to terrorists.Many also get nuclear shipments trucked
> >>> through them,too. Any city with a fair-sized hospital.
> >>>
> >>> I believe that many of the nearby residents are looking forward to
> >>> good,high-paying government jobs from Yucca Mtn.
> >>
> >>Hello,
> >>Those facts don't matter to the greenies. They just want to close down
> >>nuclear power plants. There was a protest at the local nuclear power
> >>plant about 15 years ago. I drove by the plant very early in the
> >>morning and saw about a dozen really expensive cars and motor homes. I
> >>later watched the nightly news shows and saw several famous actors
> >>being interviewed. I realized that those expensive cars and motor
> >>homes belonged to those rich actors and other rich people that drove
> >>from their million dollar homes in Hollywood. They used lots of
> >>gasoline to travel to my small town and only God knows how much wood
> >>was used to make their million dollar homes. I would NEVER donate
> >>money to any greenie group.
> >>Jason
> >
>
> I have to laugh at the enviro-nuts;they want everyone to use renewable
> energy sources,one being windpower,and now they are trying to get a
> California windfarm shut down because the windmills are chopping up birds.
>
> And Sen.Kennedy is pissed bacause power companies want to put a windfarm
> waaay far out on the horizon of his Cape Cod home,-ruining his view-!!.
> (a barely noticeable windfarm,a mote on the horizon.)
I agree with you related to this issue. Thanks for making me laugh--I had
forgot about the Sen. Kennedy story that you mentioned. Did you hear this
other Sen. Kennedy story:
Sen. Kennedy took a ocean trip in his boat with his girlfriend. Someone
took a picture of him and his girl friend having sex on the deck of the
boat. The following day, the photo appeared in a newspaper or magazine. A
news reporter stated: "It appears from this photo that Sen. Kennedy has
changed his mind related to off shore drilling."
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
08-20-2005, 10:58 PM
#124
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid
Jim Yanik wrote:
> Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> news:zefNe.1132$L03.428@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net :
>
>
>>>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's secure.
>>>>
>>>>There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who
>>>>feel differently.
>>>
>>>Purely NIMBY.
>>
>>So, back to my question: do you want a nuclear
>>waste dump in YOUR town?
>
>
> So,AGAIN;not RELEVANT,as one picks the safest,best-suited place to locate
> the storage facility.
>
>
>
>>>>"Yucca Mountain"
>>>>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in579696.shtml
>>>>"... the battle is far from over, and the state of Nevada is in
>>>>full-scale revolt. A coalition of elected officials, environmentalists
>>>>and businessmen is waging a guerrilla war to kill a project they
>>>>believe has been shoved down their throats."
>>>
>>>The stuff HAS to go somewhere;and nobody came up with any better site.
>>
>>We need to stop producing it. We are passing on a problem
>>that has to be dealt with for 10,000+ years.
>>
>>
>>>Under a mountain in the middle of a vast empty land seems about right.
>>
>>The people living in Nevada don't see it as a vast empty
>>land. They live there.
>
>
> And it's STILL a vast empty land.
> Most of it is owned by the Federal Government,too.
>
>
>>>>My point is: It is inconsistent to say it is safe unless
>>>>you personally are willing to have you and those you care
>>>>about live near it.
>>>>
>>>>So far I've heard a lot of "in a perfect world it would
>>>>be okay".
>>>
>>>It's OK because it's far better than what we have now.
>>
>>Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's
>>backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention?
>
>
> No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion.
The scientists in Nevada disagree.
You have explained your postion clearly:
You want the benefit.
You want to put the waste in someone else's backyard.
> Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> news:zefNe.1132$L03.428@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net :
>
>
>>>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's secure.
>>>>
>>>>There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who
>>>>feel differently.
>>>
>>>Purely NIMBY.
>>
>>So, back to my question: do you want a nuclear
>>waste dump in YOUR town?
>
>
> So,AGAIN;not RELEVANT,as one picks the safest,best-suited place to locate
> the storage facility.
>
>
>
>>>>"Yucca Mountain"
>>>>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in579696.shtml
>>>>"... the battle is far from over, and the state of Nevada is in
>>>>full-scale revolt. A coalition of elected officials, environmentalists
>>>>and businessmen is waging a guerrilla war to kill a project they
>>>>believe has been shoved down their throats."
>>>
>>>The stuff HAS to go somewhere;and nobody came up with any better site.
>>
>>We need to stop producing it. We are passing on a problem
>>that has to be dealt with for 10,000+ years.
>>
>>
>>>Under a mountain in the middle of a vast empty land seems about right.
>>
>>The people living in Nevada don't see it as a vast empty
>>land. They live there.
>
>
> And it's STILL a vast empty land.
> Most of it is owned by the Federal Government,too.
>
>
>>>>My point is: It is inconsistent to say it is safe unless
>>>>you personally are willing to have you and those you care
>>>>about live near it.
>>>>
>>>>So far I've heard a lot of "in a perfect world it would
>>>>be okay".
>>>
>>>It's OK because it's far better than what we have now.
>>
>>Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's
>>backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention?
>
>
> No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion.
The scientists in Nevada disagree.
You have explained your postion clearly:
You want the benefit.
You want to put the waste in someone else's backyard.
08-20-2005, 10:58 PM
#125
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid
Jim Yanik wrote:
> Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> news:zefNe.1132$L03.428@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net :
>
>
>>>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's secure.
>>>>
>>>>There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who
>>>>feel differently.
>>>
>>>Purely NIMBY.
>>
>>So, back to my question: do you want a nuclear
>>waste dump in YOUR town?
>
>
> So,AGAIN;not RELEVANT,as one picks the safest,best-suited place to locate
> the storage facility.
>
>
>
>>>>"Yucca Mountain"
>>>>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in579696.shtml
>>>>"... the battle is far from over, and the state of Nevada is in
>>>>full-scale revolt. A coalition of elected officials, environmentalists
>>>>and businessmen is waging a guerrilla war to kill a project they
>>>>believe has been shoved down their throats."
>>>
>>>The stuff HAS to go somewhere;and nobody came up with any better site.
>>
>>We need to stop producing it. We are passing on a problem
>>that has to be dealt with for 10,000+ years.
>>
>>
>>>Under a mountain in the middle of a vast empty land seems about right.
>>
>>The people living in Nevada don't see it as a vast empty
>>land. They live there.
>
>
> And it's STILL a vast empty land.
> Most of it is owned by the Federal Government,too.
>
>
>>>>My point is: It is inconsistent to say it is safe unless
>>>>you personally are willing to have you and those you care
>>>>about live near it.
>>>>
>>>>So far I've heard a lot of "in a perfect world it would
>>>>be okay".
>>>
>>>It's OK because it's far better than what we have now.
>>
>>Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's
>>backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention?
>
>
> No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion.
The scientists in Nevada disagree.
You have explained your postion clearly:
You want the benefit.
You want to put the waste in someone else's backyard.
> Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> news:zefNe.1132$L03.428@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net :
>
>
>>>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's secure.
>>>>
>>>>There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who
>>>>feel differently.
>>>
>>>Purely NIMBY.
>>
>>So, back to my question: do you want a nuclear
>>waste dump in YOUR town?
>
>
> So,AGAIN;not RELEVANT,as one picks the safest,best-suited place to locate
> the storage facility.
>
>
>
>>>>"Yucca Mountain"
>>>>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in579696.shtml
>>>>"... the battle is far from over, and the state of Nevada is in
>>>>full-scale revolt. A coalition of elected officials, environmentalists
>>>>and businessmen is waging a guerrilla war to kill a project they
>>>>believe has been shoved down their throats."
>>>
>>>The stuff HAS to go somewhere;and nobody came up with any better site.
>>
>>We need to stop producing it. We are passing on a problem
>>that has to be dealt with for 10,000+ years.
>>
>>
>>>Under a mountain in the middle of a vast empty land seems about right.
>>
>>The people living in Nevada don't see it as a vast empty
>>land. They live there.
>
>
> And it's STILL a vast empty land.
> Most of it is owned by the Federal Government,too.
>
>
>>>>My point is: It is inconsistent to say it is safe unless
>>>>you personally are willing to have you and those you care
>>>>about live near it.
>>>>
>>>>So far I've heard a lot of "in a perfect world it would
>>>>be okay".
>>>
>>>It's OK because it's far better than what we have now.
>>
>>Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's
>>backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention?
>
>
> No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion.
The scientists in Nevada disagree.
You have explained your postion clearly:
You want the benefit.
You want to put the waste in someone else's backyard.
08-21-2005, 12:15 PM
#126
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid
Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news
5SNe.924$GV7.45@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>> news:zefNe.1132$L03.428@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net :
>>>Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's
>>>backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention?
>>
>>
>> No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion.
>
> The scientists in Nevada disagree.
But have they come up with any alternative places? No.
(where were they -before- Yucca Mtn.was selected???)
I suspect they too are being NIMBY.
>
> You have explained your postion clearly:
>
> You want the benefit.
>
> You want to put the waste in someone else's backyard.
Wrong,-in the best possible place.
Can YOU suggest any place in the US that is a better site than Yucca Mtn.?
I suspect not.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
news
5SNe.924$GV7.45@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>> news:zefNe.1132$L03.428@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net :
>>>Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's
>>>backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention?
>>
>>
>> No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion.
>
> The scientists in Nevada disagree.
But have they come up with any alternative places? No.
(where were they -before- Yucca Mtn.was selected???)
I suspect they too are being NIMBY.
>
> You have explained your postion clearly:
>
> You want the benefit.
>
> You want to put the waste in someone else's backyard.
Wrong,-in the best possible place.
Can YOU suggest any place in the US that is a better site than Yucca Mtn.?
I suspect not.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
08-21-2005, 12:15 PM
#127
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid
Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news5SNe.924$GV7.45@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>> news:zefNe.1132$L03.428@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net :
>>>Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's
>>>backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention?
>>
>>
>> No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion.
>
> The scientists in Nevada disagree.
But have they come up with any alternative places? No.
(where were they -before- Yucca Mtn.was selected???)
I suspect they too are being NIMBY.
>
> You have explained your postion clearly:
>
> You want the benefit.
>
> You want to put the waste in someone else's backyard.
Wrong,-in the best possible place.
Can YOU suggest any place in the US that is a better site than Yucca Mtn.?
I suspect not.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
news
5SNe.924$GV7.45@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>> news:zefNe.1132$L03.428@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net :
>>>Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's
>>>backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention?
>>
>>
>> No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion.
>
> The scientists in Nevada disagree.
But have they come up with any alternative places? No.
(where were they -before- Yucca Mtn.was selected???)
I suspect they too are being NIMBY.
>
> You have explained your postion clearly:
>
> You want the benefit.
>
> You want to put the waste in someone else's backyard.
Wrong,-in the best possible place.
Can YOU suggest any place in the US that is a better site than Yucca Mtn.?
I suspect not.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
08-22-2005, 12:20 PM
#128
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid
>>>>Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's
>>>>backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention?
>>>
>>>No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion.
>>
>>The scientists in Nevada disagree.
>
> But have they come up with any alternative places? No.
> (where were they -before- Yucca Mtn.was selected???)
They were loudly saying not to put it in Nevada. Just
like scientists in *every* other state were saying.
> I suspect they too are being NIMBY.
You can call it that but they would call it
protecting their citizens.
>>You have explained your postion clearly:
>>
>> You want the benefit.
>>
>> You want to put the waste in someone else's backyard.
>
>
> Wrong,-in the best possible place.
I'll assume you are not arguing about wanting
the benefit.
You don't want it in *your* backyard. You've made
that clear.
You claim science has determined that Yucca Mountain
is a good place to put nuclear waste.
If only science were always objective. For simple
things it can be. But there will never be a
scientific proof that Yucca Mountain is a good
place to store nuclear waste. That is a conclusion.
Not a fact. For complex problems there will always
be lots of apparently conflicting facts.
The scientists working for the federal government
really want a place to dump the nuclear waste.
They looked at the facts and drew the *conclusion*
that Yucca Mountain is safe.
The scientists working for the state of Nevada
really don't want the nuclear waste dumped in
their state. They looked at the facts and drew the
conclusion that Yucca Mountain is not safe.
The likely difference: who's backyard it is being
dumped in.
> Can YOU suggest any place in the US that is a better site than Yucca Mtn.?
> I suspect not.
No. There is no *good* place. That is exactly
why everyone wants it dumped in someone else's
backyard.
And that is the major reason why we need to stop
producing it.
>>>>backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention?
>>>
>>>No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion.
>>
>>The scientists in Nevada disagree.
>
> But have they come up with any alternative places? No.
> (where were they -before- Yucca Mtn.was selected???)
They were loudly saying not to put it in Nevada. Just
like scientists in *every* other state were saying.
> I suspect they too are being NIMBY.
You can call it that but they would call it
protecting their citizens.
>>You have explained your postion clearly:
>>
>> You want the benefit.
>>
>> You want to put the waste in someone else's backyard.
>
>
> Wrong,-in the best possible place.
I'll assume you are not arguing about wanting
the benefit.
You don't want it in *your* backyard. You've made
that clear.
You claim science has determined that Yucca Mountain
is a good place to put nuclear waste.
If only science were always objective. For simple
things it can be. But there will never be a
scientific proof that Yucca Mountain is a good
place to store nuclear waste. That is a conclusion.
Not a fact. For complex problems there will always
be lots of apparently conflicting facts.
The scientists working for the federal government
really want a place to dump the nuclear waste.
They looked at the facts and drew the *conclusion*
that Yucca Mountain is safe.
The scientists working for the state of Nevada
really don't want the nuclear waste dumped in
their state. They looked at the facts and drew the
conclusion that Yucca Mountain is not safe.
The likely difference: who's backyard it is being
dumped in.
> Can YOU suggest any place in the US that is a better site than Yucca Mtn.?
> I suspect not.
No. There is no *good* place. That is exactly
why everyone wants it dumped in someone else's
backyard.
And that is the major reason why we need to stop
producing it.
08-22-2005, 12:41 PM
#129
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:20:10 GMT, Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>>>>>Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's
>>>>>backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention?
>>>>
>>>>No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion.
>>>
>>>The scientists in Nevada disagree.
>>
>> But have they come up with any alternative places? No.
>> (where were they -before- Yucca Mtn.was selected???)
>
>They were loudly saying not to put it in Nevada. Just
>like scientists in *every* other state were saying.
>
>> I suspect they too are being NIMBY.
>
>You can call it that but they would call it
>protecting their citizens.
>
>>>You have explained your postion clearly:
>>>
>>> You want the benefit.
>>>
>>> You want to put the waste in someone else's backyard.
>>
>>
>> Wrong,-in the best possible place.
>
>I'll assume you are not arguing about wanting
>the benefit.
>
>You don't want it in *your* backyard. You've made
>that clear.
>
>You claim science has determined that Yucca Mountain
>is a good place to put nuclear waste.
>
>If only science were always objective. For simple
>things it can be. But there will never be a
>scientific proof that Yucca Mountain is a good
>place to store nuclear waste. That is a conclusion.
>Not a fact. For complex problems there will always
>be lots of apparently conflicting facts.
>
>The scientists working for the federal government
>really want a place to dump the nuclear waste.
>They looked at the facts and drew the *conclusion*
>that Yucca Mountain is safe.
>
>The scientists working for the state of Nevada
>really don't want the nuclear waste dumped in
>their state. They looked at the facts and drew the
>conclusion that Yucca Mountain is not safe.
ERm no, to my understanding, the objects were made purely on political
reasons, no scientific based reasons made at all. I persoanlyl will
take a nicely designed, built and manned nuclear storage facility in
'my back yard' any day. The only reasons given for why that facility
is not good, is emotionally based, and scientifically unsound.
I worked at a nuclear reprocessing plant for a while. thats like a
storage facility squared. lots of material comes in and out, and is
processed, its not sealed, locked up and then kept in one place. The
CND weirdo's still pickett every now and then, but its nothing very
serious. As for whata i was doing at the plant - i was brought in to
test potential safety inspection, and emergency shutdown robots. Part
of a team that heavily analysed the data from sending vehicles around
in hot rooms, seeing how they affected data, if it was possible to add
layers and distance between human operators and maintainance people,
and anything warm, or hot.
If you want to talk crap, there are MANY better targets out
in the world today for gathering nuclear materials. for instance, in
2002, a lot of easily frightened nuclear and worriers
panicked over a shipment of MOX pellets that went from Japan to
sellafield. The ship was slow, and poorly armed. apart from 9mm
sidearms for the armed members of the crew (two dozen or so) the ship
carried two .50cal guns, one each fore and aft. That was it. A bunch
of 'licker'd up rednecks ina boston whaler' could have hijacked the
ship, if needed. It wasn't escorted.
As with terrorism, 90% of whats as 'dangers' and 'threast' from
nuclear materials, is nothing more than plain old FUD.
>
>The likely difference: who's backyard it is being
>dumped in.
>
>> Can YOU suggest any place in the US that is a better site than Yucca Mtn.?
>> I suspect not.
>
>No. There is no *good* place. That is exactly
>why everyone wants it dumped in someone else's
>backyard.
>
>And that is the major reason why we need to stop
>producing it.
wrote:
>>>>>Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's
>>>>>backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention?
>>>>
>>>>No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion.
>>>
>>>The scientists in Nevada disagree.
>>
>> But have they come up with any alternative places? No.
>> (where were they -before- Yucca Mtn.was selected???)
>
>They were loudly saying not to put it in Nevada. Just
>like scientists in *every* other state were saying.
>
>> I suspect they too are being NIMBY.
>
>You can call it that but they would call it
>protecting their citizens.
>
>>>You have explained your postion clearly:
>>>
>>> You want the benefit.
>>>
>>> You want to put the waste in someone else's backyard.
>>
>>
>> Wrong,-in the best possible place.
>
>I'll assume you are not arguing about wanting
>the benefit.
>
>You don't want it in *your* backyard. You've made
>that clear.
>
>You claim science has determined that Yucca Mountain
>is a good place to put nuclear waste.
>
>If only science were always objective. For simple
>things it can be. But there will never be a
>scientific proof that Yucca Mountain is a good
>place to store nuclear waste. That is a conclusion.
>Not a fact. For complex problems there will always
>be lots of apparently conflicting facts.
>
>The scientists working for the federal government
>really want a place to dump the nuclear waste.
>They looked at the facts and drew the *conclusion*
>that Yucca Mountain is safe.
>
>The scientists working for the state of Nevada
>really don't want the nuclear waste dumped in
>their state. They looked at the facts and drew the
>conclusion that Yucca Mountain is not safe.
ERm no, to my understanding, the objects were made purely on political
reasons, no scientific based reasons made at all. I persoanlyl will
take a nicely designed, built and manned nuclear storage facility in
'my back yard' any day. The only reasons given for why that facility
is not good, is emotionally based, and scientifically unsound.
I worked at a nuclear reprocessing plant for a while. thats like a
storage facility squared. lots of material comes in and out, and is
processed, its not sealed, locked up and then kept in one place. The
CND weirdo's still pickett every now and then, but its nothing very
serious. As for whata i was doing at the plant - i was brought in to
test potential safety inspection, and emergency shutdown robots. Part
of a team that heavily analysed the data from sending vehicles around
in hot rooms, seeing how they affected data, if it was possible to add
layers and distance between human operators and maintainance people,
and anything warm, or hot.
If you want to talk crap, there are MANY better targets out
in the world today for gathering nuclear materials. for instance, in
2002, a lot of easily frightened nuclear and worriers
panicked over a shipment of MOX pellets that went from Japan to
sellafield. The ship was slow, and poorly armed. apart from 9mm
sidearms for the armed members of the crew (two dozen or so) the ship
carried two .50cal guns, one each fore and aft. That was it. A bunch
of 'licker'd up rednecks ina boston whaler' could have hijacked the
ship, if needed. It wasn't escorted.
As with terrorism, 90% of whats as 'dangers' and 'threast' from
nuclear materials, is nothing more than plain old FUD.
>
>The likely difference: who's backyard it is being
>dumped in.
>
>> Can YOU suggest any place in the US that is a better site than Yucca Mtn.?
>> I suspect not.
>
>No. There is no *good* place. That is exactly
>why everyone wants it dumped in someone else's
>backyard.
>
>And that is the major reason why we need to stop
>producing it.
08-22-2005, 07:23 PM
#130
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid
Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:_WmOe.85$A%1.24@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>>>>>Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's
>>>>>backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention?
>>>>
>>>>No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion.
>>>
>>>The scientists in Nevada disagree.
>>
>> But have they come up with any alternative places? No.
>> (where were they -before- Yucca Mtn.was selected???)
>
> They were loudly saying not to put it in Nevada. Just
> like scientists in *every* other state were saying.
Then they were not trying to solve the location problem,they just were
NIMBY.No wonder they were ignored.
>
>> I suspect they too are being NIMBY.
>
> You can call it that but they would call it
> protecting their citizens.
They certainly were not acting in the best interests of the Nation.
Nor as scientists.
>
>>>You have explained your postion clearly:
>>>
>>> You want the benefit.
>>>
>>> You want to put the waste in someone else's backyard.
>>
>>
>> Wrong,-in the best possible place.
>
> I'll assume you are not arguing about wanting
> the benefit.
>
> You don't want it in *your* backyard. You've made
> that clear.
I live in FLORIDA;the geology/hydrology is totally wrong for it here.
If it were geologically and hydrologically the best place,I'd WELCOME IT.
Heck,I'd try to get a JOB there,and live within reasonable driving distance
from it.
>
> You claim science has determined that Yucca Mountain
> is a good place to put nuclear waste.
The best available in the CONUS.
NOBODY has shown otherwise.
(all they say is "not here";NIMBY,=UNACCEPTABLE,it's gotta go somewhere.)
>
> If only science were always objective.
YOU are not "objective",except for your no-nuke philosophy.
> For simple
> things it can be. But there will never be a
> scientific proof that Yucca Mountain is a good
> place to store nuclear waste. That is a conclusion.
> Not a fact. For complex problems there will always
> be lots of apparently conflicting facts.
>
> The scientists working for the federal government
> really want a place to dump the nuclear waste.
Yes,it's necessary.
It's certainly not good to stay with the status quo.
It's here,we have to deal with it.
> They looked at the facts and drew the *conclusion*
> that Yucca Mountain is safe.
A pretty good decision.
>
> The scientists working for the state of Nevada
> really don't want the nuclear waste dumped in
> their state. They looked at the facts and drew the
> conclusion that Yucca Mountain is not safe.
Gee,think they were BIASED? (like you)
>
> The likely difference: who's backyard it is being
> dumped in.
>
>> Can YOU suggest any place in the US that is a better site than Yucca
>> Mtn.? I suspect not.
>
> No. There is no *good* place.
Yes,there is.
The place where it's the safest,and least likely to affect anything.
> That is exactly
> why everyone wants it dumped in someone else's
> backyard.
AH,there's the TRUE drift of your objection;it's NUCLEAR,therefore
unacceptable anywhere.You feel that having a single national repository
would make muclear power more feasible.You are not concerned with the
safety of the PRESENT nuclear wastes.You don't want any solution to safe
storage of nuclear wastes.
I suspect you WANT some disaster to happen so that it bolsters your anti-
nuke beliefs.
Just as I suspected.Just another anti-nuke enviro-weenie.
>
> And that is the major reason why we need to stop
> producing it.
>
Now you show your true colors.
PLONK.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
news:_WmOe.85$A%1.24@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>>>>>Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's
>>>>>backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention?
>>>>
>>>>No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion.
>>>
>>>The scientists in Nevada disagree.
>>
>> But have they come up with any alternative places? No.
>> (where were they -before- Yucca Mtn.was selected???)
>
> They were loudly saying not to put it in Nevada. Just
> like scientists in *every* other state were saying.
Then they were not trying to solve the location problem,they just were
NIMBY.No wonder they were ignored.
>
>> I suspect they too are being NIMBY.
>
> You can call it that but they would call it
> protecting their citizens.
They certainly were not acting in the best interests of the Nation.
Nor as scientists.
>
>>>You have explained your postion clearly:
>>>
>>> You want the benefit.
>>>
>>> You want to put the waste in someone else's backyard.
>>
>>
>> Wrong,-in the best possible place.
>
> I'll assume you are not arguing about wanting
> the benefit.
>
> You don't want it in *your* backyard. You've made
> that clear.
I live in FLORIDA;the geology/hydrology is totally wrong for it here.
If it were geologically and hydrologically the best place,I'd WELCOME IT.
Heck,I'd try to get a JOB there,and live within reasonable driving distance
from it.
>
> You claim science has determined that Yucca Mountain
> is a good place to put nuclear waste.
The best available in the CONUS.
NOBODY has shown otherwise.
(all they say is "not here";NIMBY,=UNACCEPTABLE,it's gotta go somewhere.)
>
> If only science were always objective.
YOU are not "objective",except for your no-nuke philosophy.
> For simple
> things it can be. But there will never be a
> scientific proof that Yucca Mountain is a good
> place to store nuclear waste. That is a conclusion.
> Not a fact. For complex problems there will always
> be lots of apparently conflicting facts.
>
> The scientists working for the federal government
> really want a place to dump the nuclear waste.
Yes,it's necessary.
It's certainly not good to stay with the status quo.
It's here,we have to deal with it.
> They looked at the facts and drew the *conclusion*
> that Yucca Mountain is safe.
A pretty good decision.
>
> The scientists working for the state of Nevada
> really don't want the nuclear waste dumped in
> their state. They looked at the facts and drew the
> conclusion that Yucca Mountain is not safe.
Gee,think they were BIASED? (like you)
>
> The likely difference: who's backyard it is being
> dumped in.
>
>> Can YOU suggest any place in the US that is a better site than Yucca
>> Mtn.? I suspect not.
>
> No. There is no *good* place.
Yes,there is.
The place where it's the safest,and least likely to affect anything.
> That is exactly
> why everyone wants it dumped in someone else's
> backyard.
AH,there's the TRUE drift of your objection;it's NUCLEAR,therefore
unacceptable anywhere.You feel that having a single national repository
would make muclear power more feasible.You are not concerned with the
safety of the PRESENT nuclear wastes.You don't want any solution to safe
storage of nuclear wastes.
I suspect you WANT some disaster to happen so that it bolsters your anti-
nuke beliefs.
Just as I suspected.Just another anti-nuke enviro-weenie.
>
> And that is the major reason why we need to stop
> producing it.
>
Now you show your true colors.
PLONK.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AutoReporter
auto news
0
07-23-2010 11:41 AM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)