|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules. Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules.Redundant threads are to be deleted, as per the rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| I have no control over whether the thread is deleted. By the rules of the board, it SHOULD be deleted. To act is if I cannot advocate for that is ridiculous. For you to conflate that with authority to do something is also ridiculous. |
As you like, keane. But spamming a thread saying something a hundred times is bloody ridiculous.
| Spam-a-lamb wrote: |
| Why don't you quit acting as an apologist for others on this board. You always defend the same people even when they are demonstrably wrong. When you help others lie, you lose credibility. The quotes are posted above that show every excuse he made is bull. |
Who are these 'same people' I've been defending? As for concern over my credibility on Dave's.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
It's annoying to read all your spam on this thread. Spoils the flow of it - which is what you intended, I suppose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| As you like, keane. But spamming a thread saying something a hundred times is bloody ridiculous. |
And in response he's spun off two more threads about peak oil. I guess he's the only one who is allowed to create peak oil threads. If I create them, that's creating unnecessary threads and flame baiting (flame baiting a user who long ago was banned). Making passing fun of meegook or Otis isn't really flame batting.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:46 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| But spamming a thread saying something a hundred times is bloody ridiculous. |
Returning the favor. People want to play games, I'll play along. A peak oil thread already exists. Lying about its status and lying about its content is childish. Why have you not mentioned that? Anyway, you can ask MM2 and others about "spamming" threads. They are the ones who showed the way. Or, you can just read the Peak Oil thread and see how many repetitive posts he has there just how many times he posted "the market is the solution."
You might also explain the difference between a poll and a thread. Polls are voted on. Threads are participated in. No polls will replace the Peak Oil thread. Any discussions that develop there will be redirected to the Peak Oil thread.
Last edited by keane on Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:20 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nuclear
The two objections seem to be one of immediate safety and future safety. Many point to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Three Mile Island resulted in no deaths and demonstrated a '70s era reactor works in regards to fail safes.
| Quote: |
| The scientific community is largely agreed on the effects of the Three Mile Island accident. The consensus is that no member of the public was injured by the accident. "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year."[7].[8] While some studies have suggested a link between lung cancer and offsite exposures, no study has found a conclusive link between low level exposure and cancer increases. [9] A recent study has noted that the counties surrounding TMI have the highest radon concentrations in the United States and that this may be the cause of the increased lung cancer noted in the region [6]. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Chernobyl is often cited, although no sane power company in the west would use such technology. To equate nuclear safety with Chernobyl is like drawing conclusions about road safety with data from Soviet Ladas running on Soviet roads.
Producing power, be it nuclear/coal/oil/hydro, is dangerous. Any industrial activity is dangerous. People die on the job from accidents. I would, however, argue a coal mine is a far more dangerous place, from accidents to long term disease, than a nuclear plant.
Long term, there is a problem with waste. Yes, nuclear waste has very long half lives. But then petrochemical production produces toxic wastes that last forever. We seem comfortable with the oil industry in our back yard. Where do we store all the toxic waste that's a byproduct of the petrochemical industry, gold production, paper production, etc.? Why do we single out nuclear?
Okay great there's a worry about what will happen to future generations. 20,000 years in the future. Well, what about the next generation if we don't supply energy to power industry and services? We have a long, long time to solve the problem of nulcear waste. We don't have a long time to solve the problem of peak(ing) oil. No? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I went to the park today. It was a lovely day. I played Go/Stop with family. Lovely. Utterly.
Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that. Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that.Oh, and lying and posting double threads is bad. People shouldn't do that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| But spamming a thread saying something a hundred times is bloody ridiculous. |
Returning the favor. People want to play games, I'll play along. A peak oil thread already exists. Lying about its status and lying about its content is childish. Why have you not mentioned that? Anyway, you can ask MM2 and others about "spamming" threads. They are the ones who showed the way. Or, you can just read the Peak Oil thread and see how many repetitive posts he has there just how many times he posted "the market is the solution."
You might also explain the difference between a poll and a thread. Polls are voted on. Threads are participated in. No polls will replace the Peak Oil thread. Any discussions that develop there will be redirected to the Peak Oil thread. |
Hardly in kind. We make fun of you and that other guy EFL. You're not afraid of throwing punches yourself. But I don't mind rolling with the punches. No one, however, simply spams a thread he finds unworthy of his time. You have accused me of childish behavior but your behavior just appears to all as the act of a small child throwing a massive tantrum. I've seen it in some classes and now I see if from your keyboard. C'mon. If you don't like this thread, please don't grace it with your wisdom or your rants. S'alright? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
With regards to nuclear waste, this is an excerpt from an article I posted a while back:
"Nuclear Dawn" The Economist]
| Quote: |
As part of a new multinational initiative called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), however, America's Department of Energy is supporting a type of spent fuel reprocessing which does not separate the plutonium from other highly radioactive materials in the waste, thus making it more resistant to proliferation than traditional reprocessing. This mixture of plutonium and other radioactive elements could then be turned into fuel suitable for use in �fast� reactors. Most reactors in operation today are called �thermal� reactors, because they use a moderator to slow down the neutrons and promote fission. Fast reactors, in contrast, do not employ moderators and use much faster neutrons to produce fissions. So they can consume many of the long-lived radioactive materials that thermal reactors cannot.
AP
They don't build them like they used toThis approach could extract far more energy from a given amount of nuclear fuel while at the same time reducing the volume and toxicity of nuclear waste. Proponents of fast reactors reckon that most of the remaining waste would need to be stored for only a few centuries, perhaps, rather than hundreds of thousands of years, once the most radioactive elements had been separated out. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobby group in Washington, DC, this could mean that America would need only one nuclear-waste repository. In the long term, a fleet of fast reactors could use nuclear fuel so efficiently that �for all practical purposes, the uranium would be inexhaustible,� says William Hannum, a nuclear physicist who used to work at America's Argonne National Laboratory.
|
I don't know where we are with fast reactor technology, but this certainly seems promising. Storing nucear waste for 300 years, then reusing it. Certainly beats 20,000 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
