Japanese nuke power has nearly ended

On Jan 23, 7:06*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 21, 4:38*am, bob haller wrote:





On Jan 20, 7:51*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 19, 7:19*pm, bob haller wrote:

On Jan 19, 9:43*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 19, 12:56*pm, bob haller wrote:

On Jan 19, 3:10*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 19, 7:48*am, bob haller wrote:

On Jan 19, 10:32*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

bob haller wrote:
currently japan is doing ok with almost no nuke power plants in
operation

Not so much, unless you consider 17% price increases and industrial
slowdowns to be "doing ok".

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

power price must go up to pay the costs of the meltdowns.

lets see whats now estimated to be a 50 year or longer clean up,
replace totally the fukhisma plant generating capacity, health issues,
both mental and physical for the residents.. relocation for a
generation or more a bunch of towns. compensate farmers for now
hazardous food, heck even gravel is radioactive, from quarries that
went ino new buildings that cant be lived in.

just think of what a mess like this would be like in new york, or
anywhere else.

most nuke plants in japan will have to be upgraded or decomisioned.
most near faults or sunmami areas......

Using thorium fuel and those AP-1000 kinds of simpler reactors that
are more robust and have 90% less to go wrong with them, plus
otherwise as near failsafe as humanly possible, would probably make
these new and improved clean energy providers almost too cheap to
meter (though also unable to provide plutonium and a few other nasty
elements that governments want us to keep paying for).

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

what the world needs is a reactor design unlikely to melt down. and
the hard one if it melts down there are no leaks

That's been doable for decades. *It's called a thorium fueled reactor.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

so a thorium melted down reactor wouldnt leak at all? if melted down
or explode

That's pretty much the case, of thorium being the most failsafe. *A
properly configured thorium fueled reactor is good to go for more than
a century, and worse case it's still the most failsafe alternative
energy known to man. *Of course, if engineered by morons and managed
by a greedy ZNR Mafia/cabal, it's bond to fail big time and cost at
least ten fold as much as it should.

You could always live in a cave with no running water, no sewer
systems and only open fire for light and cooking. *You do realize that
any and all forms of terrestrial energy have their negative
consequences that are short and long term. *Hydrocarbon usage is
pretty much all negative, having a track record of death and
environmental consequences that are all negative. *There might even be
enough caves on Earth to accommodate a few million of us (though I'd
doubt 7 million), so what about the other 99.9% of us?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well in all honesty we all need energy.

however what other source of power can create a large human dead zone
anywhere around a plant overnight? and nothing made by man is 100%
safe

Thorium (an ordinary part of Earth) is much safer than solar or wind
energy, because the intensity or thermal reactive activity or
intensity of thorium is easily and safely controlled.



but there are alternatives for a cleaner green earth without the risks
of nuclear power.

Thorium is only nuclear on demand, as otherwise it's kind of inert
failsafe.



superinsulated homes, R200 for every new home, meat production in grow
containers where no setient beings get killed, its amazing how much
pollution is created by growing meat. coal fired plants where the
exhaust gasses are run thru long glass tubes with growing algea. the
algea is filtered out and turned into a gasoline alternative, not only
does this cut carbon pollution by 1/2 its by product would be a clean
burning us made road fuel. more efficent electrical devices. combine
all these and more to make our world a better place

ultimately the problem is just too many humans. anyone with a aquarium
knows too many fish in a too small aquarium can exceed its carrying
capacity and produce die offs..

Yes, big time energy efficiency, insulation up to R-256, more
hydroelectric, geothermal, wind and solar (especially via Mokenergy)
is a darn good way to go. *However, first we'll have to get rid of the
upper most .0001% that'll do whatever it takes (including WW3) in
order to keep any such improvements from happening.

Those "Georgia Guidestones" insist that the global population needs to
be reduced to something under 500 million. *Is that what you think is
a good idea?
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
*http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/Message.htm
*http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/stones.htm

*William Mook and myself can make this world accommodate 21 billion
without running out of terrestrial options, though it would be kind of
nice if at least half of them were educated past 5th grade.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well i really dont want to see a big human die off. but with too many
people it will happen anyway

On Jan 23, 8:35*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Jan 23, 7:06*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Jan 21, 4:38*am, bob haller wrote:

On Jan 20, 7:51*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 19, 7:19*pm, bob haller wrote:

On Jan 19, 9:43*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 19, 12:56*pm, bob haller wrote:

On Jan 19, 3:10*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 19, 7:48*am, bob haller wrote:

On Jan 19, 10:32*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

bob haller wrote:
currently japan is doing ok with almost no nuke power plants in
operation

Not so much, unless you consider 17% price increases and industrial
slowdowns to be "doing ok".

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

power price must go up to pay the costs of the meltdowns.

lets see whats now estimated to be a 50 year or longer clean up,
replace totally the fukhisma plant generating capacity, health issues,
both mental and physical for the residents.. relocation for a
generation or more a bunch of towns. compensate farmers for now
hazardous food, heck even gravel is radioactive, from quarries that
went ino new buildings that cant be lived in.

just think of what a mess like this would be like in new york, or
anywhere else.

most nuke plants in japan will have to be upgraded or decomisioned.
most near faults or sunmami areas......

Using thorium fuel and those AP-1000 kinds of simpler reactors that
are more robust and have 90% less to go wrong with them, plus
otherwise as near failsafe as humanly possible, would probably make
these new and improved clean energy providers almost too cheap to
meter (though also unable to provide plutonium and a few other nasty
elements that governments want us to keep paying for).

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

what the world needs is a reactor design unlikely to melt down. and
the hard one if it melts down there are no leaks

That's been doable for decades. *It's called a thorium fueled reactor.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

so a thorium melted down reactor wouldnt leak at all? if melted down
or explode

That's pretty much the case, of thorium being the most failsafe. *A
properly configured thorium fueled reactor is good to go for more than
a century, and worse case it's still the most failsafe alternative
energy known to man. *Of course, if engineered by morons and managed
by a greedy ZNR Mafia/cabal, it's bond to fail big time and cost at
least ten fold as much as it should.

You could always live in a cave with no running water, no sewer
systems and only open fire for light and cooking. *You do realize that
any and all forms of terrestrial energy have their negative
consequences that are short and long term. *Hydrocarbon usage is
pretty much all negative, having a track record of death and
environmental consequences that are all negative. *There might even be
enough caves on Earth to accommodate a few million of us (though I'd
doubt 7 million), so what about the other 99.9% of us?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well in all honesty we all need energy.

however what other source of power can create a large human dead zone
anywhere around a plant overnight? and nothing made by man is 100%
safe

Thorium (an ordinary part of Earth) is much safer than solar or wind
energy, because the intensity or thermal reactive activity or
intensity of thorium is easily and safely controlled.

but there are alternatives for a cleaner green earth without the risks
of nuclear power.

Thorium is only nuclear on demand, as otherwise it's kind of inert
failsafe.

superinsulated homes, R200 for every new home, meat production in grow
containers where no setient beings get killed, its amazing how much
pollution is created by growing meat. coal fired plants where the
exhaust gasses are run thru long glass tubes with growing algea. the
algea is filtered out and turned into a gasoline alternative, not only
does this cut carbon pollution by 1/2 its by product would be a clean
burning us made road fuel. more efficent electrical devices. combine
all these and more to make our world a better place

ultimately the problem is just too many humans. anyone with a aquarium
knows too many fish in a too small aquarium can exceed its carrying
capacity and produce die offs..

Yes, big time energy efficiency, insulation up to R-256, more
hydroelectric, geothermal, wind and solar (especially via Mokenergy)
is a darn good way to go. *However, first we'll have to get rid of the
upper most .0001% that'll do whatever it takes (including WW3) in
order to keep any such improvements from happening.

Those "Georgia Guidestones" insist that the global population needs to
be reduced to something under 500 million. *Is that what you think is
a good idea?
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
*http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/Message.htm
*http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/stones.htm

*William Mook and myself can make this world accommodate 21 billion
without running out of terrestrial options, though it would be kind of
nice if at least half of them were educated past 5th grade.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well i really dont want to see a big human die off. but with too many
people it will happen anyway

At least using thorium as reactor fuel is kind of inert by itself, and
without considerable modification in some hybrid or composite version
of reactor fuel that’s mostly thorium, you couldn’t make a WMD if you
had to, much less destroy or even hardly damage the environment from
which thorium came from to begin with. Of course with such reliably
clean and cheap energy means that everyone has a surplus of time and
wealth for doing other things, and once again, you don’t seem to want
that.

There are many heavy and light density metals (including those
commonly found in hydrocarbons) that are well known as being much
worse and far more toxic than thorium, so why not utilize a failsafe
reactor fuel?

Obviously you and most others don’t even care about the ongoing loss
of helium; and why is that? (doesn’t it matter how much mass Earth is
losing and what that loss is also doing to our O3/ozone layer?)

Exterminating near 95% of humanity in order to sustain the mainstream
status-quo seems kind of grim. Keeping the human population below 500
million is obviously within the existing level of technology, and to
some it’ll seem almost painless as the human birth rate artificially
drops to near zero. Without wars and having only the best medical
care plus genetic engineered kids might require only 0.005 new child
per adult year (1 for every 200/year), or by simply not allowing more
than 2.5 million births per year. However, future human generations
might easily exceed 60 years if the average lifespan becomes worth 120
years.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Jan 24, 4:28*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 23, 8:35*pm, bob haller wrote:





On Jan 23, 7:06*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 21, 4:38*am, bob haller wrote:

On Jan 20, 7:51*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 19, 7:19*pm, bob haller wrote:

On Jan 19, 9:43*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 19, 12:56*pm, bob haller wrote:

On Jan 19, 3:10*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 19, 7:48*am, bob haller wrote:

On Jan 19, 10:32*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

bob haller wrote:
currently japan is doing ok with almost no nuke power plants in
operation

Not so much, unless you consider 17% price increases and industrial
slowdowns to be "doing ok".

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

power price must go up to pay the costs of the meltdowns.

lets see whats now estimated to be a 50 year or longer clean up,
replace totally the fukhisma plant generating capacity, health issues,
both mental and physical for the residents.. relocation for a
generation or more a bunch of towns. compensate farmers for now
hazardous food, heck even gravel is radioactive, from quarries that
went ino new buildings that cant be lived in.

just think of what a mess like this would be like in new york, or
anywhere else.

most nuke plants in japan will have to be upgraded or decomisioned.
most near faults or sunmami areas......

Using thorium fuel and those AP-1000 kinds of simpler reactors that
are more robust and have 90% less to go wrong with them, plus
otherwise as near failsafe as humanly possible, would probably make
these new and improved clean energy providers almost too cheap to
meter (though also unable to provide plutonium and a few other nasty
elements that governments want us to keep paying for).

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

what the world needs is a reactor design unlikely to melt down. and
the hard one if it melts down there are no leaks

That's been doable for decades. *It's called a thorium fueled reactor.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

so a thorium melted down reactor wouldnt leak at all? if melted down
or explode

That's pretty much the case, of thorium being the most failsafe. *A
properly configured thorium fueled reactor is good to go for more than
a century, and worse case it's still the most failsafe alternative
energy known to man. *Of course, if engineered by morons and managed
by a greedy ZNR Mafia/cabal, it's bond to fail big time and cost at
least ten fold as much as it should.

You could always live in a cave with no running water, no sewer
systems and only open fire for light and cooking. *You do realize that
any and all forms of terrestrial energy have their negative
consequences that are short and long term. *Hydrocarbon usage is
pretty much all negative, having a track record of death and
environmental consequences that are all negative. *There might even be
enough caves on Earth to accommodate a few million of us (though I'd
doubt 7 million), so what about the other 99.9% of us?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well in all honesty we all need energy.

however what other source of power can create a large human dead zone
anywhere around a plant overnight? and nothing made by man is 100%
safe

Thorium (an ordinary part of Earth) is much safer than solar or wind
energy, because the intensity or thermal reactive activity or
intensity of thorium is easily and safely controlled.

but there are alternatives for a cleaner green earth without the risks
of nuclear power.

Thorium is only nuclear on demand, as otherwise it's kind of inert
failsafe.

superinsulated homes, R200 for every new home, meat production in grow
containers where no setient beings get killed, its amazing how much
pollution is created by growing meat. coal fired plants where the
exhaust gasses are run thru long glass tubes with growing algea. the
algea is filtered out and turned into a gasoline alternative, not only
does this cut carbon pollution by 1/2 its by product would be a clean
burning us made road fuel. more efficent electrical devices. combine
all these and more to make our world a better place

ultimately the problem is just too many humans. anyone with a aquarium
knows too many fish in a too small aquarium can exceed its carrying
capacity and produce die offs..

Yes, big time energy efficiency, insulation up to R-256, more
hydroelectric, geothermal, wind and solar (especially via Mokenergy)
is a darn good way to go. *However, first we'll have to get rid of the
upper most .0001% that'll do whatever it takes (including WW3) in
order to keep any such improvements from happening.

Those "Georgia Guidestones" insist that the global population needs to
be reduced to something under 500 million. *Is that what you think is
a good idea?
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
*http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/Message.htm
*http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/stones.htm

*William Mook and myself can make this world accommodate 21 billion
without running out of terrestrial options, though it would be kind of
nice if at least half of them were educated past 5th grade.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well i really dont want to see a big human die off. but with too many
people it will happen anyway

At least using thorium as reactor fuel is kind of inert by itself, and
without considerable modification in some hybrid or composite version
of reactor fuel that’s mostly thorium, you couldn’t make a WMD if you
had to, much less destroy or even hardly damage the environment from
which thorium came from to begin with. *Of course with such reliably
clean and cheap energy means that everyone has a surplus of time and
wealth for doing other things, and once again, you don’t seem to want
that.

There are many heavy and light density metals (including those
commonly found in hydrocarbons) that are well known as being much
worse and far more toxic than thorium, so why not utilize a failsafe
reactor fuel?

Obviously you and most others don’t even care about the ongoing loss
of helium; *and why is that? (doesn’t it matter how much mass Earth is
losing and what that loss is also doing to our O3/ozone layer?)

Exterminating near 95% of humanity in order to sustain the mainstream
status-quo seems kind of grim. *Keeping the human population below 500
million is obviously within the existing level of technology, and to
some it’ll seem almost painless as the human birth rate artificially
drops to near zero. *Without wars and having only the best medical
care plus genetic engineered kids might require only 0.005 new child
per adult year (1 for every 200/year), or by simply not allowing more
than 2.5 million births per year. *However, future human generations
might easily exceed 60 years if the average lifespan becomes worth 120
years.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

as of now 93% of japanese nuke power plants are shut down. they are
being shut down for stress test but even after inspections arent being
allowed to restart...

i wonder if 100% will be shut down soon?

as far as the total number of humans any number of things may cut our
numbers. global warming , bird flu and others come to mind.

currently the US life expectancy is going down thanks largely to
obesity and poor lifestyles

On Jan 24, 1:45*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Jan 24, 4:28*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Jan 23, 8:35*pm, bob haller wrote:

On Jan 23, 7:06*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 21, 4:38*am, bob haller wrote:

On Jan 20, 7:51*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 19, 7:19*pm, bob haller wrote:

On Jan 19, 9:43*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 19, 12:56*pm, bob haller wrote:

On Jan 19, 3:10*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 19, 7:48*am, bob haller wrote:

On Jan 19, 10:32*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

bob haller wrote:
currently japan is doing ok with almost no nuke power plants in
operation

Not so much, unless you consider 17% price increases and industrial
slowdowns to be "doing ok".

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

power price must go up to pay the costs of the meltdowns.

lets see whats now estimated to be a 50 year or longer clean up,
replace totally the fukhisma plant generating capacity, health issues,
both mental and physical for the residents.. relocation for a
generation or more a bunch of towns. compensate farmers for now
hazardous food, heck even gravel is radioactive, from quarries that
went ino new buildings that cant be lived in.

just think of what a mess like this would be like in new york, or
anywhere else.

most nuke plants in japan will have to be upgraded or decomisioned.
most near faults or sunmami areas......

Using thorium fuel and those AP-1000 kinds of simpler reactors that
are more robust and have 90% less to go wrong with them, plus
otherwise as near failsafe as humanly possible, would probably make
these new and improved clean energy providers almost too cheap to
meter (though also unable to provide plutonium and a few other nasty
elements that governments want us to keep paying for).

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

what the world needs is a reactor design unlikely to melt down. and
the hard one if it melts down there are no leaks

That's been doable for decades. *It's called a thorium fueled reactor.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

so a thorium melted down reactor wouldnt leak at all? if melted down
or explode

That's pretty much the case, of thorium being the most failsafe.. *A
properly configured thorium fueled reactor is good to go for more than
a century, and worse case it's still the most failsafe alternative
energy known to man. *Of course, if engineered by morons and managed
by a greedy ZNR Mafia/cabal, it's bond to fail big time and cost at
least ten fold as much as it should.

You could always live in a cave with no running water, no sewer
systems and only open fire for light and cooking. *You do realize that
any and all forms of terrestrial energy have their negative
consequences that are short and long term. *Hydrocarbon usage is
pretty much all negative, having a track record of death and
environmental consequences that are all negative. *There might even be
enough caves on Earth to accommodate a few million of us (though I'd
doubt 7 million), so what about the other 99.9% of us?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well in all honesty we all need energy.

however what other source of power can create a large human dead zone
anywhere around a plant overnight? and nothing made by man is 100%
safe

Thorium (an ordinary part of Earth) is much safer than solar or wind
energy, because the intensity or thermal reactive activity or
intensity of thorium is easily and safely controlled.

but there are alternatives for a cleaner green earth without the risks
of nuclear power.

Thorium is only nuclear on demand, as otherwise it's kind of inert
failsafe.

superinsulated homes, R200 for every new home, meat production in grow
containers where no setient beings get killed, its amazing how much
pollution is created by growing meat. coal fired plants where the
exhaust gasses are run thru long glass tubes with growing algea. the
algea is filtered out and turned into a gasoline alternative, not only
does this cut carbon pollution by 1/2 its by product would be a clean
burning us made road fuel. more efficent electrical devices. combine
all these and more to make our world a better place

ultimately the problem is just too many humans. anyone with a aquarium
knows too many fish in a too small aquarium can exceed its carrying
capacity and produce die offs..

Yes, big time energy efficiency, insulation up to R-256, more
hydroelectric, geothermal, wind and solar (especially via Mokenergy)
is a darn good way to go. *However, first we'll have to get rid of the
upper most .0001% that'll do whatever it takes (including WW3) in
order to keep any such improvements from happening.

Those "Georgia Guidestones" insist that the global population needs to
be reduced to something under 500 million. *Is that what you think is
a good idea?
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
*http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/Message.htm
*http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/stones.htm

*William Mook and myself can make this world accommodate 21 billion
without running out of terrestrial options, though it would be kind of
nice if at least half of them were educated past 5th grade.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well i really dont want to see a big human die off. but with too many
people it will happen anyway

At least using thorium as reactor fuel is kind of inert by itself, and
without considerable modification in some hybrid or composite version
of reactor fuel that’s mostly thorium, you couldn’t make a WMD if you
had to, much less destroy or even hardly damage the environment from
which thorium came from to begin with. *Of course with such reliably
clean and cheap energy means that everyone has a surplus of time and
wealth for doing other things, and once again, you don’t seem to want
that.

There are many heavy and light density metals (including those
commonly found in hydrocarbons) that are well known as being much
worse and far more toxic than thorium, so why not utilize a failsafe
reactor fuel?

Obviously you and most others don’t even care about the ongoing loss
of helium; *and why is that? (doesn’t it matter how much mass Earth is
losing and what that loss is also doing to our O3/ozone layer?)

Exterminating near 95% of humanity in order to sustain the mainstream
status-quo seems kind of grim. *Keeping the human population below 500
million is obviously within the existing level of technology, and to
some it’ll seem almost painless as the human birth rate artificially
drops to near zero. *Without wars and having only the best medical
care plus genetic engineered kids might require only 0.005 new child
per adult year (1 for every 200/year), or by simply not allowing more
than 2.5 million births per year. *However, future human generations
might easily exceed 60 years if the average lifespan becomes worth 120
years.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

as of now 93% of japanese nuke power plants are shut down. they are
being shut down for stress test but even after inspections arent being
allowed to restart...

i wonder if 100% will be shut down soon?

as far as the total number of humans any number of things may cut our
numbers. global warming , bird flu and others come to mind.

currently the US life expectancy is going down thanks largely to
obesity and poor lifestyles

You got that right, although arrogance and stupidity seems to be
taking its toll on us Americans. The upper most .0001% have been
screwing us over for more than the past couple centuries, and they are
not quite done with us. That's 300 super rich and powerful
individuals that we really should be getting rid of, preferably before
they have us fighting their WW3.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

At least using thorium as reactor fuel is kind of inert by itself, and
without considerable modification in some hybrid or composite version
of reactor fuel that’s mostly thorium, you couldn’t make a WMD if you
had to, much less destroy or even hardly damage the environment from
which thorium came from to begin with.

Thorium reactors produce fissile material just like any others.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

Nothing WMD worthy, at least not for hundreds or thousands of years,
and that fluid thorium fuel is easily cleanable on the fly.

Why, were you planning on using cobalt in those reactors?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Jan 24, 3:52*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

At least using thorium as reactor fuel is kind of inert by itself, and
without considerable modification in some hybrid or composite version
of reactor fuel that’s mostly thorium, you couldn’t make a WMD if you
had to, much less destroy or even hardly damage the environment from
which thorium came from to begin with.

Thorium reactors produce fissile material just like any others.

Nothing WMD worthy, at least not for hundreds or thousands of years,
and that fluid thorium fuel is easily cleanable on the fly.

What colossal ignorance! *Thorium in a reactor will capture neutrons
and turn into U233.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

Only on demand, and U233 is not going to become a serious problem like
plutonium and other nasty elements are.

The all-inclusive cost of burning thorium isn't 10% that of a
conventional uranium or MOX fueled reactor that's anything but
failsafe.

Clearly you want electric rate payers to keep paying for all the
plutonium and other elements derived from conventional reactors, not
to mention paying for everything else related to those uranium and MOX
fueled reactors. You don't care how spendy it gets, as long as you
can get the public to pay for those WMD and all of their R&D plus
infrastructure.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Jan 25, 12:48*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 24, 3:52*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

At least using thorium as reactor fuel is kind of inert by itself, and
without considerable modification in some hybrid or composite version
of reactor fuel that’s mostly thorium, you couldn’t make a WMD if you
had to, much less destroy or even hardly damage the environment from
which thorium came from to begin with.

Thorium reactors produce fissile material just like any others.

Nothing WMD worthy, at least not for hundreds or thousands of years,
and that fluid thorium fuel is easily cleanable on the fly.

What colossal ignorance! *Thorium in a reactor will capture neutrons
and turn into U233.

Only on demand,

Gee, a nuclear reaction that only occurs when you ask it to?

BWAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!! !!!!!



... and U233 is not going to become a serious problem like
plutonium and other nasty elements are.

U233 is damn as near the perfect material to make atomic bombs from.
So much for the "couldn't make a WMD" part of your remark.



The all-inclusive cost of burning thorium isn't 10% that of a
conventional uranium or MOX fueled reactor that's anything but
failsafe.

Cite for your claims for costs?

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

Mining, processing, reactor fueling, fuel burning, replenishments,
secondary purifying or filtering, spent fuel management, reactor melt
downs easily eliminated, environmental impacts and zilch worth of WMD
or terrorists issues are are all way cheaper, less problematic and
failsafe.

Why are you opposed to customers paying one cent/kwhr of reliably
clean and essentially renewable energy?

Are you suggesting Earth doesn't have enough thorium?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Jan 25, 12:48*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 24, 3:52*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

At least using thorium as reactor fuel is kind of inert by itself, and
without considerable modification in some hybrid or composite version
of reactor fuel that’s mostly thorium, you couldn’t make a WMD if you
had to, much less destroy or even hardly damage the environment from
which thorium came from to begin with.

Thorium reactors produce fissile material just like any others.

Nothing WMD worthy, at least not for hundreds or thousands of years,
and that fluid thorium fuel is easily cleanable on the fly.

What colossal ignorance! *Thorium in a reactor will capture neutrons
and turn into U233.

Only on demand,

Gee, a nuclear reaction that only occurs when you ask it to?

BWAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!! !!!!!



... and U233 is not going to become a serious problem like
plutonium and other nasty elements are.

U233 is damn as near the perfect material to make atomic bombs from.
So much for the "couldn't make a WMD" part of your remark.



The all-inclusive cost of burning thorium isn't 10% that of a
conventional uranium or MOX fueled reactor that's anything but
failsafe.

Cite for your claims for costs?

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

Mining, processing, reactor fueling, fuel burning, fuel
replenishments, secondary purifying or filtering of that fuel (on the
fly as needed), spent fuel management gets practically insignificant,
reactor melt downs easily eliminated, absolute minimal environmental
impacts and zilch worth of WMD or terrorists issues are all way
cheaper, less problematic and failsafe.

Why are you opposed to electric energy customers paying one cent/kwhr
of reliably clean and essentially renewable energy?

Are you suggesting Earth doesn't have enough thorium, and otherwise
needs all the plutonium it can possibly get?

Are you suggesting our national power grids simply can’t be greatly
improved and expanded?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Jan 25, 12:39*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 25, 12:48*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:









Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 24, 3:52*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

At least using thorium as reactor fuel is kind of inert by itself, and
without considerable modification in some hybrid or composite version
of reactor fuel that’s mostly thorium, you couldn’t make a WMD if you
had to, much less destroy or even hardly damage the environment from
which thorium came from to begin with.

Thorium reactors produce fissile material just like any others.

Nothing WMD worthy, at least not for hundreds or thousands of years,
and that fluid thorium fuel is easily cleanable on the fly.

What colossal ignorance! *Thorium in a reactor will capture neutrons
and turn into U233.

Only on demand,

Gee, a nuclear reaction that only occurs when you ask it to?

BWAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!! !!!!!

... and U233 is not going to become a serious problem like
plutonium and other nasty elements are.

U233 is damn as near the perfect material to make atomic bombs from.
So much for the "couldn't make a WMD" part of your remark.

The all-inclusive cost of burning thorium isn't 10% that of a
conventional uranium or MOX fueled reactor that's anything but
failsafe.

Cite for your claims for costs?

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

Mining, processing, reactor fueling, fuel burning, fuel
replenishments, secondary purifying or filtering of that fuel (on the
fly as needed), spent fuel management gets practically insignificant,
reactor melt downs easily eliminated, absolute minimal environmental
impacts and zilch worth of WMD or terrorists issues are all way
cheaper, less problematic and failsafe.

Why are you opposed to electric energy customers paying one cent/kwhr
of reliably clean and essentially renewable energy?

Are you suggesting Earth doesn't have enough thorium, and otherwise
needs all the plutonium it can possibly get?

Are you suggesting our national power grids simply can’t be greatly
improved and expanded?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Me thinks Fred is very Pro-nuclear. I am even mildly pro-nuclear
compared to some though I DEEPLY sceptical of most advocates
of this tech form.

I certainly won't be putting nuclear plant parks on coast lines and I
certainly shut down first and second gen plants. Nuclear in my view
is for materials to make space more accessible. For earth I like wind,
tidal, solar, certain forms of geothermal, some dams, and lots of
monies for
storage technologies development in addition to aggressive
conservation.

Make things in the local nation not bloody China.
Mexico for Mexicans.
USA for "Americans".
Canada for Canadians.
Brazil for Brazilians.
India for Indians.

improve the balance point and keep it local..............Trig

On Jan 25, 5:40*pm, |"
wrote:
On Jan 25, 12:39*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Jan 25, 12:48*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 24, 3:52*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

At least using thorium as reactor fuel is kind of inert by itself, and
without considerable modification in some hybrid or composite version
of reactor fuel that’s mostly thorium, you couldn’t make a WMD if you
had to, much less destroy or even hardly damage the environment from
which thorium came from to begin with.

Thorium reactors produce fissile material just like any others.

Nothing WMD worthy, at least not for hundreds or thousands of years,
and that fluid thorium fuel is easily cleanable on the fly.

What colossal ignorance! *Thorium in a reactor will capture neutrons
and turn into U233.

Only on demand,

Gee, a nuclear reaction that only occurs when you ask it to?

BWAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!! !!!!!

... and U233 is not going to become a serious problem like
plutonium and other nasty elements are.

U233 is damn as near the perfect material to make atomic bombs from.
So much for the "couldn't make a WMD" part of your remark.

The all-inclusive cost of burning thorium isn't 10% that of a
conventional uranium or MOX fueled reactor that's anything but
failsafe.

Cite for your claims for costs?

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

Mining, processing, reactor fueling, fuel burning, fuel
replenishments, secondary purifying or filtering of that fuel (on the
fly as needed), spent fuel management gets practically insignificant,
reactor melt downs easily eliminated, absolute minimal environmental
impacts and zilch worth of WMD or terrorists issues are all way
cheaper, less problematic and failsafe.

Why are you opposed to electric energy customers paying one cent/kwhr
of reliably clean and essentially renewable energy?

Are you suggesting Earth doesn't have enough thorium, and otherwise
needs all the plutonium it can possibly get?

Are you suggesting our national power grids simply can’t be greatly
improved and expanded?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Me thinks Fred is very Pro-nuclear. I am even mildly pro-nuclear
compared to some though I DEEPLY sceptical of most advocates
of this tech form.

I certainly won't be putting nuclear plant parks on coast lines and I
certainly shut down first and second gen plants. Nuclear in my view
is for materials to make space more accessible. For earth I like wind,
tidal, solar, certain forms of geothermal, some dams, and lots of
monies for
storage technologies development in addition to aggressive
conservation.

Make things in the local nation not bloody China.
Mexico for Mexicans.
USA for "Americans".
Canada for Canadians.
Brazil for Brazilians.
India for Indians.

improve the balance point and keep it local..............Trig

Fred wants as much public-funded plutonium and other spendy elements
as he can get his dirty hands on. Fred wants a multinational cold war
that'll get us into WW3. Fred doesn't care how risky and spendy
energy gets.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”