# Nuclear Power



## NYDrew (Mar 23, 2011)

Thought this could be an interesting and intelligent conversation.

We got 4 Gen-1 reactors boiling off to a meltdown in Japan.
The NRC is up to re-approving the 20 year contracts on the first wave of the US Gen-1 reactors.
An oil crisis.
War everywhere there is oil
....and of course we got Vermont Yankee.

Lets go at it (and while politics are unavoidable, lets try to keep it to an absolute minimum)

Me, I am a huge proponent of nuclear power.  As a scientist I see the safety, cleanliness and value of this form of power as well as its hopefully soon to be replacement, fusion.  The Japanese incident is terribly unfortunate and unforeseeable.  They built it to withstand an 8.0 earthquake, and it held up against a 9!  What we didn't foresee was an tsunami wiping out its redundancy system leaving it unable to restart (to cool itself) or the fossil fuels to keep it cold and restart.  Its a gen-1 reactor, the worlds first attempt to build such a technology, and while it failed, I am quite impressed at the fact that so far the situation is under control.

With regard to Vermont Yankee, our local hot topic.  I am thrilled the NRC renewed the license, Vermont and the surrounding states would be devastated without it.  I would like to see Vermont Gov't get its head out of it's you know what and also approve it with conditions.  Entergy (the operator) would have to immediately begin to secure the cooling pond so it is not open to the air.  They would also have to immediately begin construction of a new, modern plant and as soon as she is operational shut down the old Gen-1.

A little known topic many may not know about is our President's move (I think its moronic) to shut down construction and close the disposal facility being constructed in the south-west.  The thing cost billions, if not trillions in construction and research.  It was super safe and just as they were about to finish it off and put the door on when he shut it down.  This storage facility would have eliminated the need for long term storage ponds and also consolidated our nuclear waste into one, government secured facility.


And the conversation begins.....


----------



## Puck it (Mar 23, 2011)

I can tell this is going to get out of hand fast.

I am with you. We have shutdown the Gulf and now people are calling for a shutdown on the nukes.

Let's just go back to the middle ages.

You left out that 70-75% of VT's electricity comes from that one nuke. Great idea to shut it down. Indian Point provides 30% of the NYC electricity. Let's shut it. People need to get it in to their heads, that there is no alternative to fossil fuels and nukes that are currently viable.   Solar and Wind can not compete without the gov't funding it.  Let's take some of that money being printed and dump a very very large chunk into new energy programs.  Why not make it a mission like we had for landing on the moon.


----------



## Glenn (Mar 23, 2011)

This could get heated! But I'll chime in. 

I'm all for it. I think it's a good alternative to other sources of power. In a perfect world, we'd have a mix of all type of power generation. I'm for keeping VT Yankee open. That's my take. If someone here doesn't agree with me, I don't hate you...won't hate you or yell at you. We'll agree to disagree. I think the VT Yankee issue has been very one sided given a vocal minority and the way the media leans. IMHO. 

What does worry me currently... IIRC, nuke plants have a defined life span. Many in this country are of a certain age...and no new plants are slated to being built. What will fill the void? Everyone talks about wind and solar...but we'd probably have to clearcut half of our country's land to make enough space to meet demand. 

And speaking of filling the void...I can't beleive what a nation of NIMBY's and whiners we've become. For every person talking about wind power, you've got another trying to save birds. We're setting ourselves up for an epic failure when it comes to building ANYTHING that generates power. We can't "CFL" or "Hybrid vehicle" our way out of this one.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 23, 2011)

My thought is renew the VT Yankee license for 10 years and immediately build a newer/moderrn plant to replace it.
So much time and money has gone into bickering about the 20 year renewal that could have been better spent on getting us toward a more advanced facility.
Its kind of like the circ in Chittenden County... :argue: :flame: <money>


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 23, 2011)

Glenn said:


> And speaking of filling the void...I can't beleive what a nation of NIMBY's and whiners we've become. For every person talking about wind power, you've got another trying to save birds. We're setting ourselves up for an epic failure when it comes to building ANYTHING that generates power. We can't "CFL" or "Hybrid vehicle" our way out of this one.




Quoted for truths


----------



## Puck it (Mar 23, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> Quoted for truths


 
I am buying all the incadescent 100W bulbs that I can.  I need to supply all the easy bake ovens in the country.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 23, 2011)

The bottomline is we're a country that to function like we've all become used too on a daily basis needs alot of power.  The reality is that based on the current production capabilities of "alternative" energy sources, there's no way that we could be able to generate the amount of power that we currently use, without creating so many energy generating plants that it wouldn't even get close to flying by the NIMBY crowd.

So that puts us at the crossroads where either a) cut WAY back on our daily power consumption (don't see that happening anytime soon) b) we need to say FU to the NIMBY crowd and build the massive number, with the associated massive cost, of alternative energy generating plants(and then end up paying a bunch more for our power) or c) accept that fact that oil/coal/nuclear power generation, for realistically atleast the next decade (and likely longer) is going to be our backbone energy generation source and in a smaller scale say FU to the NIMBY crowd and build some new plants with more modern technology to meet our power generation needs until large scale alternative energy sources can be developed cost effectively.

I'm putting hydro-electric in its own category here since the building of new dams for power generation certainly has proven potential, but the potential effects on the river downstream of the dam, let alone the potential effect on commerce if that river is a significant body of water for boat traffic is a big issue


----------



## WWF-VT (Mar 23, 2011)

I’m still opposed to nuclear power.  

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima.  What are we going to do with the 70,000 tons of nuclear waste that we’ve been accumulating for the last 60 years ?

If that’s not enough – I have no faith in Homer Simpson’s skills as an operator at the plant in Springfield.


----------



## dmc (Mar 23, 2011)

Puck it said:


> I can tell this is going to get out of hand fast.
> 
> I am with you. We have shutdown the Gulf and now people are calling for a shutdown on the nukes.
> 
> Let's just go back to the middle ages..



We haven't shutdown drilling in the gulf.. We lifted the moratorium last fall...
Exxon just got a permit...
Are you reading papers from the middle ages?  

As far as nukes go... We need to understand what happened... what failed... what worked..  and be careful going forward..  Anything happens on our soil - I'm going to be pissed..  IF Indian Point had the same issues as Japan... All hell would break lose...


----------



## NYDrew (Mar 23, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> My thought is renew the VT Yankee license for 10 years and immediately build a newer/moderrn plant to replace it.
> So much time and money has gone into bickering about the 20 year renewal that could have been better spent on getting us toward a more advanced facility.
> Its kind of like the circ in Chittenden County... :argue: :flame: <money>



Didn't even think of comparing it to the Circ.  Considering I live 1 mile from 2 of the 4 exits on the Circ (and therefore less then 3 from the other two) I have a lot to gain from completion of the Circ, like I don't know....easy access to I-89, Burlington and Work.

Even more practical use for the money, how about research into fusion.  My favorite part of this whole thing is the majority of the flak is coming out of Burlington....go ahead and shut down VTY....Massena, NY just got approved for a plant and that's even closer, out of state, and out of non-federal control.

Nuclear Waste - Ask the president, we had a great idea almost done.


----------



## Glenn (Mar 23, 2011)

NYDrew said:


> My favorite part of this whole thing is the majority of the flak is coming out of Burlington....go ahead and shut down VTY....Massena, NY just got approved for a plant and that's even closer, out of state, and out of non-federal control.



Wow! No kidding? How's that for irony.


----------



## NYDrew (Mar 23, 2011)

3 Mile Island - The system worked.  All technology is bound to failure, your only protection is safeguards and redundancy. 

Chernobyl - It was a non-sealed reactor core, they shut down the safeguards and withdrew the control rods to "see what happens", now we know.

Fukishima - No conclusions drawn, but that ancient relic survived a 9.0 earthquake.  A little more foresight would have had more cooling redundancy to protect from the tsunami.  In this case the system failed as a result of the system working (the reactor shut down, putting reliance on diesel generators for cooling, then the diesel generators got knocked out by the wave).  Hopefully, all reactors will be upgraded to include a more secure back up, or perhaps a second back up located far from the first.  Let us learn from this.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 23, 2011)

We had rolling blackouts last summer. Shutting down power plants is a great idea.

Considering my employer, having the office blacked out is kind of ironic, and yet proves our point pretty well.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 23, 2011)

There have been under 5000 deaths associated with nuclear power plants worldwide. There were 38,000 deaths in car crashes in 2008 in the US alone. According to environmentalist conspiracy theorists, coal fired plants are responsible for 24,000 deaths per year in the US.

Nuclear is safe, the incidents are just extremely public.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 23, 2011)

mondeo said:


> There have been under 5000 deaths associated with nuclear power plants worldwide. There were 38,000 deaths in car crashes in 2008 in the US alone. According to environmentalist conspiracy theorists, coal fired plants are responsible for 24,000 deaths per year in the US.
> 
> Nuclear is safe, the incidents are just extremely public.



And nuclear and coal combined are still safer than cars.
We should clearly eliminate all cars.
And garage doors. Have you seen the stats on injuries from garage doors? Mind boggling.

How much do stubbed toes cost the health care system every year? If we don't have power, there will be a meteoric rise in incidences of stubbed toes. 

Using less power is good. Getting more power from cleaner sources is good.
Thinking we can do it overnight is bad.
Thinking we can get all of our power from one source is bad at best, dangerous at worst.


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 23, 2011)

What NYDrew just wrote RE: 3MI, Chernobyl, and Fukishima. Bad examples to use as cons to the Nuclear argument. There are good cons to take in such an argument, these three examples are not good arguments against, IMO. 3MI may have been cause for concern but there was no known or verified negative health effects. Japan would have been fine if not for the Tsunami. And now they will work a fail safe in against that as well.

If you are going to be against nuclear power, you also have to propose a viable alternative that could work and be as cost efficient if not better. If you turn off every Nuke plant tomorrow, where will the missing power come from? Until that argument can be satisfied, I am pro-Nuclear Power because I like having electricity. Anything less would be hypocritical.

The fact is that Nuclear power has amongst the best safety record of almost any power generation system. The only problem with Nuclear power is you can't have a catastrophic failure or else there will be massive loss of live and habitat. But then you have Exxon Valdez and the recent Gulf issues, what of the loss of marine life and habitat effects there? Chernobyl could be cited but I think that is a horrible argument to take against modern day Nuclear power. 

Its safe, its clean, and there is nothing else to take the place of all of the plants currently in operation (at least not all at once right now). Is it dangerous? Worst case scenario is but all energy production sources have associated dangers. 

My opinion is scientists need to learn from the current events and put in place better fail safe redundancies.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 23, 2011)

dmc said:


> We haven't shutdown drilling in the gulf.. We lifted the moratorium last fall...
> Exxon just got a permit...
> Are you reading papers from the middle ages?
> 
> As far as nukes go... We need to understand what happened... what failed... what worked..  and be careful going forward..  Anything happens on our soil - I'm going to be pissed..  IF Indian Point had the same issues as Japan... All hell would break lose...



Okay, Mr. Literal.  We did shut it down and lifted but it effectively is still shutdown. Most of the deep water rigs moved when the ban started from reports that I read. They are in other parts of the world now, drilling.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 23, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> What NYDrew just wrote RE: 3MI, Chernobyl, and Fukishima. Bad examples to use as cons to the Nuclear argument. There are good cons to take in such an argument, these three examples are not good arguments against, IMO. 3MI may have been cause for concern but there was no known or verified negative health effects. Japan would have been fine if not for the Tsunami. And now they will work a fail safe in against that as well.
> 
> ...
> 
> My opinion is scientists need to learn from the current events and put in place better fail safe redundancies.


I think that was his point on those three incidents.

And scientists don't do anything other than sit around in labs and play with atoms. Doing real work is the realm of engineers.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 23, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Okay, Mr. Literal.  We did shut it down and lifted but it effectively is still shutdown. Most of the deep water rigs moved when the ban started from reports that I read. They are in other parts of the world now, drilling.



Yup, and that's why we're currently thinking of sending subsidies to BRAZIL for deepwater oil drilling, since that's where some of those rigs went


----------



## bigbog (Mar 23, 2011)

Yeah, ...not an Obama hater, but he likes speeches and seems to jump to quick conclusions sometimes.  Some are good, some are a little premature...
Would like to see Feds giving private industry with the skills the go ahead to step up with some top level nuclear physicists doing independent inspection of plants. What I've often seen/heard, maybe wrong..y/n?..is that the system(NRC), which conducts the inspecting/policing of operations....is sometimes...partially in bed with the plant owners....  You wash my back = you'll get all our work....etc.

$.01


----------



## Puck it (Mar 23, 2011)

What is this circ thing in Chittenden County? BTW

Never mind found it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 23, 2011)

I'm fine with nuclear power.  I just think the plants should be built far away from large population centers.  Even if the probability is 1 in a million, a catostrophe at a plant such as the one upstream from NYC would not just be a localized problem.  It would be a national economic disaster.  Not worth the risk IMO.  

Really they should just close South Dakota.  Put all the plants there in one spot.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 23, 2011)

Puck it said:


> What is this circ thing in Chittenden County? BTW



Think 128 only around Burlington, not Boston.


----------



## dmc (Mar 23, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Okay, Mr. Literal.  We did shut it down and lifted but it effectively is still shutdown. Most of the deep water rigs moved when the ban started from reports that I read. They are in other parts of the world now, drilling.



Just making sure you don't spew incorrect information to advance your agenda..

Oil Drilling to Resume in the Gulf’s Deep Waters
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/business/energy-environment/01drill.html

U.S. Backs Shell Plan to Drill 3 Gulf Wells
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703858404576214972099622588.html

Exxon Mobil gets in on Gulf permit action Approval is fourth since lifting of ban
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7486847.html


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 23, 2011)

mondeo said:


> And scientists don't do anything other than sit around in labs and play with atoms. Doing real work is the realm of engineers.


Engineers are not scientists? :blink:

I think I hit a nerve, LOL. :lol:


----------



## dmc (Mar 23, 2011)

If they shut the plants down... What will PuckIt talk about while belittling people who attempt to join the conversation?


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 23, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Really they should just close South Dakota.  Put all the plants there in one spot.



Of course, then you have to deal with all the health effects from having high tension lines running all over the country. And nobody wants those in their backyards, either.

NIMBYs are one thing, BANANAs are even worse (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything)


----------



## mondeo (Mar 23, 2011)

bigbog said:


> Would like to see Feds giving private industry with the skills the go ahead to step up with some top level nuclear physicists doing independent inspection of plants. What I've often seen/heard, maybe wrong..y/n?..is that the system(NRC), which conducts the inspecting/policing of operations....is sometimes...partially in bed with the plant owners.... You wash my back = you'll get all our work....etc.


The whole regulator being too cozy with industry thing is always an outsider looking in. Oh no, no fine for a clerical mistake that was self-reported! Must be because the regulator and regulatee are in bed with each other! It can't be that the problem was already corrected and fixes put in place to prevent future occurances, and the only thing punishment would serve to do is provide incentive to not report incidents in the future.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 23, 2011)

dmc said:


> Just making sure you don't spew incorrect information to advance your agenda..
> 
> Oil Drilling to Resume in the Gulf’s Deep Waters
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/business/energy-environment/01drill.html
> ...



Just to be clear- those aren't new permits- they're basically re-issues of permits that existed before. But yes, activity is resuming in the Gulf. There's no telling how long it will take to ramp all the way back up, as permits are moving slowly, and quite a few rigs have left (we sent ours to West Africa). 

Offshore Brazil is showing discoveries 7-8 times the size of anything found in the Gulf, at the same depths. Based on that alone, rigs are going to move to Brazil. And Brazil has tigher regulations thn GoM did, AND you have to have Petrobras as a partner (mandatory 30% operator in most cases). Even still, the economics on those wells are hard to beat. Especially at 85% success rates, compared to 35% in the Gulf.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 23, 2011)

dmc said:


> Just making sure you don't spew incorrect information to advance your agenda..
> 
> Oil Drilling to Resume in the Gulf’s Deep Waters
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/business/energy-environment/01drill.html
> ...




Your need the rigs to drill. A piece of paper does not get oil.  
http://yoursinglesourcefornews.com/deep-water-oil-drilling-rigs-leaving-the-gulf-region/1712/


----------



## mondeo (Mar 23, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Engineers are not scientists? :blink:
> 
> I think I hit a nerve, LOL. :lol:


Nah, I was just using the opportunity to make fun of scientists.

Engineers apply, scientists discover. The line does get blurry between the two.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 23, 2011)

dmc said:


> If they shut the plants down... What will PuckIt talk about while belittling people who attempt to join the conversation?



Why is ddt such a dick wad? Never mind, I know the answer.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 23, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Nah, I was just using the opportunity to make fun of scientists.
> 
> Engineers apply, scientists discover. The line does get blurry between the two.



There is one thing that physicists and mathematicians agree on.  We both hate engineers.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 23, 2011)

Puck it said:


> There is one thing that physicists and mathematicians agree on. We both hate engineers.


A mathematician, an engineer, and a physicist are out hunting together. They spy a deer in the woods. The physicist calculates the velocity of the deer and the effect of gravity on the bullet, aims his rifle and fires. Alas, he misses; the bullet passes three feet behind the deer. The deer bolts some yards, but comes to a halt, still within sight of the trio. "Shame you missed," comments the engineer, "but of course with an ordinary gun, one would expect that." He then levels his special deer-hunting gun, which he rigged together from an ordinary rifle, a sextant, a compass, a barometer, and a bunch of flashing lights which don't do anything but impress onlookers, and fires. Alas, his bullet passes three feet in front of the deer, who by this time wises up and vanishes for good. "Well," says the physicist, "your contraption didn't get it either." "What do you mean?" pipes up the mathematician. "Between the two of you, that was a perfect shot!"


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 23, 2011)

Puck it said:


> There is one thing that physicists and mathematicians agree on.  We both hate engineers.



There are 4 kinds of numbers people in the business world:
Accountants, for whom 2+2=4, always and forever;
Finance folks, for whom 2+2=4, but this time we're going to count it as a 5;
Economists, for whom the relationship between 2 and 2 varies inversely as the marginal benefit of bellybutton lint;
and Marketing folks, for whom 2+2=...well, what would you like it to equal?


----------



## dmc (Mar 23, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Your need the rigs to drill. A piece of paper does not get oil.



Really??? - cause i have a lose leaf notebook out and getting ready to drill a mile beneath the ocean..  :roll: :roll: :roll:

You need a piece of paper to drive a car as well..  It doesn't start the car but it's the law - you need the paper to legally drive...

I'm more against deep water drilling then I am nukes...


----------



## dmc (Mar 23, 2011)

Puck it said:


> There is one thing that physicists and mathematicians agree on.  We both hate engineers.



What scares me is that you think your a physicist... 

One things for sure - someone is always on the wrong side of things in your world..  And you broadcast it...


----------



## dmc (Mar 23, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> There are 4 kinds of numbers people in the business world:
> Accountants, for whom 2+2=4, always and forever;
> Finance folks, for whom 2+2=4, but this time we're going to count it as a 5;
> Economists, for whom the relationship between 2 and 2 varies inversely as the marginal benefit of bellybutton lint;
> and Marketing folks, for whom 2+2=...well, what would you like it to equal?



awesome....


----------



## dmc (Mar 23, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Offshore Brazil is showing discoveries 7-8 times the size of anything found in the Gulf, at the same depths. Based on that alone, rigs are going to move to Brazil. And Brazil has tigher regulations thn GoM did, AND you have to have Petrobras as a partner (mandatory 30% operator in most cases). Even still, the economics on those wells are hard to beat. Especially at 85% success rates, compared to 35% in the Gulf.



sounds like gold - for everyone!   Isn't the ocean rougher there?


----------



## Puck it (Mar 23, 2011)

dmc said:


> What scares me is that you think your a physicist...
> 
> One things for sure - someone is always on the wrong side of things in your world..  And you broadcast it...



Wow. You are more of a train wreck then I thought.  And you broadcast it all the time.


----------



## dmc (Mar 23, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Wow. You are more of a train wreck thean I thought.  And you broadcast it all the time.




WOOOOOOOOOOO WOOOOOOOOOOOOO - chugga chugga chugga...


----------



## Puck it (Mar 23, 2011)

dmc said:


> WOOOOOOOOOOO WOOOOOOOOOOOOO - chugga chugga chugga...



Just proving my point more.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 23, 2011)

dmc said:


> sounds like gold - for everyone!   Isn't the ocean rougher there?



It is, but a little bag balm helps sooth the chafe.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 23, 2011)

This deposit of natgas is enough to keep us independent from outside sources for years and years, but again the not in my yard mentality is causing problems.  


http://geology.com/articles/marcellus-shale.shtml


----------



## dmc (Mar 23, 2011)

Puck it said:


> This deposit of natgas is enough to keep us independent from outside sources for years and years, but again the not in my yard mentality is causing problems.
> 
> 
> http://geology.com/articles/marcellus-shale.shtml



NO FRACKING!!!!!
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking

DEFINITELY NOT IN ANYONES YARD!!!!


----------



## Puck it (Mar 23, 2011)

dmc said:


> NO FRACKING!!!!!
> http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking
> 
> DEFINITELY NOT IN ANYONES YARD!!!!




I knew You were going to post tha


----------



## dmc (Mar 23, 2011)

Puck it said:


> I knew You were going to post tha



Then you are a good man... Thanks for bringing this very important matter up.

It's critical that fracking is banned...


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 23, 2011)

dmc said:


> Then you are a good man... Thanks for bringing this very important matter up.
> 
> It's critical that fracking is banned...



I'm on the fence with Nuke power and didn't really want to get involved in this thread, but I am most definitely ANTI-FRACKING.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 23, 2011)

I'm pro fracking.


----------



## 2knees (Mar 23, 2011)

Gasland is eye opening.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 23, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> I'm on the fence with Nuke power and didn't really want to get involved in this thread, but I am most definitely ANTI-FRACKING.



There are alternatives to hydraulic fracturing such as this. 

http://smarteconomy.typepad.com/smart_economy/2009/12/a-green-alternative-to-chemicalbased-hydraulic-fracturing-or-fracking-for-shale-gas-drillingcavitati.html

This is just one that is being developed.


----------



## dmc (Mar 24, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> I'm on the fence with Nuke power and didn't really want to get involved in this thread, but I am most definitely ANTI-FRACKING.



yup....  it's important that this doesn't happen.


----------



## Glenn (Mar 24, 2011)

2knees said:


> Gasland is eye opening.



Rumor has it, they used a bit of not so true material to get their point across. Read good blurb about it in Business Week a few weeks ago. 



Damn dmc...maybe it's time for some decaf dude. Between this thread and the "snowboarders in moguls"...I think we could plug you in and have you generate 25% of the power for upstate NY.


----------



## dmc (Mar 24, 2011)

Glenn said:


> Rumor has it, they used a bit of not so true material to get their point across. Read good blurb about it in Business Week a few weeks ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Damn dmc...maybe it's time for some decaf dude. Between this thread and the "snowboarders in moguls"...I think we could plug you in and have you generate 25% of the power for upstate NY.



thats what happens when I'm in a hotel room in Ohio waiting for a big meeting..

I am passionate about fracking..  And I like to call people out with their "anti" snowboarding stuff...

It's a good morning..


----------



## drjeff (Mar 24, 2011)

Glenn said:


> Rumor has it, they used a bit of not so true material to get their point across. Read good blurb about it in Business Week a few weeks ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Damn dmc...maybe it's time for some decaf dude. Between this thread and the "snowboarders in moguls"...I think we could plug you in and have you generate 25% of the power for upstate NY.



Glenn, are you saying that someone trying to convey a point that they feel strongly about using some form of media might actually NOT present an objective view of BOTH sides of the story???  No way!!!!  :lol:


----------



## dmc (Mar 24, 2011)

drjeff said:


> Glenn, are you saying that someone trying to convey a point that they feel strongly about using some form of media might actually NOT present an objective view of BOTH sides of the story???  No way!!!!  :lol:



Well fracking is an issue for us in NYS... 

I'm just trying to draw people into the conversation without the usual blowhards trying to shove Google science down our throats..


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

dmc said:


> thats what happens when I'm in a hotel room in Ohio waiting for a big meeting..
> 
> I am passionate about fracking.. And I like to call people out with their "anti" snowboarding stuff...
> 
> It's a good morning..


 

Do you think the frac-ing itself is the problem or the chemicals used to cause the frac-ing?  Let's here your scientific view without post links to some document that does not give all of the facts.


----------



## dmc (Mar 24, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Do you think the frac-ing itself is the problem or the chemicals used to cause the frac-ing?  Let's here your scientific view without post links to some document that does not give all of the facts.



yes...  Id think those are all problems..

I'm a just computer scientist - but I still can see what it's doing to the environment..

SAY NO TO FRACKING!!!!!


----------



## drjeff (Mar 24, 2011)

dmc said:


> I'm just trying to draw people into the conversation without the usual blowhards trying to shove Google science down our throats..



The 1st thing that one should do when reading a scientific paper, ISN'T look at the results, but look at both the materials and methods of how the study was done and then who was behind the funding of the project.  Based on those 2 things, one can very often determine as they're reading the results, if your looking at "good" information and if there's the potential for bias.

Far too often, people can get drawn into an artcle/topic/etc based on the emotional value in the title, and then loose the ability to think logically for themselves if what they're reading is an accurate portrayal of the entire topic.  Since unfortunately these days, much of science has become driven not by the true pursuit of new knowledge, but by the quest to secure new, and bigger grants from groups looking for a quick financial gain from their R&D dollars.  And as any "good" researcher will tel you, not all hypotheses prove to be true


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

dmc said:


> yes... Id think those are all problems..
> 
> I'm a just computer scientist - but I still can see what it's doing to the environment..
> 
> SAY NO TO FRACKING!!!!!


 
Post your views then. Why is frac-ing bad? I will help. The chemical cocktail used to create the fracture now is bad. Diesel and other additives make up 1% of the mixture, but diesel contains benzene. = bad in ground water. So we agree with that point. What issue do you have with the frac-ing of the rock formation itself? Give me the down side with posting your links.


----------



## dmc (Mar 24, 2011)

drjeff said:


> The 1st thing that one should do when reading a scientific paper, ISN'T look at the results, but look at both the materials and methods of how the study was done and then who was behind the funding of the project.  Based on those 2 things, one can very often determine as they're reading the results, if your looking at "good" information and if there's the potential for bias.



You know I'm playing on emotion and just trying to get people to be interested and start investigating themselves..

I'm not about to crack open the scientific studies on PDF - I just want everyone to be aware and make up their minds...  I have no interest in going toe2toe with Google Scientists..

Besides - how much of all this scientific mumbo jumbo do people ACTUALLY understand?
I'm going to say - not much...

All that matters is - if your neighbor lets fracking take place it could cause you to get sick and your tap water to catch fire...


----------



## dmc (Mar 24, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Post your views then.



i did - my view is that it sucks...  Now go look for yourself and make up your own mind...

I'm sure you have Google bookmarked...


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

drjeff said:


> The 1st thing that one should do when reading a scientific paper, ISN'T look at the results, but look at both the materials and methods of how the study was done and then who was behind the funding of the project. Based on those 2 things, one can very often determine as they're reading the results, if your looking at "good" information and if there's the potential for bias.
> 
> Far too often, people can get drawn into an artcle/topic/etc based on the emotional value in the title, and then loose the ability to think logically for themselves if what they're reading is an accurate portrayal of the entire topic. Since unfortunately these days, much of science has become driven not by the true pursuit of new knowledge, but by the quest to secure new, and bigger grants from groups looking for a quick financial gain from their R&D dollars. And as any "good" researcher will tel you, not all hypotheses prove to be true


 
You think. Data can be manipulated to look good and bad. It all depends on how the presenter wants to the audience to view the information presented. I see it happen all the time at my work and with customers. The raw data needs to mined to get the whole picture.


Just like I can prove 1=0 if I make a wrong assumption.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 24, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Do you think the frac-ing itself is the problem or the chemicals used to cause the frac-ing?  Let's here your scientific view without post links to some document that does not give all of the facts.



Even if you are using "clean" fluids to do the fracking isn't the fracking itself releasing gas and oil that's been locked up in shale? You can't say for sure that everything that's released gets recovered and that the extra won't work it's way into the water table.Though I'm sure it's better than what's going on now.


----------



## dmc (Mar 24, 2011)

Puck it said:


> You think.  Data can be manipulated to look good and bad.  It all depends on how the presenter wants to the audience to view the information presented. I see it happen all the time at my work and with customers.  The raw data needs to mined to get the whole picture.



Mined from Google....


----------



## mondeo (Mar 24, 2011)

drjeff said:


> Far too often, people can get drawn into an artcle/topic/etc based on the emotional value in the title, and then loose the ability to think logically for themselves if what they're reading is an accurate portrayal of the entire topic. Since unfortunately these days, much of science has become driven not by the true pursuit of new knowledge, but by the quest to secure new, and bigger grants from groups looking for a quick financial gain from their R&D dollars. And as any "good" researcher will tel you, not all hypotheses prove to be true


This.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

dmc said:


> i did - my view is that it sucks... Now go look for yourself and make up your own mind...
> 
> I'm sure you have Google bookmarked...


 

Real scientific view there.  Point proved again.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

dmc said:


> Mined from Google....


 

You really have no concept of what I am conveying.  Again, point proven that you are a reactionary type.


----------



## dmc (Mar 24, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Real scientific view there.  Point proved again.



Like i said - I'm a computer scientist.  I'm no Nuclear Google Scientist like you...  

I've done my job - more people now know about fracking and can begin to make up their minds about it.

When it becomes an issue in their town - their ears will now pick up.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

mondeo said:


> This.


 
Agree with you, a good example of this is global warming data.

3

2

1

dmz chimes in, now.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

dmc said:


> Like i said - I'm a computer scientist. I'm no Nuclear Google Scientist like you...
> 
> I've done my job - more people now know about fracking and can begin to make up their minds about it.
> 
> When it becomes an issue in their town - their ears will now pick up.


 
Yes, you have but you have provided links to some skewed information as pointed out above.


----------



## dmc (Mar 24, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Agree with you, a good example of this is global warming data.
> 
> 3
> 
> ...





NO FRACKING!!!!

thats all i got to say there Google McEinstein...


----------



## dmc (Mar 24, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Yes, you have but you have provided links to some skewed information as pointed out above.




get you own links - you do it so well.... I'm only here to raise awareness of a situation that could impact us negatively..

And i have... So no links...


----------



## dmc (Mar 24, 2011)

Puck it said:


> You really have no concept of what I am conveying.  Again, point proven that you are a reactionary type.




Tap water is catching fire...  Your damn right I'm reactionary....  What do suggest - a "blue ribbon panel" or some BS...

I personally don't give a rats ass about what you and Google convey..  I can use a search tool too...


----------



## drjeff (Mar 24, 2011)

dmc said:


> You know I'm playing on emotion and just trying to get people to be interested and start investigating themselves..
> 
> I'm not about to crack open the scientific studies on PDF - I just want everyone to be aware and make up their minds...  I have no interest in going toe2toe with Google Scientists..
> 
> ...



Well, if someone doesn't understand it, then how exactly can they make an informed descision about a topic??  Does everyone need to understand everything down the the last little bit of minutia on the moleculcar level, nope.  But if you don't understand the big picture of both sides of something, atleast at a rudimentary level, how then can you form a rational opinion about the topic??

Far too often as people are forming their opinions, and in the process weighing the factual side of a topic and the emotional side of a topic.  Emotion, being a easier response for most, wins out.  And that can very often result in larger problems down the road when the factual side of the topic eventually plays out


----------



## mondeo (Mar 24, 2011)

drjeff said:


> Far too often as people are forming their opinions, and in the process weighing the factual side of a topic and the emotional side of a topic. Emotion, being a easier response for most, wins out. And that can very often result in larger problems down the road when the factual side of the topic eventually plays out


The most concerning thing about any poll result on a scientific issue, for me, is the very low percentage of people who respond with "no opinion."

Why does everyone have to take a side on every issue? If you don't know anything about something, just admit it.


----------



## dmc (Mar 24, 2011)

drjeff said:


> Well, if someone doesn't understand it, then how exactly can they make an informed descision about a topic??  Does everyone need to understand everything down the the last little bit of minutia on the moleculcar level, nope.  But if you don't understand the big picture of both sides of something, atleast at a rudimentary level, how then can you form a rational opinion about the topic??
> 
> Far too often as people are forming their opinions, and in the process weighing the factual side of a topic and the emotional side of a topic.  Emotion, being a easier response for most, wins out.  And that can very often result in larger problems down the road when the factual side of the topic eventually plays out



I'm totally trying to manipulate people into checking this out.

Totally playing on emotion..  I admit it...  I don't want to bore non-scientific people with crap I pull down from Google..   I can relate what i heard at a local meeting on this - but i will just get lambasted from Google McEinstein - And i really don't care what he thinks..

If i start showing data proving my point - you guys will just throw data back at me proving otherwise..


----------



## dmc (Mar 24, 2011)

mondeo said:


> The most concerning thing about any poll result on a scientific issue, for me, is the very low percentage of people who respond with "no opinion."
> 
> Why does everyone have to take a side on every issue? If you don't know anything about something, just admit it.



I agree with the taking sides thing...

But this - imho - is a big deal and could happen where I live and breath...
Scientific data confuses most people... Tap water catching on fire - now that scares the shti out of folks...


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

dmc said:


> I'm totally trying to manipulate people into checking this out.
> 
> Totally playing on emotion..  I admit it...  I don't want to bore non-scientific people with crap I pull down from Google..   I can relate what i heard at a local meeting on this - but i will just get lambasted from Google McEinstein - And i really don't care what he thinks..
> 
> If i start showing data proving my point - you guys will just throw data back at me proving otherwise..




So we should take your side of the story as fact. That is the problem with you. People do not listen to the whole argument and become reactionary when information is presented by the media. People need to become more informed instead reacting to Headline News 30 second spots.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

dmc said:


> I agree with the taking sides thing...
> 
> But this - imho - is a big deal and could happen where I live and breath...
> Scientific data confuses most people... Tap water catching on fire - now that scares the shti out of folks...



BTW. That can happen when a water well is dug and the water well is fracture to produce more water. It has to be a deep water well though.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 24, 2011)

dmc said:


> I agree with the taking sides thing...
> 
> But this - imho - is a big deal and could happen where I live and breath...
> Scientific data confuses most people... Tap water catching on fire - now that scares the shti out of folks...


Bah. I drink stuff that can be set on fire all the time.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 24, 2011)

There is 1 producing well within 10 miles of Candor, NY, drilled by Talisman in 2007. It is a horizontal well, with the bottom hole depth at 9,807 feet with a 5,000 foot horizontal run. It is in the Black River formation (not Marcellus).

The deepest water well in Tioga County is 380 feet deep, and is only cased for 75 feet. Most of the water wells, according to state records, are uncased for the majority of their depth. According to an EPA study done in 1984, it is impossible to deepen the water wells because the bedrock layer is too thick and too dry to drill into or through.

2+2+2= pretty unlikely gas from a 9,800 foot deep hole is getting into a water well that's at most 380 feet deep and seperated by a thick layer of dense bedrock.

That's my non-Google science and conclusion.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 24, 2011)

Puck it said:


> BTW. That can happen when a water well is dug and the water well is fracture to produce more water. It has to be a deep water well though.



1) Nobody fracs a water well. 
2) A water well doesn't have to be deep to hit natural gas
2a) A properly completed (cased and vented) water well will release naturaly occuring natural gas without sending it into your plumbing


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> 1) Nobody fracs a water well.
> 2) A water well doesn't have to be deep to hit natural gas
> 2a) A properly completed (cased and vented) water well will release naturaly occuring natural gas without sending it into your plumbing



I have heard the term for years about doing something to the well to get more water out of the well. What is the term then or what are they doing?  Hydrofracturing not hyrdraulic  fracturing  

http://www.flatwaterfleet.com/html/hydrofracturing.html

I meant deep like 800' for a water well. And I agree about the casing and venting, what I meant was an improperly dug well.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> There is 1 producing well within 10 miles of Candor, NY, drilled by Talisman in 2007. It is a horizontal well, with the bottom hole depth at 9,807 feet with a 5,000 foot horizontal run. It is in the Black River formation (not Marcellus).
> 
> The deepest water well in Tioga County is 380 feet deep, and is only cased for 75 feet. Most of the water wells, according to state records, are uncased for the majority of their depth. According to an EPA study done in 1984, it is impossible to deepen the water wells because the bedrock layer is too thick and too dry to drill into or through.
> 
> ...



You make to much sense and your information does not support run-dmc view.


----------



## tjf67 (Mar 24, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> 1) Nobody fracs a water well.
> 2) A water well doesn't have to be deep to hit natural gas
> 2a) A properly completed (cased and vented) water well will release naturaly occuring natural gas without sending it into your plumbing



My well is 400ft and was Fractured to get enough gallons per minute to meet code.  Don't know if it is the same Fracture you are talking about.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> My well is 400ft and was Fractured to get enough gallons per minute to meet code.  Don't know if it is the same Fracture you are talking about.



That was what I was talking about. He may have thought I meant hydraulic not hydro.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

Pulling a dfc and adding some links to contradict the gas in wells 

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Texas-EPA-gas-drilling/2011/03/23/id/390535

http://www.prairiewaternews.ca/water/vol9no1/story3.htm

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/01/18/2778239/natural-gas-in-parker-county-water.html


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 24, 2011)

Puck it said:


> That was what I was talking about. He may have thought I meant hydraulic not hydro.



They're actually the same thing- hydraulic is fluid under pressure. For a water well, you don't use propants, gels, or other additives, obviously.  So, I stand corrected, people do frac water wells. 

One wonders if our flammable water friend has had his well, originally dug, he says, in 1966, fraced, which would increase the chance of hitting a gas pocket.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 24, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> They're actually the same thing- hydraulic is fluid under pressure. For a water well, you don't use propants, gels, or other additives, obviously. So, I stand corrected, people do frac water wells.
> 
> One wonders if our flammable water friend has had his well, originally dug, he says, in 1966, fraced, which would increase the chance of hitting a gas pocket.


Well, they aren't exactly the same thing. All hydrocracking is hydraulic cracking, but not all hydraulic cracking is hydrocracking. It's a subset.

Nitpicking the nitpicker, hooray!


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 24, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Well, they aren't exactly the same thing. All hydrocracking is hydraulic cracking, but not all hydraulic cracking is hydrocracking. It's a subset.
> 
> Nitpicking the nitpicker, hooray!



Yeah, well, shutup!

:beer:


----------



## dmc (Mar 24, 2011)

Puck it said:


> So we should take your side of the story as fact. That is the problem with you. People do not listen to the whole argument and become reactionary when information is presented by the media. People need to become more informed instead reacting to Headline News 30 second spots.



Do whatever the fukc you want...  I really don't give a flying F...  It's not you that I want to know about this issue...

Everyone else can make up there own minds with all the info out there...  Attend local meetings..  Not from some blowhard Google so call scientist on AlpineZone..


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 24, 2011)

dmc said:


> Everyone else can make up there own minds with all the info out there...  Attend local meetings..  Not from some blowhard Google so call scientist on AlpineZone..



People should also utilize the extensive resources available from the NY DEC. While some may question their policies and enforcement, their record keeping is quite good, and it is quite easy to look at the data and draw conclusions. They will even give you a GoogleEarth plot of all the gas and oil wells. 

If, after looking that over, you conclude that fracing is effective enough that it creates fractures 9000 feet tall and 10 miles long, perhaps Schlumberger and Halliburton stock is a good buy. And New York's going to have to seriously reconsider the spacing rules on gas wells, since the recovery from a single well is a hell of a lot bigger than anyone thought.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> They're actually the same thing- hydraulic is fluid under pressure. For a water well, you don't use propants, gels, or other additives, obviously. So, I stand corrected, people do frac water wells.
> 
> One wonders if our flammable water friend has had his well, originally dug, he says, in 1966, fraced, which would increase the chance of hitting a gas pocket.


 
Hydraulic fracturing can use pure water or the mixture of water, sand and chemicals.  

Read some other dmz'ed links that I provided about wells with nat gas.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

dmc said:


> Do whatever the fukc you want... I really don't give a flying F... It's not you that I want to know about this issue...
> 
> Everyone else can make up there own minds with all the info out there... Attend local meetings.. Not from some blowhard Google so call scientist on AlpineZone..


 
Nice mouth from a so-called drummer on A-zone!!!!!!  Just an angry man. Keep proving my point, dude.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 24, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Hydraulic fracturing can use pure water or the mixture of water, sand and chemicals.
> 
> Read some other dmz'ed links that I provided about wells with nat gas.



Pure water is kind of pointless for fracing a nat gas well, though- you need the proppant to keep the fractures open, and the other additives to help get the proppant into the cracks. A fracing operation is pretty impressive- huge compressor motors, massive tanks of all kinds of stuff. Lots and lots of noise. And no hazmat suits. Doesn't mean I'd want to take a bath in the stuff, but the guys working with it don't seem to mind.

Don't really need to read other links- I understand the geology and technology pretty well.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Pure water is kind of pointless for fracing a nat gas well, though- you need the proppant to keep the fractures open, and the other additives to help get the proppant into the cracks. A fracing operation is pretty impressive- huge compressor motors, massive tanks of all kinds of stuff. Lots and lots of noise. And no hazmat suits. Doesn't mean I'd want to take a bath in the stuff, but the guys working with it don't seem to mind.
> 
> Don't really need to read other links- I understand the geology and technology pretty well.


 

Yes, nat gas wells need the chemical additives. Water wells only use water was my point.  The links that I provided are not about the tech. They are about wells that were thought to be contaminated by frac drilling but turned out they were not. I was using those to counter the dws zone ones.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 24, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Yes, nat gas wells need the chemical additives.  The links that I provided are not about the tech.  They are about wells that were thought to be contaminated by frac drilling but turned out they were not.  I was using those to counter the dws zone ones.



Gotcha.


----------



## Glenn (Mar 24, 2011)

A little more back on topic. An article that talks about the media coverage of the disaster in Japan...and how it's very nuclear centric/hystaria

http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/media-nuclear-hysteria


----------



## drjeff (Mar 24, 2011)

Glenn said:


> A little more back on topic. An article that talks about the media coverage of the disaster in Japan...and how it's very nuclear centric/hystaria
> 
> http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/media-nuclear-hysteria



The reality of this situation is that decades from now when the tragedy in Japan is looked back upon, that the death toll from the quake/tsunami will be massively greater than the death toll from the Fukushima Reactors


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 24, 2011)

Glenn said:


> A little more back on topic. An article that talks about the media coverage of the disaster in Japan...and how it's very nuclear centric/hystaria
> 
> http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/media-nuclear-hysteria



I hate Nancy Grace. She's awful.


----------



## dmc (Mar 24, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Nice mouth from a so-called drummer on A-zone!!!!!!  Just an angry man. Keep proving my point, dude.



yeah - I don't drum...  nice try...  I bet I've been drumming longer then you've pretended to be a scientist...  

I'm not angry..  i just pulled off a $10,000,0000 deal..  I'm happy as a pig in shti...And f'ing with you only makes me even happier!!!


Your point is lame...    Google it...


----------



## dmc (Mar 24, 2011)

drjeff said:


> The reality of this situation is that decades from now when the tragedy in Japan is looked back upon, that the death toll from the quake/tsunami will be massively greater than the death toll from the Fukushima Reactors



Doesn't make it any less tragic...

What a cluster F....


----------



## dmc (Mar 24, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> I hate Nancy Grace. She's awful.



there's a brown haired Nancy Grace now too... equally annoying...


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

dmc said:


> yeah - I don't drum...  nice try...  I bet I've been drumming longer then you've pretended to be a scientist...
> 
> I'm not angry..  i just pulled off a $10,000,0000 deal..  I'm happy as a pig in shti...And f'ing with you only makes me even happier!!!
> 
> ...



F'ing with u is fun.  And do you get any of that $10M? And u r angry.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 24, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> I hate Nancy Grace. She's awful.


I hate everything about CNN. Everything is breaking news, a developing story, or some such nonsense. A month into the trapped miners thing last summer (or whenever,) it was a developing story. Nothing had changed in a week. More fluff than any other network. Sensationalism abounds. I'm surprised they don't get more Pulitzers, they're following strongly in his footsteps. But, unfortunately, it's what's on at the gym on one of the TVs.


----------



## dmc (Mar 24, 2011)

Puck it said:


> F'ing with u is fun.  And do you get any of that $10M? And u r angry.



I totally get a piece of that..  It's going to pay for a new kitchen..

I'm happy as a pig in shit..  Heading home after successful trip and drinking a beer at the bar...  life is really good..


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 24, 2011)

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Interesting, semi on topic.

Especially nice is the disclaimer at the bottom of the chart.


----------



## NYDrew (Mar 24, 2011)

ugh, I can't stand Nancy Grace, she is nothing but a S*** stirrer and 90% of the time she is defending the guilty party.  I put her on par with Al Sharpton.

And that brown haired nancy grace wanna-be, Jane Valez-Mitchell is even more annoying.  I just remember one part she did where some 12 year old girl went to school dressed like a whore (and I mean, whore to the point that it made working girls look modest) and she turned it into some ridiculous race issue because she was black.  Pictures were included, I would suspend her and then some.

But back to the topic, do you think that we can do a letter writing campaign that will encourage both Grace and Mitchell to report on the Japanese melt down from the plant?


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 24, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> http://xkcd.com/radiation/
> 
> Interesting, semi on topic.
> 
> Especially nice is the disclaimer at the bottom of the chart.



That is handy :razz:


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 24, 2011)

NYDrew said:


> ugh, I can't stand Nancy Grace, she is nothing but a S*** stirrer and 90% of the time she is defending the guilty party.  I put her on par with Al Sharpton.
> 
> And that brown haired nancy grace wanna-be, Jane Valez-Mitchell is even more annoying.  I just remember one part she did where some 12 year old girl went to school dressed like a whore (and I mean, whore to the point that it made working girls look modest) and she turned it into some ridiculous race issue because she was black.  Pictures were included, I would suspend her and then some.



I watched that clip in the linked blog and wanted to go harm small animals...



> But back to the topic, do you think that we can do a letter writing campaign that will encourage both Grace and Mitchell to report on the Japanese melt down from the plant?



+1, Excellent idea. I'll one up that and say the reports should come from inside the reactor.

On second thought, that may be a bad idea as who know what kind of mutated monstrosity would rise from the core :razz:


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

dmc said:


> I totally get a piece of that.. It's going to pay for a new kitchen..
> 
> I'm happy as a pig in shit.. Heading home after successful trip and drinking a beer at the bar... life is really good..


 

Good, keep people working.  See trickle down does work.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 24, 2011)

So are both of you posting from your iPads?


----------



## Puck it (Mar 24, 2011)

mondeo said:


> So are both of you posting from your iPads?


 

I was.  I am at home on the desk top doing some trickle down economy stuff at backcountry.com


----------



## ERJ-145CA (Mar 24, 2011)

"When I got hired here I didn't even know what a nucular panner plant was." - Homer Simpson


----------



## Glenn (Mar 25, 2011)

mondeo said:


> So are both of you posting from your iPads?



A way to tell if someone is posting from an iPad or a mobile device: Their signature won't show.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 25, 2011)

Glenn said:


> A way to tell if someone is posting from an iPad or a mobile device: Their signature won't show.



Interesting...


----------



## dmc (Mar 25, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Good, keep people working.  See trickle down does work.



Well somebody has to combat the "trickle up" that we inherited.  Got to take some of that $ back from the richest 500 people in the US.


----------



## dmc (Mar 25, 2011)

Glenn said:


> A way to tell if someone is posting from an iPad or a mobile device: Their signature won't show.



Unless they use a different browser other then Safari..  Then you can trick the browser check and get the normal page


----------



## Puck it (Mar 25, 2011)

dmc said:


> Well somebody has to combat the "trickle up" that we inherited.  Got to take some of that $ back from the richest 500 people in the US.



Not going to start on that are we?


----------



## dmc (Mar 25, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Not going to start on that are we?



You mentioned  "trickle down" ... You know you did it for a reason.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 25, 2011)

dmc said:


> You mentioned  "trickle down" ... You know you did it for a reason.



Who? Me. Never.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 25, 2011)

Dirty Nuclear...
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/stewart_brand_a.php


----------



## Glenn (Mar 25, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Interesting...



Whoa! Mobile/iPad spoof!


----------



## hammer (Mar 25, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Dirty Nuclear...
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/stewart_brand_a.php


Did this issue come up in a previous post?  If not I'm surprised...we all associate coal with mining but forget that uranium doesn't just appear out of thin air.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 30, 2011)

dmc said:


> We haven't shutdown drilling in the gulf.. We lifted the moratorium last fall...


 

FYI. From an AP article-

*An Interior Department report to be released Tuesday says more than two-thirds of offshore oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico are sitting idle.*
*According to the report, obtained by The Associated Press, those inactive swaths of the Gulf could potentially hold more than 11 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The report also shows that 45 percent of all onshore oil and gas leases are inactive.*


----------

