Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
MarkC=peacenik
My former enemies would beg to differ.
MarkC=peacenik
My former enemies would beg to differ.
OPEC conciders ditching the U.S. Dollar
- Thread starter Merkava_4
- Start date
- Status
Wasn't the direct death toll from Chernobyl less than 100 ?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article563041.ece
Yes there will be some cancers down the track which could laregly have been circumvented by medical intervention early on.
Animals have moved back in, happy to not be molested by humans.
As Al said, a coal station can release equivalent of 20 tonnes p.a. of radioactive stuff into the environment annually.
And we make a big mess in many other ways.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article563041.ece
Yes there will be some cancers down the track which could laregly have been circumvented by medical intervention early on.
Animals have moved back in, happy to not be molested by humans.
As Al said, a coal station can release equivalent of 20 tonnes p.a. of radioactive stuff into the environment annually.
And we make a big mess in many other ways.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Quote:
It's not hard to see why there's so many NIMBYs when it comes to nuclear power. From what I've seen, it was after the 3 mile Island incident that no more nuclear power plants were constructed here.
Yes. One was constructed. It was supposed to be $275 million adjusted for inflation. It was supposed to be identical to one in Florida. Being post TMI there were a lot of modes to the "packaged" nuke plant. The builder was the one that said the mods were "non-comforming" ($$$$) and the builder (Bechtel) loaned the money that PECO had to pay them.
So you get a 4 BILLION $$$ plant that you charge your hostage customers for ..and it was built to provide power for south Jersey (you can't always put a nuke where the power is needed).
None are made since there's no sense in building one at the current costs. You could put up many ...MANY gas fired plants to achieve the same capacity ..even at higher cost of NG.
Nukes and Hospitals/doctors. In the US the more you have doesn't mean that they lower the cost of what they provide.
It's not hard to see why there's so many NIMBYs when it comes to nuclear power. From what I've seen, it was after the 3 mile Island incident that no more nuclear power plants were constructed here.
Yes. One was constructed. It was supposed to be $275 million adjusted for inflation. It was supposed to be identical to one in Florida. Being post TMI there were a lot of modes to the "packaged" nuke plant. The builder was the one that said the mods were "non-comforming" ($$$$) and the builder (Bechtel) loaned the money that PECO had to pay them.
So you get a 4 BILLION $$$ plant that you charge your hostage customers for ..and it was built to provide power for south Jersey (you can't always put a nuke where the power is needed).
None are made since there's no sense in building one at the current costs. You could put up many ...MANY gas fired plants to achieve the same capacity ..even at higher cost of NG.
Nukes and Hospitals/doctors. In the US the more you have doesn't mean that they lower the cost of what they provide.
Quote:
HOW DOES THE U.S. GET ITS DOLLAR ADVANTAGE?
Imagine this: you are deep in debt but every day you write cheques for millions of dollars you don't have -- another luxury car, a holiday home at the beach, the world trip of a lifetime. Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff because those cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an agreement with the owners of one thing everyone wants, call it petrol/gas, that they will accept only your cheques as payment.
This means everyone must hoard your cheques so they can buy petrol/gas. Since they have to keep a stock of your cheques, they use them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a TV, the TV shop owner swaps your cheque for petrol/gas, that seller buys some vegetables at the fruit shop, the fruiterer passes it on to buy bread, the baker buys some flour with it, and on it goes, round and round -- but never back to the bank. You have a debt on your books, but so long as your cheque never reaches the bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received your TV free.
This is the position the USA has enjoyed for 30 years -- it has been getting a free world trade ride for all that time. It has been receiving a huge subsidy from everyone else in the world. As it debt has been growing, it has printed more money (written more cheques) to keep trading. No wonder it is an economic powerhouse!
Then one day, one petrol seller says he is going to accept another person's cheques, a couple of others think that might be a good idea. If this spreads, people are going to stop hoarding your cheques and they will come flying home to the bank. Since you don't have enough in the bank to cover all the cheques, very nasty stuff is going to hit the fan! But you are big, tough and very aggressive.
You don't scare the other guy who can write cheques, he's pretty big too, but given a 'legitimate' excuse, you can beat the tripes out of the lone gas seller and scare him and his mates into submission. And that, in a nutshell, is what the USA is doing right now with Iraq.
http://www.oilempire.us/euro.html
What do you guys make of that?
Everything in Europe (including the euro) isn't so rosey either.
Every time a new (poorer) member enters the EU the rest of Europe
has to subsidize them.
I do agree that things are worse here in America then it appears. We no longer produce (American born) doctors, engineers, scientists etc... but we sure can produce lawyers who add nothing to our GDP.
I still don't understand why so many of our politicians seem to be more concerned with Israels survival than Americas. Why does American tax dollars keep flowing to Israel (and other places) to build schools, hospitals etc...while we keep closing them here
at home.
I really think it is time to throw all the bums in Washington out.
Every time a new (poorer) member enters the EU the rest of Europe
has to subsidize them.
I do agree that things are worse here in America then it appears. We no longer produce (American born) doctors, engineers, scientists etc... but we sure can produce lawyers who add nothing to our GDP.
I still don't understand why so many of our politicians seem to be more concerned with Israels survival than Americas. Why does American tax dollars keep flowing to Israel (and other places) to build schools, hospitals etc...while we keep closing them here
at home.
I really think it is time to throw all the bums in Washington out.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
It's essential for peace in the middle east ..at least on some tertiary level.
pbm, good idea. why don't we fix our own country before extending a hand to help others out.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Wasn't the direct death toll from Chernobyl less than 100 ?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article563041.ece
Yes there will be some cancers down the track which could laregly have been circumvented by medical intervention early on.
What's the direct death toll due to flouride in tap water?
We had a busload full of bald Russian kids, between the age of 10 and 17, from the Chernobyl area at my high school in the late '80s. They all had leukemia and or bone cancer and had been invited by the Bavarian government as guests and for medical treatment. Many schools and institutions participated in this effort. My school alone hosted about 50 of those students.
In the area from where I am in Bavaria is over 800 miles from Chernobyl, but we were subjected to a fair amount of fallout due to rain. Back in '86 many of us began drinking only imported milk. Kids were advised to not walk barefoot in the grass for months. We still are advised to eat local mushrooms and deer in extreme moderation. This will not change for generations to come.
I left my town a few years after this incident for good. The cancer rate in the area is higher now due to either better detection, or because it is actually higher for whatever reasons. Statistically, the cancer rate there is higher especially in children. It is not far fetched to make a connection between the 1986 Chernobyl incident and a rise in cancer rate in the affected areas, which include significant areas in Central Europe. A similar rise in cancer rates was observed during the lovely times of atmospheric nuclear tests that ended only in the early '60s. It all adds up. Minimizing exposure to, let's just call them nasties, makes absolutely sense. Safe nukes are fine by me as long as they really are safe and located where an accident is more likely to have less of an effect on the population. Dumping nuclear waste in the ocean (see Farallon Islands) is just insane. Storing nuclear waste where it will contaminate groundwater is equally insane.
There are just too many people on the planet. The planet won't care about any of it -- it is a self-correcting system.
Wasn't the direct death toll from Chernobyl less than 100 ?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article563041.ece
Yes there will be some cancers down the track which could laregly have been circumvented by medical intervention early on.
What's the direct death toll due to flouride in tap water?
We had a busload full of bald Russian kids, between the age of 10 and 17, from the Chernobyl area at my high school in the late '80s. They all had leukemia and or bone cancer and had been invited by the Bavarian government as guests and for medical treatment. Many schools and institutions participated in this effort. My school alone hosted about 50 of those students.
In the area from where I am in Bavaria is over 800 miles from Chernobyl, but we were subjected to a fair amount of fallout due to rain. Back in '86 many of us began drinking only imported milk. Kids were advised to not walk barefoot in the grass for months. We still are advised to eat local mushrooms and deer in extreme moderation. This will not change for generations to come.
I left my town a few years after this incident for good. The cancer rate in the area is higher now due to either better detection, or because it is actually higher for whatever reasons. Statistically, the cancer rate there is higher especially in children. It is not far fetched to make a connection between the 1986 Chernobyl incident and a rise in cancer rate in the affected areas, which include significant areas in Central Europe. A similar rise in cancer rates was observed during the lovely times of atmospheric nuclear tests that ended only in the early '60s. It all adds up. Minimizing exposure to, let's just call them nasties, makes absolutely sense. Safe nukes are fine by me as long as they really are safe and located where an accident is more likely to have less of an effect on the population. Dumping nuclear waste in the ocean (see Farallon Islands) is just insane. Storing nuclear waste where it will contaminate groundwater is equally insane.
There are just too many people on the planet. The planet won't care about any of it -- it is a self-correcting system.
Economists say the falling dollar has pluses and minuses for the economy. For consumers who like to buy European automobiles or French cheeses, it means their standard of living will go down as they pay more money for these goods. But for American workers on the assembly lines at places such as Boeing or Caterpillar, it means their employers' products will be more in demand.
"After the pluses and minuses are all netted out, I think the lower-valued dollar is good for the economy," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "The growth we're getting from trade is helping to cushion the blow to the economy from housing."
"After the pluses and minuses are all netted out, I think the lower-valued dollar is good for the economy," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "The growth we're getting from trade is helping to cushion the blow to the economy from housing."
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: Schmoe
You guys are making is sound like the ending to the movie "Terminator" where at the end she is getting gas and she says a big storm is coming. Pretty scarry stuff if what you all say is actually true.
Terminator wasn't a parable for crapping where you eat.
You guys are making is sound like the ending to the movie "Terminator" where at the end she is getting gas and she says a big storm is coming. Pretty scarry stuff if what you all say is actually true.
Terminator wasn't a parable for crapping where you eat.
True.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: Schmoe
Isn't this, in a different dimension, about the same reasoning Japan used to declare war with the U.S.?
I believe you mean to say "to declare war against the US."
The US had banned all exports of crucial raw materials like iron, steel and oil to Japan. Japan was also being pressured by the US to end the war with China. Japan also desired to expand their empire. Knocking out the Pacific Fleet was deemed militarily necessary to give Japan time to win the war against China. Hence Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, not knowing the US carrier fleet was out at sea. Otherwise the whole Pacific Fleet could have been destroyed or severely crippled for a long time.
PS: Good job at steering the thread's topic off course and into dangerous waters.
Isn't this, in a different dimension, about the same reasoning Japan used to declare war with the U.S.?
I believe you mean to say "to declare war against the US."
The US had banned all exports of crucial raw materials like iron, steel and oil to Japan. Japan was also being pressured by the US to end the war with China. Japan also desired to expand their empire. Knocking out the Pacific Fleet was deemed militarily necessary to give Japan time to win the war against China. Hence Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, not knowing the US carrier fleet was out at sea. Otherwise the whole Pacific Fleet could have been destroyed or severely crippled for a long time.
PS: Good job at steering the thread's topic off course and into dangerous waters.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: Schmoe
Economists say the falling dollar has pluses and minuses for the economy. For consumers who like to buy European automobiles or French cheeses, it means their standard of living will go down as they pay more money for these goods. But for American workers on the assembly lines at places such as Boeing or Caterpillar, it means their employers' products will be more in demand.
"After the pluses and minuses are all netted out, I think the lower-valued dollar is good for the economy," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "The growth we're getting from trade is helping to cushion the blow to the economy from housing."
I can assure that most of us will not profit from a weak dollar.
Economists say the falling dollar has pluses and minuses for the economy. For consumers who like to buy European automobiles or French cheeses, it means their standard of living will go down as they pay more money for these goods. But for American workers on the assembly lines at places such as Boeing or Caterpillar, it means their employers' products will be more in demand.
"After the pluses and minuses are all netted out, I think the lower-valued dollar is good for the economy," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "The growth we're getting from trade is helping to cushion the blow to the economy from housing."
I can assure that most of us will not profit from a weak dollar.
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Minimizing exposure to, let's just call them nasties, makes absolutely sense. Safe nukes are fine by me as long as they really are safe and located where an accident is more likely to have less of an effect on the population. Dumping nuclear waste in the ocean (see Farallon Islands) is just insane. Storing nuclear waste where it will contaminate groundwater is equally insane.
agree wholeheartedly.
I guess it's a matter of perspective (and population density).
I see nukes as a positive for Oz, as we've got squillions of square kilometers of uninhabited continent with places that no one really wants to live anyway.
However, I'd more support the solar chimney concept that appeared to be a goer recently. They need space and sun, which we've got.
Minimizing exposure to, let's just call them nasties, makes absolutely sense. Safe nukes are fine by me as long as they really are safe and located where an accident is more likely to have less of an effect on the population. Dumping nuclear waste in the ocean (see Farallon Islands) is just insane. Storing nuclear waste where it will contaminate groundwater is equally insane.
agree wholeheartedly.
I guess it's a matter of perspective (and population density).
I see nukes as a positive for Oz, as we've got squillions of square kilometers of uninhabited continent with places that no one really wants to live anyway.
However, I'd more support the solar chimney concept that appeared to be a goer recently. They need space and sun, which we've got.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Nukes are great if you can integrate steam intensive industry to soak up waste heat that usually just gets vented as water vapor. Heck, there's no reason to have water tube boilers providing common carrier "street heat" to high rises and whatnot when a nuke's daily waste heat trumps it many times over. Heat your streets heat your homes...distill your fresh water ..heat massive green houses ..etc..etc.
but let's not make too much sense here.
but let's not make too much sense here.
Gary,
our state Govt is installing a desal plant for Sydney. That's nearly $2B, and will consume 500MW (which will mean an extra 25 million litres a day evaporation inland).
If they combined a power station and a desal plant they could generate an extra 500MW for the state, while also getting their water.
If they invested 8% of the price of the desal plant in dry cooling for the inland stations, they could have freed up 100 million litres per day that would have flowed into major catchments.
There must be some serious brown paper bags changing hands for such decisions to make it to Contract.
our state Govt is installing a desal plant for Sydney. That's nearly $2B, and will consume 500MW (which will mean an extra 25 million litres a day evaporation inland).
If they combined a power station and a desal plant they could generate an extra 500MW for the state, while also getting their water.
If they invested 8% of the price of the desal plant in dry cooling for the inland stations, they could have freed up 100 million litres per day that would have flowed into major catchments.
There must be some serious brown paper bags changing hands for such decisions to make it to Contract.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
