Bad day in Oklahoma

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-03-09, Matt Barrow wrote:
pro-active about it. But continuing to throw our hands up and say 'oh
well' and continuing to change the atmospheric composition is not the
answer.

Ummm...BS!

OK - why *is* it the answer then? Replying 'Ummm...BS' is a pretty
useless non-answer and has no place in rational debate.

When you get rational instead of parroting the usual tripe, then we can have
a rational discussion.


Burning coal apparently puts more radioactivity into the atmosphere than
all the civil nuclear industry (including the Soviet one) put together.

Huh?

Well, to reply in your engagingly abrasive style:
http://just****inggoogleit.com/

Well, try being accurate with your snips and then I won't be abrasive.


But I will add a more constructive reply. Coal contains radioactive
isotopes. Burning coal turns this compact and solid form of matter into
hot gases which goes up the coal fired power station's smokestack,
complete with some of the radioactive isotopes. Since very large
quantities of coal are being burned, this results in a measurable amount
of radioisotopes being spread about the atmosphere.

Some references: the very first return from Google:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html

Quote:
"Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the
United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040,
cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937
are predicted to be:

* U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons):

Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235)
Thorium: 357,491 tons

* Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):

Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)
Thorium: 2,039,709 tons"

There are plenty more similar references. The anti-nuclear lobby who
would rather we burn coal conveniently gloss over things like this.


Nice, but that wasn't the part I was responding to. As I said, be accurate
and contextual with your snips.

On 2006-03-10, Matt Barrow wrote:
"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
OK - why *is* it the answer then? Replying 'Ummm...BS' is a pretty
useless non-answer and has no place in rational debate.

When you get rational instead of parroting the usual tripe, then we can have
a rational discussion.

Nice way to dodge the question.

(4th nesting, my article)
(3rd nesting, your reply, 2nd nesting, my reply to that):
Burning coal apparently puts more radioactivity into the atmosphere than
all the civil nuclear industry (including the Soviet one) put together.

Huh?

Well, to reply in your engagingly abrasive style:
http://just****inggoogleit.com/

Well, try being accurate with your snips and then I won't be abrasive.

The snip is entirely accurate. You replied 'Huh?' to the statement
'Burning coal apparently...'. Where was the lack of accuracy? Google
Groups shows that it is entirely accurate.

[snip quotation about radioisotopes, posted by myself]

Nice, but that wasn't the part I was responding to. As I said, be accurate
and contextual with your snips.

OK, you replied 'Huh?' immediately below 'Burning coal apparently...'.
What bit WERE you replying to, exactly? Your one word question doesn't
exactly provide any indication that you were replying to any other part
other than the immediately preceeding quotation. All the sole world
'Huh?' indicates is that you didn't understand something.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-03-10, Matt Barrow wrote:
"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
OK - why *is* it the answer then? Replying 'Ummm...BS' is a pretty
useless non-answer and has no place in rational debate.

When you get rational instead of parroting the usual tripe, then we can
have
a rational discussion.

Nice way to dodge the question.

Here's a start.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speec...omplexity.html (about
half way through)