,,,and the rains came...
 

Finally a real storm in Southern California -- thank whatever gods may be!

Dragged empty trash can to front porch where it will fill up quickly.


Garden is always is visibly relieved to "drink" pure sky water by contrast with imported, treated water.

Not that I'm knocking treated water. Without it, this would be a desert.
And may be again if we don't get enough precipitation to end the drought.

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

,,,and the rains came...
 

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

,,,and the rains came...
 

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. As always, Israel has been a forward-thinking leader. When you're a tiny blip on the map, surrounded by neighbors that have been trying to kill you long before you officially became a country, you HAVE to devote resources to survival. One of many Web sites devoted to Israeli irrigation, water usage, and desalination:

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059994202

This research has long been shared with Big Brother, aka the U.S. but until recent years, the full effect of global warming has not been felt by the average US person, who is focussed more on the next electronic toy than on the price/supply of water.

HB

,,,and the rains came...
 

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

,,,and the rains came...
 

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.

What a ridiculous reaction.

D

,,,and the rains came...
 

Todd writes:

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.

Those plastic bottles are a hazard.

What makes you think that bottled water wasn't sewage a little while
ago?

There's very little new water being made on this planet.

--
Dan Espen

,,,and the rains came...
 

On 2/28/2014 6:45 PM, 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.


In the community where I live and adjacent communities, parks, golf
courses, school playgrounds, and greenbelts are irrigated with
"reclaimed" water. The water is the output of our local sewage plant.
Even though some of the irrigation systems spray the reclaimed water
into the air, it is still considered safe for human contact.

In Los Angeles, the Japanese Garden in the Sepulveda Basin is irrigated
by the output of the Tillman Water Reclamation Plant (a sewage plant).
Actually, the garden is over-watered. The excess seeps into the aquifer
that underlies the Los Angeles River. While the river itself is often
little more than a trickle, the underlying aquifer supplies about 10% of
the city's drinking water. Given what residents of the city dump into
the streets, the reclaimed water is likely better than the river flow.
After a rain storm, swimmers and surfers are warned to stay out of the
ocean near the river's mouth and near the mouths of other water courses
along the coast.

--
David E. Ross
Climate: California Mediterranean, see
http://www.rossde.com/garden/climate.html
Gardening diary at http://www.rossde.com/garden/diary

,,,and the rains came...
 

Dan Espen wrote:

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

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWW!!!!!!

Me thinks I will drink bottled water.

Those plastic bottles are a hazard.

What makes you think that bottled water wasn't sewage a little while
ago?

There's very little new water being made on this planet.

Every drop of water has been recycled through many processes and systems
over the eons. The drink in front of you probably contains some water that
was in a dinosaur, some that was a grub and some that was urine or faeces of
other creatures. Shortening the cycle so that we can re-use water quicker
and cheaper often promotes this gut reaction of revulsion as a first
response, which is understandable. The fact that so many never get beyond
the gut reaction and begin to think about it is not so understandable.

I seem to recall that the troglodytes prevailed despite a public education
campaign and this scheme never went into production.

D

,,,and the rains came...
 

David Hare-Scott wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
....
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.

the basic problem is that we've gotten into the
habit of mixing human waste with potable water to
begin with. this compounds many other problems and
they tag along with the whole process. clean up
the basic misconception and you get many benefits
in result. not having to build nuclear
desalinization plants would be one of them (who
needs more chances at Fukushima? are you seriously
considering more nuclear plants in California?
are you really that idiotic? yes, i am seriously
calling you an idiot if you are building more
nuclear plants in that area).

much of the use of water is simply to flush waste
materials away.

when you consider how much energy it takes to pump
and clean the water again after it is used as a waste
transport system then perhaps you'll understand the
sheer stupidity of this whole system.

most human waste is valueable and can be composted
safely without having to use all that water.

the waste which is not safely compostable (hormone
treatments, some drugs, chemotherapeutics and nuclear
medicine) should be treated differently, but those
people who know they are doing such things could be
set up with their medical providers to have a clean
disposal path for their waste (so that it does not
become a hazard to others).

in a world of limited resources there is no excuse
for not recycling of most materials. for areas with
limited water they certainly should not be wasting
water by using it as a waste transport mechanism.

you do not need or want more nuclear plants. there
are viable methods that can be used right now without
nuclear energy. please don't support methods which
potentially can kill/pollute everyone downwind or
downstream.


songbird

,,,and the rains came...
 

songbird wrote:
the basic problem is that we've gotten into the
habit of mixing human waste with potable water to
begin with.

No.

this compounds many other problems and
they tag along with the whole process. clean up
the basic misconception and you get many benefits
in result. not having to build nuclear
desalinization plants would be one of them (who
needs more chances at Fukushima? are you seriously
considering more nuclear plants in California?
are you really that idiotic? yes, i am seriously
calling you an idiot if you are building more
nuclear plants in that area).


An emotive side issue.

much of the use of water is simply to flush waste
materials away

It's true some water is used to flush but you still need to have a sewerage
system in cities. If using dual flush toilets and only hitting the button
when required the use on toilet flushing is not that high. There are only
small savings there. Domestically, washing and showering use much more.
Gardens, golf courses, pools, fountains, hosing the driveway etc use
astronomically more.


when you consider how much energy it takes to pump
and clean the water again after it is used as a waste
transport system then perhaps you'll understand the
sheer stupidity of this whole system.

most human waste is valueable and can be composted
safely without having to use all that water.


Composting toilets are fashionable round here. They smell in normal
operation and are a bitch to clean out, someone has to go in and dig them
out. You can't pay someone enough to do it. They are suitable for deserts
not cities. In high humidty areas they stay too wet. But you still need to
have water reticulation and sewerage networks. Flushing with grey water is
more practical.

the waste which is not safely compostable (hormone
treatments, some drugs, chemotherapeutics and nuclear
medicine) should be treated differently, but those
people who know they are doing such things could be
set up with their medical providers to have a clean
disposal path for their waste (so that it does not
become a hazard to others).


Yes if the whole family is healthy compost it otherwise cart your shit to a
waste centre if any one of you are taking pills. Or have a honey pot
collection. Can you imagine this system in a big city. In the 19th century
before the sewer was built London was called "the great wen" Get serious.

in a world of limited resources there is no excuse
for not recycling of most materials. for areas with
limited water they certainly should not be wasting
water by using it as a waste transport mechanism.


Most of the water in the sewer is not from flushing.

Bird you haven't thought this out.

D

,,,and the rains came...
 

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/

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWW!!!!!!

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.

,,,and the rains came...
 

On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:26:56 PM UTC-8, songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:

Higgs Boson wrote:

...

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.

(removed by previous poster: detail of working scalable desalination in the one democracy 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.



the basic problem is that we've gotten into the

habit of mixing human waste with potable water to

begin with. this compounds many other problems and

they tag along with the whole process. clean up

the basic misconception and you get many benefits

in result. not having to build nuclear

desalinization plants would be one of them (who

needs more chances at Fukushima? are you seriously

considering more nuclear plants in California?

are you really that idiotic? yes, i am seriously

calling you an idiot if you are building more

nuclear plants in that area).

Songie, before you gallop away on your apocalyptic anti-nuclear horse, allow this "idiot" to point out that "Manhattan Project" only referred to a national effort -- in WW II, to create an atomic bomb. Not something this "idiot" approved of, much less appreciated incinerating two cities full of civilians.

I have seen several films, both American and Japanese, which documented in chilling detail the utter chaos -- political and military -- that reigned inside the Japanese Government after Hiroshima and before Nagasaki. It is useful to make some effort to acquaint oneself with the FACTS.

The US was not only ignorant of the situation inside Japan, but didn't condescend to investigate it. We only blindly insisted on the military mantra of "unconditional surrender". If our ultimatum had been couched with SOME understanding of what was going on -- don't tell me sources weren't available!! -- like not humiliating their Emperor-God -- hundreds of thousands more lives could have been spared, not to mention future generations affected by radiation.

As we know, after surrender, the U.S. turned over Japan to big business, which basically ran the country until some stirrings of democracy began to be felt.

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!

What they, and the American people, were never told was that the bomb was rushed into production to hasten surrender before the Soviet Union could take part in the fighting, per their wartime agreement with the Allies. The last thing the US wanted was them Commie pinkos getting their toes into Japan -- or anywhere else. Never mind a few million "Japs" getting toasted, between the Tokyo firebombing (see also Dresden) and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Years ago, I made a pilgrimage to Hiroshima to bow at the memorial of those innocents killed at 8:15 a.m.,just as the streets were full of children on their way to school.

Boys with their toys...

The point made by this "idiot" is that a full-scale national effort was behind the Bomb.

A similar full-scale effort to investigate and perfect scalable desalinization
is not only do-able, but of the utmost urgency.

HB (aka "the idiot"
[...]

,,,and the rains came...
 

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.

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

,,,and the rains came...
 

On 3/1/2014 11:25 AM, Higgs Boson wrote:
Songie, before you gallop away on your apocalyptic anti-nuclear
horse, allow this "idiot" to point out that "Manhattan Project" only
referred to a national effort -- in WW II, to create an atomic bomb.
Not something this "idiot" approved of, much less appreciated
incinerating two cities full of civilians.

I have seen several films, both American and Japanese, which
documented in chilling detail the utter chaos -- political and
military -- that reigned inside the Japanese Government after
Hiroshima and before Nagasaki. It is useful to make some effort to
acquaint oneself with the FACTS.

The US was not only ignorant of the situation inside Japan, but
didn't condescend to investigate it. We only blindly insisted on the
military mantra of "unconditional surrender". If our ultimatum had
been couched with SOME understanding of what was going on -- don't
tell me sources weren't available!! -- like not humiliating their
Emperor-God -- hundreds of thousands more lives could have been
spared, not to mention future generations affected by radiation.

As we know, after surrender, the U.S. turned over Japan to big
business, which basically ran the country until some stirrings of
democracy began to be felt.

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!

What they, and the American people, were never told was that the bomb
was rushed into production to hasten surrender before the Soviet
Union could take part in the fighting, per their wartime agreement
with the Allies. The last thing the US wanted was them Commie pinkos
getting their toes into Japan -- or anywhere else. Never mind a few
million "Japs" getting toasted, between the Tokyo firebombing (see
also Dresden) and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Years ago, I made a pilgrimage to Hiroshima to bow at the memorial of
those innocents killed at 8:15 a.m.,just as the streets were full of
children on their way to school.

Boys with their toys...

The point made by this "idiot" is that a full-scale national effort
was behind the Bomb.

A similar full-scale effort to investigate and perfect scalable
desalinization is not only do-able, but of the utmost urgency.

HB (aka "the idiot" [...]

I believe the horror caused by the two bombs dropped in Japan (very
shortly after my 4th birthday) has prevented any nation from again using
any kind of nuclear weapon.

--
David E. Ross
Climate: California Mediterranean, see
http://www.rossde.com/garden/climate.html
Gardening diary at http://www.rossde.com/garden/diary

,,,and the rains came...
 

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.

,,,and the rains came...
 

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

,,,and the rains came...
 

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

,,,and the rains came...
 

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

,,,and the rains came...
 

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

,,,and the rains came...
 

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

,,,and the rains came...
 

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.

,,,and the rains came...
 

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.

,,,and the rains came...
 

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

,,,and the rains came...
 

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

,,,and the rains came...
 

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

,,,and the rains came...
 

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

,,,and the rains came...
 

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

,,,and the rains came...
 

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

,,,and the rains came...
 

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

..

,,,and the rains came...
 

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

,,,and the rains came...
 

Todd wrote:
On 03/06/2014 01:30 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:

First I note that you have changed the subject and presented no
facts in rebuttal (again).

Hi David,

I don't have to. If I have a pet theory, say the moon is
made out of cheese, it is my job to prove it to you, not
the other way around. If you think temperature is rising,
then you have to prove it to me.


All through the thread on water treatment I gave you facts and argument that
it was safe to drink. You gave nothing but eeeeeeeeewwwwwwwww. The last
instance you said I was saying coal can't be cleaned. I explained it can in
small scale but at large scale it is unproven. Then you changed the subject
to climate change.

All that has nothing to do with me having to prove climate change happens,
which I will not attempt here. If you want to go round on that there are
plenty of NGs that will accommodate you but it would be unreasonable here.
This is now getting into debate about debating which is as unproductive as
debating climate change. Lets leave it.

David

,,,and the rains came...
 

On 3/7/2014 11:16 AM, Todd wrote:
On 03/06/2014 01:30 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:

First I note that you have changed the subject and presented no facts in
rebuttal (again).

Hi David,

I don't have to. If I have a pet theory, say the moon is
made out of cheese, it is my job to prove it to you, not
the other way around. If you think temperature is rising,
then you have to prove it to me.

The Climate Change crowd has not got squat. Their computer models
are so bad they couldn't predict the sun will rise the next day.
Plus, they have been caught falsifying their data. And, they
name call ("Deniers") anyone that "Dare" disagree with them.
And there is no open debate as they refuse to listen to
contradictory evidence, which is overwhelming.

And even though I don't have to, here you go:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ling/page1.php

My guess, sun spot activity is far more responsible than
anything man can do. Ever see how much crap a volcano
spews into the atmosphere? Mankind is a piker!

Sea levels rising? Good luck proving that one.


Forget computer models.

Instead, talk to the almond growers in the Central Valley of California.
They have seen reductions in crops because their trees no longer get
sufficient winter chill. This has been going on for a few years now.

Also talk to the Canadian government. They are planning a new seaport
on their arctic coast to handle shipping through the North-West Passage.

--
David E. Ross
Climate: California Mediterranean, see
http://www.rossde.com/garden/climate.html
Gardening diary at http://www.rossde.com/garden/diary

,,,and the rains came...
 

On Friday, March 7, 2014 4:31:45 PM UTC-8, David E. Ross wrote:
On 3/7/2014 11:16 AM, Todd wrote:

On 03/06/2014 01:30 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:



First I note that you have changed the subject and presented no facts in

rebuttal (again).



Hi David,



I don't have to. If I have a pet theory, say the moon is

made out of cheese, it is my job to prove it to you, not

the other way around. If you think temperature is rising,

then you have to prove it to me.



The Climate Change crowd has not got squat. Their computer models

are so bad they couldn't predict the sun will rise the next day.

Plus, they have been caught falsifying their data. And, they

name call ("Deniers") anyone that "Dare" disagree with them.

And there is no open debate as they refuse to listen to

contradictory evidence, which is overwhelming.



And even though I don't have to, here you go:



http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ling/page1.php



My guess, sun spot activity is far more responsible than

anything man can do. Ever see how much crap a volcano

spews into the atmosphere? Mankind is a piker!



Sea levels rising? Good luck proving that one.





Forget computer models.



Instead, talk to the almond growers in the Central Valley of California.

They have seen reductions in crops because their trees no longer get

sufficient winter chill. This has been going on for a few years now.



Also talk to the Canadian government. They are planning a new seaport

on their arctic coast to handle shipping through the North-West Passage.


David, why waste electrons on deniers of any stripe. They will always find "data" to support their bias. Even when global warming reaches up and bites them or their progeny in the posterior, their determination bias will burn fierce and strong (block that metaphor g)

HB

,,,and the rains came...
 

On Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:44:25 PM UTC-8, Todd wrote:
On 03/08/2014 11:34 AM, Higgs Boson wrote:

On Friday, March 7, 2014 4:31:45 PM UTC-8, David E. Ross wrote:

On 3/7/2014 11:16 AM, Todd wrote:



On 03/06/2014 01:30 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:







First I note that you have changed the subject and presented no facts in



rebuttal (again).







Hi David,







I don't have to. If I have a pet theory, say the moon is



made out of cheese, it is my job to prove it to you, not



the other way around. If you think temperature is rising,



then you have to prove it to me.







The Climate Change crowd has not got squat. Their computer models



are so bad they couldn't predict the sun will rise the next day.



Plus, they have been caught falsifying their data. And, they



name call ("Deniers") anyone that "Dare" disagree with them.



And there is no open debate as they refuse to listen to



contradictory evidence, which is overwhelming.







And even though I don't have to, here you go:







http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ling/page1.php







My guess, sun spot activity is far more responsible than



anything man can do. Ever see how much crap a volcano



spews into the atmosphere? Mankind is a piker!







Sea levels rising? Good luck proving that one.











Forget computer models.







Instead, talk to the almond growers in the Central Valley of California.



They have seen reductions in crops because their trees no longer get



sufficient winter chill. This has been going on for a few years now.







Also talk to the Canadian government. They are planning a new seaport



on their arctic coast to handle shipping through the North-West Passage.





David, why waste electrons on deniers of any stripe. They will always find "data" to support their bias. Even when global warming reaches up and bites them or their progeny in the posterior, their determination bias will burn fierce and strong (block that metaphor g)



HB





Hi Higgs,



The problem is that it is hoax. If there was anything to it

your would be presenting your data for peer review and not

pitching it as a religion ("Deniers"). You would not

have to resort to political correctness (mind control).



Any there is nothing biting anyone in the ass. The

hoaxers haven't got squat. Everything they predicted is

not happening. Ocean temperatures are falling.

It must be comforting for you to realize that you know more than the vast concensus of legitimate climate and other scientists, who have spent the last 30 or so years (at least since Hansen stood before the Congress and made his predictions) trying to "falsify" the data. "Falsify" being the standard procedure by which legitimate scientists compete world-wide to disprove a finding, proposal, theory.

HB

,,,and the rains came...
 

I have to believe that Hansen was sincere in what he was
saying. It is okay to be wrong every now and then.

Can you see where this is going? We are not having a
discussion on this or that piece of fascinating
research or discovery.

You are reacting to me the same way I would react to
you if you told me my God did not create the heavens
and the earth. I just know it to be true and would
summarily dismiss you (without the name calling
["Deniers"]) just as you are dismissing me. You know
it to be true and won't hear otherwise. Just as I
would not listen to you.


You are stating the bleeding obvious reason why I would not continue with
this. Has this only now occured to you? Perhaps you will drop it now.

D

,,,and the rains came...
 

On 10/03/2014 7:29 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 4:39:31 PM UTC-7, Fran Farmer wrote:


But on that score, I still wonder why it is that the USA is such a

shining example of agnatology as the most recent example demonstrates

yet again. Sad.

I HAD TO LOOK UP THAT WORD. THAT HASN'T HAPPENED TO ME IN A LOOOONG TIME!
Snort, indeed!

I suspect that will you enjoy using it in your real life since you too
have been subject to a demonstration of it so recently. ;-P

,,,and the rains came...
 

On 11/03/2014 8:58 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:

I have to believe that Hansen was sincere in what he was
saying. It is okay to be wrong every now and then.

Can you see where this is going? We are not having a
discussion on this or that piece of fascinating
research or discovery.

You are reacting to me the same way I would react to
you if you told me my God did not create the heavens
and the earth. I just know it to be true and would
summarily dismiss you (without the name calling
["Deniers"]) just as you are dismissing me. You know
it to be true and won't hear otherwise. Just as I
would not listen to you.


You are stating the bleeding obvious reason why I would not continue
with this.

I'd have thought that you wouldn't bother to continue with him because
he cites 'newsbusters' and its inaccurate report of '11 inaccuracies'
and making statements like 'There is no vast consensus. Just a lot of
sloppy research.'

Those examples, let alone the rest of what he's written, are enough to
make a person of reasonable sensibilities curl up and slink away in case
what he's got is infectious.

,,,and the rains came...
 

On 11/03/2014 5:21 PM, Todd wrote:
On 03/10/2014 11:02 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 11/03/2014 8:58 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:

I have to believe that Hansen was sincere in what he was
saying. It is okay to be wrong every now and then.

Can you see where this is going? We are not having a
discussion on this or that piece of fascinating
research or discovery.

You are reacting to me the same way I would react to
you if you told me my God did not create the heavens
and the earth. I just know it to be true and would
summarily dismiss you (without the name calling
["Deniers"]) just as you are dismissing me. You know
it to be true and won't hear otherwise. Just as I
would not listen to you.


You are stating the bleeding obvious reason why I would not continue
with this.

I'd have thought that you wouldn't bother to continue with him because
he cites 'newsbusters' and its inaccurate report of '11 inaccuracies'
and making statements like 'There is no vast consensus. Just a lot of
sloppy research.'

Those examples, let alone the rest of what he's written, are enough to
make a person of reasonable sensibilities curl up and slink away in case
what he's got is infectious.

Hi Fran,

You need to look at both sides. At first, it will hurt a bit,
but eventually you will get use to it.

I long ago looked at both sides both on the Web and in newsgroup and
quite obviously since I've read the drivel you have posted and the cites
you've given, I still continue to read both sides. I hope I never lose
my marbles sufficiently that I will be so uncritical as to accept what
is said by deniers.

I long ago concluded that deniers were either engaged in duping others
or were the subject of the duping. Deniers invariably selectively cite
and choose opinion over fact. That applied equally to Web based sites
or in newsgroups. No doubt it's all about money and following the money
trail would reveal who is putting up the money for the dupers to do
their peddling.

After a while
you will find it enjoyable. Broadens your understanding
of the world around you. You can also have wonderful
conservations with others as long as you are polite about
your differences and listen to others.

I have a retired college professor as a customer that
loves to talk politics with me.

He probably dines out on what you say.

One of the things I
adore about him is the way he repeats back what I said
to him to make sure that is exactly what I meant before disagrees
with me. We have the most wonderful conversations. And
because he listens and reflects what I say, I love listening
to him as well. Dude is one sharp cookie!

And the 11 inaccuracies where a British court.

Wrong. It's a single digit not even a big number like the 97% of
climate scientists who agree that anthropogenic climate change is real.

If you don't
like Newsbusters as a source, try a different source:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=11+inaccur...+british+court

Another cite that doesn't get the numbers right

And Newsbuster published a retraction:
Correction: Judge Finds Only Nine Convenient Untruths in Gore's Film:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ths-gores-film

That could be been a positive thing for them to have done if they hadn't
repeated the previously included 2 lies and hadn't attempted to smear US
press which had accurately reported the Courts edict on guidance notes.
I also loved the hypocrisy whereby they criticise 'the [US] press'
for failing to expose 'a charade' when the self same shabby,
hypocritical site didn't expose the highly manipulative and transparent
charade of Monckton's funding of the challenge before a British court.

,,,and the rains came...
 

Fran Farmer wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
Fran Farmer wrote:

But on that score, I still wonder why it is that the USA is such a
shining example of agnatology as the most recent example demonstrates
yet again. Sad.

I HAD TO LOOK UP THAT WORD. THAT HASN'T HAPPENED TO ME IN A LOOOONG TIME!
Snort, indeed!

I suspect that will you enjoy using it in your real life since you too
have been subject to a demonstration of it so recently. ;-P

A more acceptible spelling is "agnotology".
Higgs would be more closely ascribed with:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnolotti

,,,and the rains came...
 

Todd writes:

You need to look at both sides.

A RWer that doesn't believe the climate scientists.
Tell me it isn't so.

Next you'll tell us the world is 6K years old, and we haven't seen the
real birth certificate. Maybe you have a story about hollow point
ammunition or ovulation just shutting down after rape.

I bet you have a lot of "scientific political" views.
Like a good sheep, you just feed at the trough of your masters.

You so funny.

--
Dan Espen