Bad day in Oklahoma

On 2006-03-07, Jay Honeck wrote:
You're not answering the question.

Sigh. I did answer it.

So, again, why worry about it? What IS the point of all this hand-wringing?

Perhaps because some of us are interested in the long-term survival of a
human civilisation that has a reasonable quality of life?

--
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

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

I find it supremely ironic that the ultimate solution to our problems
in the Middle East, as well as the ultimate solution to our so-called
climate crisis, is being politically quashed by the same people who
are screaming the loudest against burning petrochemical fuels.

I find off-hand comments about "ultimate solutions" a bit concerning. Care
to elaborate?

Neil

Doing environmental harm is stealing from the future. The world does
not belong to us. It is on loan to us by our children.

Bull**** - the world belongs to the living.

We are doing
things to it that benefit us in the near term, but cause harm in the far
term. We've even made a business out of it, and in doing so, think that
this business is legitimate, and rightfully ours.

That's what humans do to survive and prosper.

Interstingly, the same ones that want to collectivize the earth have never
grasped the ultimate consequences of the actions, known as "the tradgedy of
the commons".

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
et...
I find off-hand comments about "ultimate solutions" a bit concerning. Care
to elaborate?

His comments seemed pretty clear to me... He was talking about nuclear
energy and the fact that the anti-oil eco-nuts also stand in the way of the
development of new nuclear plants...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Ya know, at a high enough orbit the Venutian blind (sp intentional)
would probably only have to be the size of a football field or three.
Okay, I have absolutely no way of rationalizing this, but I just
latched on to the idea of a NASA/Home Depot collaboration and went off
on a tangent...

If the sun was a point source of light, then you could put a smaller body
between the Earth and it and cover the entire planet with the shadow...
Since the sun is larger, that doesn't work... You would need an object the
size of the Earth and close to it to cover the entire planet... For 75%
coverage, you would need an object at least 75% the size of the Earth...
Even when we have a solar eclipse, the moon's shadow is only going across a
portion of the planet... If the moon orbited at a greater distance (I'm
don't remember of the exact distance off the top of my head), all we would
see of the eclipse would be the silhouette of the moon obscuring a part of
the sun -- the edges of the sun not obscured by the moon would still be
providing light... Although we would still be getting light, it would be at
a reduced energy level, so theoretically it should affect the warming of the
planet... On the other hand, since polar warming and the subsequent melting
of the polar ice packs is seen as a concern by certain individuals, perhaps
we should just shadow these areas and let them build up more ice... Of
course, while we're at it, maybe we can provide a partial shadow for Houston
during the summer months so that the temperature would be more bearable...

Electricity created with nuclear fission

Considering the care with which people handle dangerous things
(including airplanes, an endless topic of discussion here), and
considering the number of people with evil intent, both enemies and
citizens, and considering the misplaced priorities and total lack of
understanding we have about security, and considering all the economic
and short term incentives we have to take shortcuts, I am not all that
comfortable with increased use of intense nuclear products.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

You are coming at it from the wrong direction, Jay. Nuclear fission
requires some rather scarce chemistry (U235 doesn't come out of the faucet
when you turn it on) but FUSION does come out of the faucet. While
"ultimate" solutions are yet to be found (what happens some several millenia
down the road when all our water is turned to helium?), if we had spent one
tenth of one percent of what we spent on foreign oil over the last fifty
years, we could tell the middle east to EAT its oil, we don't need it.

Jim



Electricity created with nuclear fission can be used to create all sorts
of alternative fuels

Interstingly, the same ones that want to collectivize the earth have never
grasped the ultimate consequences of the actions, known as "the tradgedy of
the commons".

I am well aware of the tragedy of the commons, and am not advocating
"collectivizing the earth". But the attitude that we can do what we
want with impunity is counterproductive.

We are doing
things to it that benefit us in the near term, but cause harm in the far
term. We've even made a business out of it, and in doing so, think that
this business is legitimate, and rightfully ours.


That's what humans do to survive and prosper.

That worked when there weren't many humans, and their tools were weak.
Our abilities are now far stronger than the environment's ability to
recover, and we need to use discretion in a way that we didn't a
thousand years ago.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

I find it supremely ironic that the ultimate solution to our
problems in the Middle East, as well as the ultimate solution to
our so-called climate crisis, is being politically quashed by the
same people who are screaming the loudest against burning
petrochemical fuels.

I find off-hand comments about "ultimate solutions" a bit
concerning. Care to elaborate?

Electricity created with nuclear fission can be used to create all
sorts of alternative fuels, from clean-burning hydrogen, to ethanol.
For reasons that are clear only to the activists themselves, dirty
and dangerous coal -- and politically unstable oil and natural gas --
are seen as "safer" than nuclear energy.

Thanks for the clarification! Not that I think that the solution is all
that simple.

Technically speaking, I agree that nuclear fission offers a more efficient
and less poluting source of energy than burning fossil fuels. However,
practically speaking, the process of obtaining nuclear fuel and containing
the waste (we have no real way to "dispose" of it) is problematic, even
disregarding issues presented by those with malicious intent. At this
point in time, these problems more than offset the benefits. Lest someone
gets the wrong impression, I am not an "anti-nuclear" activist. But, I
*do* live in Ohio, downwind from the plant that nearly had a hole eaten
through the reactor lid, and therefore have an interest in the way that
situation is being dealt with (yes, it's not over yet, folks!).

Thus, when these very same "environmentalists" protest against the
use of non-renewable energy (oil, coal, gas) and "global warming"
it's impossible to take them seriously. Their actions speak far
louder than their words.

Is this really an either/or issue, though? We could solve our problems in
the same way that they're solved in other countries; tax the heck out of
gas. How many Hummers with one person in them would we see on the road if
gas was $7.00 a gallon? As I see it, our biggest problem is that we
squander non-renewable energy sources.

Neil

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
what happens some several millenia down the road when
all our water is turned to helium?

We all end up talking in squeaky voices, of course... snicker