Re: Al Gore Gets Global Warming Science Right According To Experts

In article <p4fqg.115365$H71.109221@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
On 30 Jun 2006 14:57:02 -0700, "Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:


Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:38:59 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

In article
<gmgraves-6EAF2F.00360528062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <pan.2006.06.28.03.20.23.556980@xxxxxxxx>,
TheLetterK <non@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:40:52 +0000, Warchild wrote:

In article <ks2dnVCl0Z7bfTzZnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"John" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/27/gore.science.ap/index.html

Al Gore is not relaying a theory that he whipped up on his own.
The theory on the origin of global warming have been around for
the past fifty years.

More like 30-40. 50 years ago, they were more worried about
global cooling.

The difference now is that we are now actually being
impacted by the consequences of global warming, and that even
if we act now, we will still be suffering for many decades to
come. If we fail to act, we will be suffering much worse.

The problem is that no one has a workable plan for doing
anything useful.

That's because there is NO useful plan and even if there were
one, it would take decades to put into effect. The world simply
cannot just stop producing CO2. There is no technology or,
indeed, set of technologies, on earth that could be implemented
quickly enough or thoroughly enough to counter global warming IF
it is caused by human activity. And if it's not caused by human
activity, there's nothing we can do but ride it out.

Nuclear power. It's reasonably cheap, we know how to do it, and
unlike solar or wind, it can be scaled up pretty much as far as
you'd like.

And thanks to envirowhackos spreading lies about it 3/4 of the
population thinks a nuclear reactor is an A-bomb in a different form
and wants nothing to do with one.

Er, Mayor... a nuclear reactor *is* an A-bomb in "different form!"

Nuclear reactors cannot explode. They are not A-Bombs.

This is true given proper operation of the reactor.

This is true all the time.

<URL:http://ans.engr.wisc.edu/phpws/index.php?module=faq&FAQ_op=view&FAQ_
id=15>

"Q: Can a nuclear reactor explode?

A: It is physically impossible for a commercial nuclear reactor to
explode like an atomic bomb, whether by accident, sabotage, or any other
cause. The composition of nuclear fuel used to generate electricity is
quite different from the materials used in a bomb."


All you need for an atomic explosion is a big enough piece of uranium
to achieve critical mass. The first A-bombs worked by having a piece
of uranium missing from the main mass that was forcibly assembled to
it by a conventional explosive charge.

Actually the Gadget was an implosion type bomb as was Fat Man. Little
Boy was the only one of the first batch that was a gun type.
Which doesn't matter anyway. Nuclear reactors don't work like either
type.
Its a bit like saying that a patio block is the same thing as the
Collesium because they both have concrete in them.

No, it's more like I'm saying all you need for an atomic blast is to collect
enough nuclear material into a large enough lump that it achieves critical
mass. Reactors keep this amount of material separate by containing it in
fuel rods, and using control rods, but nonetheless what's needed for an
atomic bomb is there. All that's missing is the right type of sabotage or
accident.

No, Edwin. Atomic reactors don't use the same mix of isotopes as atomic
bombs. The uranium in a reactor can't achieve criticality because it
isn't sufficiently enriched (enriching is the name for the process by
which the natural mixture of uranium isotopes is modified to favour more
Uranium-235).
.