Todd wrote:

Not a real good argument. Her is why I say so:

I work for a pump company, meaning wells. There are
rules as to how deep you well need to go so you
don't pick up harmful bacteria from surface water,
including dog poop from our lawns.

That is why a deep well with water from aquifer
with centuries old water in it is so pure.

I am much more confident of mother natures cleaning
mechanism than mans. I will drink the deep aquifer
water flowing out of Lake Tahoe centuries ago.
You can drink the reclaimed toilet water with all
the pharmaceuticals in it.

Our water here tastes better than any bottled water
I have ever come across. And yes, it may have been
dino **** at one time, but it has spent millions of
years percolating through the ground being cleaned
up by mother nature.

-T

So you don't trust science but only what is "natural", this is just another
way of expressing the same emotional reaction as eeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwww.

You ignore the fact that getting good water out of deep aquifers is
relatively uncommon worldwide, the majority of domestic supply is from
surface water. Cattle shit in the river at my place which is the source of
town water 15km downstream. You ignore the cases (say in Europe) where so
many people in different countries use the big rivers for so many purposes
they are effectively sewers and yet those downstream must drink it as there
is nothing else.

Recycled water is treated and quality tested before going into the system
the same as any other. Water engineers and microbiologists have been doing
this for a long time it isn't some new untried procedure. It is little
wonder governments cannot make sensible decisions when so many of their
constituents hold these irrational views. If it is any comfort you are
probably in the majority.

D

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 11:04:05 PM UTC-8, Todd wrote:
On 03/01/2014 11:25 AM, Higgs Boson wrote:

How many are aware that dropping the bombs had little to do with forestalling a putative land invasion of Japan? They were on their asses already; no fuel, no food, no nuthin'. Ththere would have been relatively little resistance even by suicide, once the Emperor said give up.



Our GIs were told that dropping the bomb saved them from heavy casualties in a putative invasion. If I'd been a grunt at that time, believe me, I would have believed it!



Hi Higgs,



My late mother-in-law worked on the Manhattan project. Everyone on

that project was HORRIFIED with what they were about to do. And, if

anyone tells you they were not aware of the situation in Japan, they

are lying to you. The decision was made based on the Japanese military

arming the civilian population -- women, children -- with wooden

knives to fight us hand to hand. They were not going to give up.

And it took two bombs, not one, before they did.

Todd, you have either not read my post carefully or not understood it.

The Japanese people were so totally brainwashed by generations of Emperor worship that they would instantly do whatever he ordered. I referred to the chaotic situation within the Japanese government and military;perhaps you are not familiar with that, though there are several excellent sources for verification.

So I am not going through the whole argument again; I ask you just to read again and try to understand why, strictly speaking, neither bomb was necessary to end the war. A demonstration on a deserted island, properly announced in advance to the Japanese govt, would have been convincing. But the Americans were afraid it might not work (even after Trinity) so chose the mass incineration path.

To my knowledge, NO effective contact was made with the Japanese government before the 2nd bomb was dropped. Not to repeat again my informed comments about the chaos within the govt and the US ineptitude about discerning that chaos.

Of course there may have been reasons too horrible to envision for dropping two different kinds of bombs. Which kinda knocks out the argument against trying one out on a deserted island first. So the DID have another in reserve! This stinks louder & louder.

Boys with their toys...

HB



And the death count from those two bombs was actually lower than

the death count from our fire bomb attacks, which suffocated

thousands.



Have you read the prisoner counts from those islands we invaded

in the Pacific? 10, 14? We had to run soldiers over who where

out of ammunition with our tanks. They were fighting us with their

hands. This was the Japan we were about to invade.



A lot of people hate America. They spread a lot of b--- s---

around about us. We are not with out our problems. What makes

us different is that we do work on them.



-T

On 3/03/2014 1:23 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Saturday, March 1, 2014 11:04:05 PM UTC-8, Todd wrote:
On 03/01/2014 11:25 AM, Higgs Boson wrote:

How many are aware that dropping the bombs had little to do with forestalling a putative land invasion of Japan? They were on their asses already; no fuel, no food, no nuthin'. Ththere would have been relatively little resistance even by suicide, once the Emperor said give up.



Our GIs were told that dropping the bomb saved them from heavy casualties in a putative invasion. If I'd been a grunt at that time, believe me, I would have believed it!



Hi Higgs,



My late mother-in-law worked on the Manhattan project. Everyone on

that project was HORRIFIED with what they were about to do. And, if

anyone tells you they were not aware of the situation in Japan, they

are lying to you. The decision was made based on the Japanese military

arming the civilian population -- women, children -- with wooden

knives to fight us hand to hand. They were not going to give up.

And it took two bombs, not one, before they did.

Todd, you have either not read my post carefully or not understood it.

The Japanese people were so totally brainwashed by generations of Emperor worship that they would instantly do whatever he ordered. I referred to the chaotic situation within the Japanese government and military;perhaps you are not familiar with that, though there are several excellent sources for verification.

So I am not going through the whole argument again; I ask you just to read again and try to understand why, strictly speaking, neither bomb was necessary to end the war. A demonstration on a deserted island, properly announced in advance to the Japanese govt, would have been convincing. But the Americans were afraid it might not work (even after Trinity) so chose the mass incineration path.

To my knowledge, NO effective contact was made with the Japanese government before the 2nd bomb was dropped. Not to repeat again my informed comments about the chaos within the govt and the US ineptitude about discerning that chaos.

Of course there may have been reasons too horrible to envision for dropping two different kinds of bombs. Which kinda knocks out the argument against trying one out on a deserted island first. So the DID have another in reserve! This stinks louder & louder.

Boys with their toys...

The report of the first journo into Hiroshima is chilling reading. That
journo was Wilfred Burchett, and Australian who was a communist
sympathiser who has been much reviled.

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805217...64_excerpt.pdf

Todd wrote:
On 03/02/2014 01:41 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Todd wrote:

Not a real good argument. Her is why I say so:

I work for a pump company, meaning wells. There are
rules as to how deep you well need to go so you
don't pick up harmful bacteria from surface water,
including dog poop from our lawns.

That is why a deep well with water from aquifer
with centuries old water in it is so pure.

I am much more confident of mother natures cleaning
mechanism than mans. I will drink the deep aquifer
water flowing out of Lake Tahoe centuries ago.
You can drink the reclaimed toilet water with all
the pharmaceuticals in it.

Our water here tastes better than any bottled water
I have ever come across. And yes, it may have been
dino **** at one time, but it has spent millions of
years percolating through the ground being cleaned
up by mother nature.

-T

So you don't trust science but only what is "natural", this is just
another way of expressing the same emotional reaction as
eeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwww.

You ignore the fact that getting good water out of deep aquifers is
relatively uncommon worldwide, the majority of domestic supply is
from surface water. Cattle shit in the river at my place which is
the source of town water 15km downstream. You ignore the cases (say
in Europe) where so many people in different countries use the big
rivers for so many purposes they are effectively sewers and yet
those downstream must drink it as there is nothing else.

Recycled water is treated and quality tested before going into the
system the same as any other. Water engineers and microbiologists
have been doing this for a long time it isn't some new untried
procedure. It is little wonder governments cannot make sensible
decisions when so many of their constituents hold these irrational
views. If it is any comfort you are probably in the majority.

D

Look up the history typhoid

Why? Please point out the relevance.

D

Todd wrote:
On 03/02/2014 10:58 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Todd wrote:
On 03/02/2014 01:41 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Todd wrote:

Not a real good argument. Her is why I say so:

I work for a pump company, meaning wells. There are
rules as to how deep you well need to go so you
don't pick up harmful bacteria from surface water,
including dog poop from our lawns.

That is why a deep well with water from aquifer
with centuries old water in it is so pure.

I am much more confident of mother natures cleaning
mechanism than mans. I will drink the deep aquifer
water flowing out of Lake Tahoe centuries ago.
You can drink the reclaimed toilet water with all
the pharmaceuticals in it.

Our water here tastes better than any bottled water
I have ever come across. And yes, it may have been
dino **** at one time, but it has spent millions of
years percolating through the ground being cleaned
up by mother nature.

-T

So you don't trust science but only what is "natural", this is just
another way of expressing the same emotional reaction as
eeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwww.

You ignore the fact that getting good water out of deep aquifers is
relatively uncommon worldwide, the majority of domestic supply is
from surface water. Cattle shit in the river at my place which is
the source of town water 15km downstream. You ignore the cases
(say in Europe) where so many people in different countries use
the big rivers for so many purposes they are effectively sewers
and yet those downstream must drink it as there is nothing else.

Recycled water is treated and quality tested before going into the
system the same as any other. Water engineers and microbiologists
have been doing this for a long time it isn't some new untried
procedure. It is little wonder governments cannot make sensible
decisions when so many of their constituents hold these irrational
views. If it is any comfort you are probably in the majority.

D

Look up the history typhoid

Why? Please point out the relevance.

D

Hi David,

Typhoid was caused by toilet water. When this was
discovered, clean water became all the range and
stopped the disease.


A large number of diseases are caused by contamination of drinking water
with microbes, typhoid is just one. This is why all public reticulated
water needs both correct treatment and constant testing to make sure the
treatment is working regardless of its origin. How do you suppose the
people down river from me survive? Re-cycled sewerage is no different from
river or lake water except in the kind of treatment. Apparently Singapore
uses re-cycled sewerage and the quality is said to be better than from other
sources. There are two reasons this is not (yet) common: cost is one, many
users having your reaction is the other.

D

On 3/2/2014 10:27 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 22:41:56 -0800, Todd wrote:

On 03/01/2014 06:33 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:45:06 -0800, Todd wrote:

On 02/28/2014 04:57 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 1:00:27 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:



Just a thought: With all that Pacific Ocean out there just

off-shore, why not scale up successful Israeli desalination

technology via a Manhattan Project-sized program.



HB



Cost in money and greenhouse gases would be the obvious answer, not
that the

later seems to bother too many.



D

Uh, let's look at those factors:

Cost: If Nature (or global warming) continues to dry us up out here
on the West Coast of the U.S. how else are we going to get water for
nearly 40,000,000 in California alone, not counting other affected
states like Arizona & New Mexico. Thirty years since James Hansen
told Congress exactly what would happen and when, it is coming true
as predicted. Even the most corrupt legislator will be forced to
listen to their constituents rather than continuing their long,
well-emunerated love affair with Big Oil, Big Coal, and other
constituents of global warming.

Greenhouse gases: Not sure I see the relevance, but have a look at
what's been happening in the Middle East.

The relevance is that RO is very energy intensive and unless you source
your power from non-fossil sources you will be compounding the problem.


D


Here is an alternative:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/13724437/...age-drinkable/

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWW!!!!!!

Me thinks I will drink bottled water.

Every drop of water on this planet is the same as was here at its
creation, not a drop more or less... your bottled water is the same
water the dinosaurs ****ed.



Hi Brooklyn1,

Not a real good argument. Her is why I say so:

I work for a pump company, meaning wells. There are
rules as to how deep you well need to go so you
don't pick up harmful bacteria from surface water,
including dog poop from our lawns.

That is why a deep well with water from aquifer
with centuries old water in it is so pure.

I am much more confident of mother natures cleaning
mechanism than mans. I will drink the deep aquifer
water flowing out of Lake Tahoe centuries ago.
You can drink the reclaimed toilet water with all
the pharmaceuticals in it.

Our water here tastes better than any bottled water
I have ever come across. And yes, it may have been
dino **** at one time, but it has spent millions of
years percolating through the ground being cleaned
up by mother nature.

-T


Methinks you had best stick to pumping, reading comprehension is not
your forte.


Depends how much dinosaur **** you can tolerate.
Anyone familiar with Avogadro's number would know there had to be at
least one molecule in every glass of water.

On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 09:46:38 -0500, Frank
wrote:

On 3/2/2014 10:27 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 22:41:56 -0800, Todd wrote:

On 03/01/2014 06:33 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:45:06 -0800, Todd wrote:

On 02/28/2014 04:57 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 1:00:27 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:



Just a thought: With all that Pacific Ocean out there just

off-shore, why not scale up successful Israeli desalination

technology via a Manhattan Project-sized program.



HB



Cost in money and greenhouse gases would be the obvious answer, not
that the

later seems to bother too many.



D

Uh, let's look at those factors:

Cost: If Nature (or global warming) continues to dry us up out here
on the West Coast of the U.S. how else are we going to get water for
nearly 40,000,000 in California alone, not counting other affected
states like Arizona & New Mexico. Thirty years since James Hansen
told Congress exactly what would happen and when, it is coming true
as predicted. Even the most corrupt legislator will be forced to
listen to their constituents rather than continuing their long,
well-emunerated love affair with Big Oil, Big Coal, and other
constituents of global warming.

Greenhouse gases: Not sure I see the relevance, but have a look at
what's been happening in the Middle East.

The relevance is that RO is very energy intensive and unless you source
your power from non-fossil sources you will be compounding the problem.


D


Here is an alternative:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/13724437/...age-drinkable/

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWW!!!!!!

Me thinks I will drink bottled water.

Every drop of water on this planet is the same as was here at its
creation, not a drop more or less... your bottled water is the same
water the dinosaurs ****ed.



Hi Brooklyn1,

Not a real good argument. Her is why I say so:

I work for a pump company, meaning wells. There are
rules as to how deep you well need to go so you
don't pick up harmful bacteria from surface water,
including dog poop from our lawns.

That is why a deep well with water from aquifer
with centuries old water in it is so pure.

I am much more confident of mother natures cleaning
mechanism than mans. I will drink the deep aquifer
water flowing out of Lake Tahoe centuries ago.
You can drink the reclaimed toilet water with all
the pharmaceuticals in it.

Our water here tastes better than any bottled water
I have ever come across. And yes, it may have been
dino **** at one time, but it has spent millions of
years percolating through the ground being cleaned
up by mother nature.

-T


Methinks you had best stick to pumping, reading comprehension is not
your forte.


Depends how much dinosaur **** you can tolerate.
Anyone familiar with Avogadro's number would know there had to be at
least one molecule in every glass of water.

Moron doesn't know water purifys via the evaporative process... do you
really think if you **** on the ground it stays there forever...
moron.

Todd wrote:
On 03/03/2014 02:07 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Todd wrote:
On 03/02/2014 10:58 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Todd wrote:
On 03/02/2014 01:41 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Todd wrote:

Not a real good argument. Her is why I say so:

I work for a pump company, meaning wells. There are
rules as to how deep you well need to go so you
don't pick up harmful bacteria from surface water,
including dog poop from our lawns.

That is why a deep well with water from aquifer
with centuries old water in it is so pure.

I am much more confident of mother natures cleaning
mechanism than mans. I will drink the deep aquifer
water flowing out of Lake Tahoe centuries ago.
You can drink the reclaimed toilet water with all
the pharmaceuticals in it.

Our water here tastes better than any bottled water
I have ever come across. And yes, it may have been
dino **** at one time, but it has spent millions of
years percolating through the ground being cleaned
up by mother nature.

-T

So you don't trust science but only what is "natural", this is
just another way of expressing the same emotional reaction as
eeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwww.

You ignore the fact that getting good water out of deep aquifers
is relatively uncommon worldwide, the majority of domestic
supply is from surface water. Cattle shit in the river at my
place which is the source of town water 15km downstream. You
ignore the cases (say in Europe) where so many people in
different countries use the big rivers for so many purposes they
are effectively sewers and yet those downstream must drink it as
there is nothing else. Recycled water is treated and quality tested
before going into
the system the same as any other. Water engineers and
microbiologists have been doing this for a long time it isn't
some new untried procedure. It is little wonder governments
cannot make sensible decisions when so many of their
constituents hold these irrational views. If it is any comfort
you are probably in the majority. D

Look up the history typhoid

Why? Please point out the relevance.

D

Hi David,

Typhoid was caused by toilet water. When this was
discovered, clean water became all the range and
stopped the disease.


A large number of diseases are caused by contamination of drinking
water with microbes, typhoid is just one. This is why all public
reticulated water needs both correct treatment and constant testing
to make sure the treatment is working regardless of its origin. How
do you suppose the people down river from me survive? Re-cycled
sewerage is no different from river or lake water except in the kind
of treatment. Apparently Singapore uses re-cycled sewerage and the
quality is said to be better than from other sources. There are
two reasons this is not (yet) common: cost is one, many users having
your reaction is the other. D



Hi David,

You hit it on the head with your treatment statement.
What I am mainly skeptical of is not the science of
the matter, but the human factor. Not willing to
risk my life on it.

Yet every time you drink urban water you do.


Just an interesting aside, I watched a documentary on
Netflix/Roku about the history of beer. Seems that was the
way Europe coped with Toilet Water before if discovered as
to why regular water killed everyone. So much so that
settlers in Jamestown refused to drink the pristine
water they had available and waited for beer to come
available.


Making beer IS a form of treatment, you are relying on the introduced yeast
to exclude the pathogens. Tea the same - due to boiling the water.

D

Todd wrote:
On 03/03/2014 02:07 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Apparently Singapore uses re-cycled sewerage and the quality is said
to be better than from other sources. There are two reasons this
is not (yet) common: cost is one, many users having your reaction is
the other.


Exactly how is it they remove the pharmaceuticals and the
Gold Fish?

Layers of membrane filtration. They do have trouble with croodiles though.

D

On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:25:22 PM UTC-8, Todd wrote:
On 02/28/2014 10:26 PM, songbird wrote:

not having to build nuclear

desalinization plants would be one of them (who

needs more chances at Fukushima?



Hi Songbird,



Do you know the death count on all of nuclear energy?

Can you compare it to dead coal miners or other

non-nuclear forms of energy? How about black lung?

If would help to make a good comparison. Every form of

energy has its risks. Nuclear has been pretty safe so

far.



By the way, the new designs for nuclear plants

are so safe that deliberate attempts to melt them

down (under safe controlled conditions) have failed.

With these, there will be no more Fukushimas.



Cite, Todd? Would be fascinated to read about these experiments.

TIA

HB

On Friday, February 28, 2014 4:57:01 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:

On Friday, February 28, 2014 1:00:27 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:

[,,,]

Greenhouse gases: Not sure I see the relevance, but have a look at

what's been happening in the Middle East.



The relevance is that RO is very energy intensive and unless you source your

power from non-fossil sources you will be compounding the problem.

Am I naive to speculate that RO won't be the only technology down the pike?

HB

Higgs Boson wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 4:57:01 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:

On Friday, February 28, 2014 1:00:27 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott
wrote:

[,,,]

Greenhouse gases: Not sure I see the relevance, but have a look at

what's been happening in the Middle East.



The relevance is that RO is very energy intensive and unless you
source your

power from non-fossil sources you will be compounding the problem.

Am I naive to speculate that RO won't be the only technology down the
pike?

HB

Probably. It takes energy to get a solute out of a solvent, this is not a
question of technology but known science. We know about distilation and RO,
and both cost energy. It is usually the problem deniers who assume that
unknown science (read magic) or unproven technology ("clean coal") will come
to our rescue and thus we ought not to worry.

I suggest that not destroying our sources of water and not using it so
carelessly (growing rice in drylands and building golf courses in deserts
come to mind) will serve better in the short to medium term. Of course if
tomorrow somebody comes up with a way to make large scale atomic fusion
efficient and practical I will be made to eat my hat. Since the idea was
first shown to be theoretically possible ( say a century ago) a practical
solution has always been predicted to be available in "about 30 years".
Well the greatgrandchildren of those blokes are still working on it.

D

On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:59:21 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:

On Friday, February 28, 2014 4:57:01 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:

Higgs Boson wrote:



On Friday, February 28, 2014 1:00:27 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott

wrote:



[,,,]



Greenhouse gases: Not sure I see the relevance, but have a look at



what's been happening in the Middle East.







The relevance is that RO is very energy intensive and unless you

source your



power from non-fossil sources you will be compounding the problem.



Am I naive to speculate that RO won't be the only technology down the

pike?



HB



Probably. It takes energy to get a solute out of a solvent, this is not a

question of technology but known science. We know about distilation and RO,

and both cost energy. It is usually the problem deniers who assume that

unknown science (read magic) or unproven technology ("clean coal") will come

to our rescue and thus we ought not to worry.



I suggest that not destroying our sources of water and not using it so

carelessly (growing rice in drylands and building golf courses in deserts

come to mind) will serve better in the short to medium term. Of course if

tomorrow somebody comes up with a way to make large scale atomic fusion

efficient and practical I will be made to eat my hat. Since the idea was

first shown to be theoretically possible ( say a century ago) a practical

solution has always been predicted to be available in "about 30 years".

Well the greatgrandchildren of those blokes are still working on it.

The biggest problem at this point is educating the public. Maybe people are more socially-minded in OZ, but Up Here (US) it is only a minority of the population who are educated and aware enough to take the simple steps that
would reduce consumption dramatically.

People who have programmed sprinklers don't take care to adjust when water is not needed. In the middle of our dramatic storm last week, the CITY's sprinklers were still going!

As are those of my neighbor, on automatic. That storm soaked everything so well that no watering would be required for AT LEAST a week; I think more.
I know that at least several people including our shared gardener, have mentioned the wasted water, but so far no change...

I'm afraid it will take sky-high water costs -- and they are high anyway --
to make people stop & think. Alas, those high costs hit even the good guys,
like yours truly.

HB

Todd wrote:
On 03/03/2014 06:59 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
unproven technology ("clean coal") will come to our rescue and thus
we ought not to worry

You don't think it is possible to clean up coal, but drinking
toilet water is okay? I suppose we all pick our favorite
technologies.




I never said it couldn't be done at all. Every coal-fired power station
does some cleaning of its effluent now but this is not CO2.

It is quite possible to clean up effluent from burning coal to the level of
removing all (or nearly all) the CO2 as well, this has been done in
demonstration plants. What the coal industry, who claim that it will save
us from climate change, have yet to do is show how it can be done on a large
scale and what it would cost at that scale. Despite millions being sunk into
it the technology is unproven at the scale that would be required to allow
coal burning not to be the major contributor to greenhouse gas production
that it is today.

I suspect that the cost might be so high that it would make other energy
sources much more attractive and this is what the coal industry is worried
about. But until they actually do it we don't know.


David

..

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 9:43:34 AM UTC-8, Todd wrote:
On 03/03/2014 06:14 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:

On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:25:22 PM UTC-8, Todd wrote:

On 02/28/2014 10:26 PM, songbird wrote:



not having to build nuclear



desalinization plants would be one of them (who



needs more chances at Fukushima?







Hi Songbird,







Do you know the death count on all of nuclear energy?



Can you compare it to dead coal miners or other



non-nuclear forms of energy? How about black lung?



If would help to make a good comparison. Every form of



energy has its risks. Nuclear has been pretty safe so



far.







By the way, the new designs for nuclear plants



are so safe that deliberate attempts to melt them



down (under safe controlled conditions) have failed.



With these, there will be no more Fukushimas.







Cite, Todd? Would be fascinated to read about these experiments.



TIA



HB







Hi Higgs,



I heard it on the radio (news announcement) and have read

it other places too.



Tried to find some reference with google, but was swamped

with all the Fuki stuff. It was a test on "small modular

reactor (SMR)" they were talking about.



My memory of the details was they took an SMR and put it

inside a big reactor dome and deliberately tried to get

it to meltdown.



This is the closest I found:



http://ansnuclearcafe.org/category/s...ular-reactors/



http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...actor-15484608



http://www.nei.org/Issues-Policy/New...eactor-Designs



https://forms.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc...nt-des-bg.html



http://science.time.com/2013/08/05/a...n-new-designs/



As an engineer, I much like the new small designs. I have

always thought huge single designs were awkward. The SMR's are

designed to shut themselves down automatically. This is the

way it should have been done all along.



With lots of these all over, we could finally start cracking

hydrogen from water for our cars and homes. Fresh water from

the sea too.



Sorry I could not find a direct reference to the tests

I heard/read about. Trust me, I did hear/see them.

-T

Thanks,man. I looked up the references and absorbed as much as my tiny gardener's mind could handle.

One thing always pushed my "what if" button. What happens when a SMR reactor, designed to shut down automatically, fails? Is there backup? What kind.

The design for reactor buried underground sounded interesting, in terms of sparing nearby people & buildings. But could a failure trigger catastrophic earthquakes (I live in So. Calif, so earthquakes are always on our minds.)

Appreciate the research!

HB