No idea, sorry.
I don't need the points, I've above redemption.
I don't need the points, I've above redemption.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Bonus marks for anyone who knows why it's ceramic UO2 and not pure elemental uranium.
Because a Warrior can smash something ceramic but it takes a Sorceror to destroy an Elemental.
Captain Caveman wrote:
I haven't looked this up, but would hazard a total guess that it's heat- and oxidation related? I'm guessing that the heat generated in a small, high power density reactor, coupled with the readiness at which U will oxidise at such temps, means that the use of the oxide eliminates this issue, plus no doubt the oxide has a much higher melting point anyway?
Don't laugh if it's total bollocks, I'm doing my best.
No, you're very much along the right lines. Not quite though. Note that, as I posted afterwards, this is true of all modern commercial reactors, not just naval ones.Don't laugh if it's total bollocks, I'm doing my best.
The answer is: because elemental uranium, with a little encouragement, is flammable and if there's one thing worse than a melted puddle of superhot radioactive stuff it's a puddle of superhot radioactive stuff that's also on fire. This was a doomsday scenario for Magnox plants, and why the nuclear industry moved the UO2 -- as a ceramic compound, it doesn't burn. Cavey is quite correct that it also has a much higher melting point (3140 vs 1400 K), which is no bad thing and could make the difference between a problem turning into a disaster or not.
For more dangerous chemistry fun, I highly, highly recommend this page: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/th ... work_with/
For example: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... s_time.php
For example: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... s_time.php
Quote:
In a comment to my post on putting out fires last week, one commenter mentioned the utility of the good old sand bucket, and wondered if there was anything that would go on to set the sand on fire. Thanks to a note from reader Robert L., I can report that there is indeed such a reagent: chlorine trifluoride.
I have not encountered this fine substance myself, but reading up on its properties immediately gives it a spot on my “no way, no how” list. Let's put it this way: during World War II, the Germans were very interested in using it in self-igniting flamethrowers, but found it too nasty to work with. It is apparently about the most vigorous fluorinating agent known, and is much more difficult to handle than fluorine gas. That’s one of those statements you don’t get to hear very often, and it should be enough to make any sensible chemist turn around smartly and head down the hall in the other direction.
The compound also a stronger oxidizing agent than oxygen itself, which also puts it into rare territory. That means that it can potentially go on to “burn” things that you would normally consider already burnt to hell and gone, and a practical consequence of that is that it’ll start roaring reactions with things like bricks and asbestos tile. It’s been used in the semiconductor industry to clean oxides off of surfaces, at which activity it no doubt excels.
There’s a report from the early 1950s (in this PDF) of a one-ton spill of the stuff. It burned its way through a foot of concrete floor and chewed up another meter of sand and gravel beneath, completing a day that I'm sure no one involved ever forgot. That process, I should add, would necessarily have been accompanied by copious amounts of horribly toxic and corrosive by-products: it’s bad enough when your reagent ignites wet sand, but the clouds of hot hydrofluoric acid are your special door prize if you’re foolhardy enough to hang around and watch the fireworks.
I’ll let the late John Clark describe the stuff, since he had first-hand experience in attempts to use it as rocket fuel. From his out-of-print classic Ignition! we have:
”It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that's the least of the problem. It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water-with which it reacts explosively. It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals-steel, copper, aluminium, etc.-because of the formation of a thin film of insoluble metal fluoride which protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminium keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes.”
Sound advice, indeed. I'll be lacing mine up if anyone tries to bring the stuff into my lab.
I have not encountered this fine substance myself, but reading up on its properties immediately gives it a spot on my “no way, no how” list. Let's put it this way: during World War II, the Germans were very interested in using it in self-igniting flamethrowers, but found it too nasty to work with. It is apparently about the most vigorous fluorinating agent known, and is much more difficult to handle than fluorine gas. That’s one of those statements you don’t get to hear very often, and it should be enough to make any sensible chemist turn around smartly and head down the hall in the other direction.
The compound also a stronger oxidizing agent than oxygen itself, which also puts it into rare territory. That means that it can potentially go on to “burn” things that you would normally consider already burnt to hell and gone, and a practical consequence of that is that it’ll start roaring reactions with things like bricks and asbestos tile. It’s been used in the semiconductor industry to clean oxides off of surfaces, at which activity it no doubt excels.
There’s a report from the early 1950s (in this PDF) of a one-ton spill of the stuff. It burned its way through a foot of concrete floor and chewed up another meter of sand and gravel beneath, completing a day that I'm sure no one involved ever forgot. That process, I should add, would necessarily have been accompanied by copious amounts of horribly toxic and corrosive by-products: it’s bad enough when your reagent ignites wet sand, but the clouds of hot hydrofluoric acid are your special door prize if you’re foolhardy enough to hang around and watch the fireworks.
I’ll let the late John Clark describe the stuff, since he had first-hand experience in attempts to use it as rocket fuel. From his out-of-print classic Ignition! we have:
”It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that's the least of the problem. It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water-with which it reacts explosively. It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals-steel, copper, aluminium, etc.-because of the formation of a thin film of insoluble metal fluoride which protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminium keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes.”
Sound advice, indeed. I'll be lacing mine up if anyone tries to bring the stuff into my lab.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
For more dangerous chemistry fun, I highly, highly recommend this page: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/th ... work_with/
For example: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... s_time.php
For example: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... s_time.php
Quote:
It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers
Yay! Cheers for that mate. 
Very interesting stuff. I was tempted to go with structural integrity/strength when heated as a possible alternative. And now you mention it, I do now specifically recall the issue of elemental uranium burning in air at Chernobyl (naked core), so should've further twigged on the outright exothermic flammability of uranium metal, as opposed to simply oxidation potential.
Very interesting stuff. I was tempted to go with structural integrity/strength when heated as a possible alternative. And now you mention it, I do now specifically recall the issue of elemental uranium burning in air at Chernobyl (naked core), so should've further twigged on the outright exothermic flammability of uranium metal, as opposed to simply oxidation potential.
Ah, chemistry. It's basically minimalist cooking.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
For more dangerous chemistry fun, I highly, highly recommend this page: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/th ... work_with/
For example: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... s_time.php
For example: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... s_time.php
Quote:
In a comment to my post on putting out fires last week, one commenter mentioned the utility of the good old sand bucket, and wondered if there was anything that would go on to set the sand on fire. Thanks to a note from reader Robert L., I can report that there is indeed such a reagent: chlorine trifluoride.
I have not encountered this fine substance myself, but reading up on its properties immediately gives it a spot on my “no way, no how” list. Let's put it this way: during World War II, the Germans were very interested in using it in self-igniting flamethrowers, but found it too nasty to work with. It is apparently about the most vigorous fluorinating agent known, and is much more difficult to handle than fluorine gas. That’s one of those statements you don’t get to hear very often, and it should be enough to make any sensible chemist turn around smartly and head down the hall in the other direction.
The compound also a stronger oxidizing agent than oxygen itself, which also puts it into rare territory. That means that it can potentially go on to “burn” things that you would normally consider already burnt to hell and gone, and a practical consequence of that is that it’ll start roaring reactions with things like bricks and asbestos tile. It’s been used in the semiconductor industry to clean oxides off of surfaces, at which activity it no doubt excels.
There’s a report from the early 1950s (in this PDF) of a one-ton spill of the stuff. It burned its way through a foot of concrete floor and chewed up another meter of sand and gravel beneath, completing a day that I'm sure no one involved ever forgot. That process, I should add, would necessarily have been accompanied by copious amounts of horribly toxic and corrosive by-products: it’s bad enough when your reagent ignites wet sand, but the clouds of hot hydrofluoric acid are your special door prize if you’re foolhardy enough to hang around and watch the fireworks.
I’ll let the late John Clark describe the stuff, since he had first-hand experience in attempts to use it as rocket fuel. From his out-of-print classic Ignition! we have:
”It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that's the least of the problem. It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water-with which it reacts explosively. It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals-steel, copper, aluminium, etc.-because of the formation of a thin film of insoluble metal fluoride which protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminium keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes.”
Sound advice, indeed. I'll be lacing mine up if anyone tries to bring the stuff into my lab.
I have not encountered this fine substance myself, but reading up on its properties immediately gives it a spot on my “no way, no how” list. Let's put it this way: during World War II, the Germans were very interested in using it in self-igniting flamethrowers, but found it too nasty to work with. It is apparently about the most vigorous fluorinating agent known, and is much more difficult to handle than fluorine gas. That’s one of those statements you don’t get to hear very often, and it should be enough to make any sensible chemist turn around smartly and head down the hall in the other direction.
The compound also a stronger oxidizing agent than oxygen itself, which also puts it into rare territory. That means that it can potentially go on to “burn” things that you would normally consider already burnt to hell and gone, and a practical consequence of that is that it’ll start roaring reactions with things like bricks and asbestos tile. It’s been used in the semiconductor industry to clean oxides off of surfaces, at which activity it no doubt excels.
There’s a report from the early 1950s (in this PDF) of a one-ton spill of the stuff. It burned its way through a foot of concrete floor and chewed up another meter of sand and gravel beneath, completing a day that I'm sure no one involved ever forgot. That process, I should add, would necessarily have been accompanied by copious amounts of horribly toxic and corrosive by-products: it’s bad enough when your reagent ignites wet sand, but the clouds of hot hydrofluoric acid are your special door prize if you’re foolhardy enough to hang around and watch the fireworks.
I’ll let the late John Clark describe the stuff, since he had first-hand experience in attempts to use it as rocket fuel. From his out-of-print classic Ignition! we have:
”It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that's the least of the problem. It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water-with which it reacts explosively. It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals-steel, copper, aluminium, etc.-because of the formation of a thin film of insoluble metal fluoride which protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminium keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes.”
Sound advice, indeed. I'll be lacing mine up if anyone tries to bring the stuff into my lab.
Class
Not quite on the same scale to be sure, but we made inhibited red fuming nitric acid in "science club" at school once - it made short work of the sawdust that we chucked in on.
The Americans seem to favor Uranium nitride over uranium carbide from what I have read (admitidly a long time ago) as it has superior thermal conductivity. But iirc it is a much bigger pain in the ass to form as you need Nitrogen-15 to get it to form properly (else you get a butt load of Carbon-14 generated by the reaction)
Regardless I am admitidly one of the un-educated masses who is very wary of Nuclear power, I like the idea of not burning fossil fuels to generate our power but still find that I don't have the faith in Nuclear as the problem of waste remains unresolved.
Regardless I am admitidly one of the un-educated masses who is very wary of Nuclear power, I like the idea of not burning fossil fuels to generate our power but still find that I don't have the faith in Nuclear as the problem of waste remains unresolved.
Captain Caveman wrote:
I was tempted to go with structural integrity/strength when heated as a possible alternative.
It's too weak for that anyway. In core, the fuel is formed up into little pellets about a centimetre long with a gap in the middle called the plenum, the pellets laid end-to-end into a rod, and the whole lot wrapped up in zirconium alloy for strength. The coolant circulates past the cladding exterior -- in AGR and PWR reactors in the UK, that's liquid CO2 at about 400 deg C or liquid water at about 550 deg C. I will leave as an exercise for the reader to ponder the pressure that's necessary to keep water a liquid at that temperature, or what happens if the pressure vessel ruptures and that water instantly boils.The plenum is to provide space for the gaseous fission by-products to go. One problem thing that can occur is if the pressure builds too far and lifts the cladding from off the surface of the fuel; the gas gap then inhibits cooling and creates hot spots.
The rods are bundled up into an assembly. Here's one from a PWR, of which we have one in the UK: Sizewell B, in Kent.
The "core" is basically just four hundred of those things side by side. There's no actual structure beyond that, just a grid top and bottom that holds them in place. The core is the rods.
In an AGR reactor, the rods are fitted into a circular graphite sleeve. Six sleeves are stacked on top of each other and inserted into the core, which is a big block of structure supports with channels inside it for the sleeves to go in. There are seven, IIRC, of those in the UK.
Edit -- I hope that's all right. Everything I've written in this thread is coming from 15-years-ago memory, so I may have made some small errors.
The plenum chamber on an internal combustion engine is for putting air in rather than taking waste out.
YES IT IS A COOL STORY, THANKS.
YES IT IS A COOL STORY, THANKS.
Grim... wrote:
The plenum chamber on a car is for putting air in rather than taking waste out.
YES IT IS A COOL STORY, THANKS.
YES IT IS A COOL STORY, THANKS.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
I was tempted to go with structural integrity/strength when heated as a possible alternative.
It's too weak for that anyway. In core, the fuel is formed up into little pellets about a centimetre long with a gap in the middle called the plenum, the pellets laid end-to-end into a rod, and the whole lot wrapped up in zirconium alloy for strength. The coolant circulates past the cladding exterior -- in AGR and PWR reactors in the UK, that's liquid CO2 at about 400 deg C or liquid water at about 550 deg C. I will leave as an exercise for the reader to ponder the pressure that's necessary to keep water a liquid at that temperature, or what happens if the pressure vessel ruptures and that water instantly boils.The plenum is to provide space for the gaseous fission by-products to go. One problem thing that can occur is if the pressure builds too far and lifts the cladding from off the surface of the fuel; the gas gap then inhibits cooling and creates hot spots.
The rods are bundled up into an assembly. Here's one from a PWR, of which we have one in the UK: Sizewell B, in Kent.
The "core" is basically just four hundred of those things side by side. There's no actual structure beyond that, just a grid top and bottom that holds them in place. The core is the rods.
In an AGR reactor, the rods are fitted into a circular graphite sleeve. Six sleeves are stacked on top of each other and inserted into the core, which is a big block of structure supports with channels inside it for the sleeves to go in. There are seven, IIRC, of those in the UK.
Edit -- I hope that's all right. Everything I've written in this thread is coming from 15-years-ago memory, so I may have made some small errors.
Fascinating stuff again.
Of course, as much as I actually loathe nuclear power - and bombs - the engineering and science that underwrites them is, of course, irresistible. I feel dirty.
I take your point about the pressures involved to keep water liquid at 820K
; I should imagine even the tiniest fracture (e.g. due to a seismic event or bomb) would instantly become catastrophic, liberating a whole bunch of superheated, super-radioactive steam into the environment (and rendering the reactor without cooling) - this is precisely the kind of thing that concerns me. Even without any of this, and even with all the X-Ray weld inspections in the world, pipe flanges, gaskets and pipes themselves fail, fatigue, corrode - especially at such immense pressures and thermal stresses, not to mention the pumps themselves, no matter how over-engineered they undoubtedly all are. There's probably miles and miles of 'em in total, between the various installations, and that's just one aspect, one critical auxiliary system, one of many no doubt. Just doesn't bear thinking about really IMO. Captain Caveman wrote:
Of course, as much as I actually loathe nuclear power - and bombs - the engineering and science that underwrites them is, of course, irresistible. I feel dirty.
I had a no-holds-barred tour of Sizewell B that included stnading on the core, seeing all the generation plant, seeing the (spent fuel) pond, and going in the control room. It was fucking awesome. Edit -- I also saw Cherenkov radiation, a blue glow caused by neutrons exceeding the local speed of light, analogous to a sonic boom. That was brilliant.Quote:
I take your point about the pressures involved to keep water liquid at 820K ; I should imagine even the tiniest fracture (e.g. due to a seismic event or bomb) would instantly become catastrophic, liberating a whole bunch of superheated, super-radioactive steam into the environment (and rendering the reactor without cooling) - this is precisely the kind of thing that concerns me. Even without any of this, and even with all the X-Ray weld inspections in the world, pipe flanges, gaskets and pipes themselves fail, fatigue, corrode - especially at such immense pressures and thermal stresses, not to mention the pumps themselves, no matter how over-engineered they undoubtedly all are. There's probably miles and miles of 'em in total, between the various installations, and that's just one aspect, one critical auxiliary system, one of many no doubt. Just doesn't bear thinking about really IMO.
A lot of it isn't radioactive. There are two coolant systems, primary (radioactive) and secondary (not), with circulation between the two through some sort of thermally conductive barrier (I'm vague on the details because I worked on the core, not the plant). There's as little primary stuff as possible, of course, to limit the dangers to containment. ; I should imagine even the tiniest fracture (e.g. due to a seismic event or bomb) would instantly become catastrophic, liberating a whole bunch of superheated, super-radioactive steam into the environment (and rendering the reactor without cooling) - this is precisely the kind of thing that concerns me. Even without any of this, and even with all the X-Ray weld inspections in the world, pipe flanges, gaskets and pipes themselves fail, fatigue, corrode - especially at such immense pressures and thermal stresses, not to mention the pumps themselves, no matter how over-engineered they undoubtedly all are. There's probably miles and miles of 'em in total, between the various installations, and that's just one aspect, one critical auxiliary system, one of many no doubt. Just doesn't bear thinking about really IMO.And whilst the steam is highly dangerous in and of itself, I believe they use very similar pressures in fossil-fuel powered plants -- it's by no means a risk that's confined nuclear power.
Safety largely comes from over-engineering and redundancy, as you'd expect. Every system is tripled up, or more; every pipe fitting is rated for 5x more pressure than it is supposed to see; and so on. The scale of the engineering is therefore utterly staggering. It bore about as much resemblance to a standard heating circuit as an F1 car does to a Model T.
Oh, and inspections. During refuellings -- every 18 months or so -- every inch of all the reactor pipework is manually inspected. This involves wearing clumsy bunny suits and crawling through miles of cramped inspection tunnels that were full of highly irradiated water not long before (they get flushed). The dose you absorb is very small -- far less than a chest x-ray -- but still, the company is not allowed to order anyone to do it (volunteers only), cannot pay you any more for it (that would be inducing people), and you are only allowed to do it once in your career.
'Course, if you want to talk about radiation risk from your job, airline pilots and cabin crew are far more at risk that nuke plant workers.
More about freak metereology than climate change per se, but interesting anyway: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMa ... rynum=2186
Quote:
A searing heat wave rare even for the Desert Southwest sent temperatures soaring to record levels on Monday, with Needles, California tying its record high for the date of 118°F (47.8°C). The temperature might have gone higher in Needles, but a thunderstorm rolled in at 3:20 pm, and by 3:56 pm PDT, rain began falling at a temperature of 115°F (46.1°C). Most of the rain evaporated, since the humidity was only 11%, and only a trace of precipitation was recorded in the rain gauge. Nevertheless, Monday's rain at 115° in Needles sets a new world record for the hottest rain in world history. I don't think many people were outside to experience to experience the feeling of rain falling at 115°, but if they were, it must have been an uncomfortable, sauna-like experience! Thanks go to Dr. Warren Blier of the NWS Monterey office for pointing out this remarkable event to me.
It is exceedingly rare to get rain when the temperature rises above 100°F, since those kind of temperatures usually require a high pressure system with sinking air that discourages rainfall. Monday's rain in Needles was due to a flow of moisture coming from the south caused by the Southwest U.S. monsoon, a seasonal influx of moisture caused by the difference in temperature between the hot desert and the cooler ocean areas surrounding Mexico to the south. According to weather records researcher Maximiliano Herrera, the previous record for hottest rain, which I blogged about in June, was a rain shower at 109°F (43°C) observed in Mecca, Saudi Arabia on June 5, 2012 and in Marrakech, Morocco on July 10, 2010. The 11% humidity that accompanied Monday's rain shower at 115° in Needles was the lowest humidity rain has ever occurred at anywhere on Earth in recorded history, according to Mr. Herrera.
It is exceedingly rare to get rain when the temperature rises above 100°F, since those kind of temperatures usually require a high pressure system with sinking air that discourages rainfall. Monday's rain in Needles was due to a flow of moisture coming from the south caused by the Southwest U.S. monsoon, a seasonal influx of moisture caused by the difference in temperature between the hot desert and the cooler ocean areas surrounding Mexico to the south. According to weather records researcher Maximiliano Herrera, the previous record for hottest rain, which I blogged about in June, was a rain shower at 109°F (43°C) observed in Mecca, Saudi Arabia on June 5, 2012 and in Marrakech, Morocco on July 10, 2010. The 11% humidity that accompanied Monday's rain shower at 115° in Needles was the lowest humidity rain has ever occurred at anywhere on Earth in recorded history, according to Mr. Herrera.
great election spot for our greens
look at this lovely country
a country that keeps being innovative
and keeps investing, even in diffult times
yes, we can say that..
a land that is ahead..
etc.
and then the payoff:
Wilkommen in Germany
look at this lovely country
a country that keeps being innovative
and keeps investing, even in diffult times
yes, we can say that..
a land that is ahead..
etc.
and then the payoff:
Wilkommen in Germany
Hmmmm.
Attachment:
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1345552117.759558.jpg
The new Tory DEFRA secretary is a climate "sceptic". We're all fucked.
He's also a massive fan of Shale extraction.
However he is a friend of the farmers, and knows a bit about cattle. He might be ok for the FRA part, if not the E part.
Craster wrote:
He's also a massive fan of Shale extraction.
I'm a fan of their early stuff, but the latest album is shit.
Hero of Excellence wrote:
The new Tory DEFRA secretary is a climate "sceptic". We're all fucked.
And our new health secretary believes in homeopathy.
It's as if Cameron has decided to just take the piss.
And the Justice Secretary believes you should be able to turn away gay people from your B&B.
It has certainly made today very quiet in the office, cancelled meetings all over the place.
Curiosity wrote:
And our new health secretary believes in homeopathy.
Oh dear.
Bad enough that there are still homeopathic NHS hospitals on the NHS. Still, I guess giving the public sugar pills would cut billions from the budget.
Of course, it's just occurred to me that under a homoeopathic national health system, the less money spent on healthcare the more effective it'll be.
Craster wrote:
And the Justice Secretary believes you should be able to turn away gay people from your B&B.
I believe the Foreign Secretary is also still British.
This Hunt thing. The Early-day-motion dating from six years ago 'The Register' links to in their article ( look here) also includes such well-known names as Diane Abbott, Vince Cable, and Nick Clegg. So it's not just a Tory thing.
Of course, saying you'll sign it probably kept one or two constituents happy without achieving anything. I always thought if you want to campaign, write about issues and discuss them, rather than ask the MP to sign a bit of paper that never amounts to anything.
Of course, saying you'll sign it probably kept one or two constituents happy without achieving anything. I always thought if you want to campaign, write about issues and discuss them, rather than ask the MP to sign a bit of paper that never amounts to anything.
Kern wrote:
Of course, it's just occurred to me that under a homoeopathic national health system, the less money spent on healthcare the more effective it'll be.
Oh, well played sir.
I hadn't realised about Hunt, though. Mrs K, who does a lot of work in and around the Department of Health and NHS, said "well, he can't be any worse than Lansley", but when I tell her about this she'll be spitting nails.
Another three years before the whole sorry shower of cunts get sacked as well. 
Don't you mean...
OR:
markg wrote:
Another three years before the whole sorry shower of cunts get another decade due to total lack of effective opposition.
OR:
markg wrote:
Another three years before the whole sorry shower of cunts get to kick the Lib Dems out and rule with an iron fist henceforth.
I don't think that even the current Labour party could fuck this one up. "The Cuts" haven't even really kicked in yet, with no growth to make up for it unemplyoment is going to skyrocket and people are going to be really pissed off.
markg wrote:
I don't think that even the current Labour party could fuck this one up.
Quoting for futureLULZ.
DavPaz wrote:
Don't you mean...
OR:
markg wrote:
Another three years before the whole sorry shower of cunts get another decade due to total lack of effective opposition.
OR:
markg wrote:
Another three years before the whole sorry shower of cunts get to kick the Lib Dems out and rule with an iron fist henceforth.
OR:
markg wrote:
Another three years before the whole sorry shower of cunts get kicked out and we get a new shower of cunts to fuck everything up in exactly the same way, after saying they would do the exact opposite
I've said it many times before but I'll say it again regardless: Anyone who seriously thought that any government - even the most amazing administration ever, let alone this sorry excuse for a proper Tory government, with this Chancellor - was capable of turning things around in two years, from the bombed out, dead-and-buried economy starting position, was/is truly living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Seriously, what were they left to work with, post the "There's no money!!111(tm)", Scorched Earth Labour era?
It's hardly as though Cameron & Co. could simply magic up hundreds of billions of pounds from thin air (although, that's pretty much what QE is, but printing money has serious downsides of course) or reinstate the vast swathes of GOOD manufacturing industry that this country lost under Labour, with its blind, idiotic faith in the City Slickers; its belief that it alone had killed the Economic Cycle; its presiding over the worst property, private and public debt bubble ever, allied to the most catastrophic governmental and institutional regulatory failure of the Banking Sector the world has ever seen; it presiding over the worst slide in educational standards we have yet seen, with young people now - equipped with a tally of quite worthless GCSEs demanding "respect", with employers totally unwilling to take them on, even with a £2500 tax free bribe per head, plus training grants; its mortgaging of the next three generations with governmental debt that will be a drag on whatever post-apocalypse, post-globalisation economy "we" are able to muster between us (well, at least those of us who can be arsed to do so), in this Brave New World?
Alternatively, where does the electorate think we would be now, had Labour remained in charge - with Brown or Balls at the economic helm, the very architects of our demonstrable, with the full benefit of hindsight, collective doom?
I'm no fan of the Coalition but at least they have restored a barely sufficient modicum of credibility for this country in the world money markets; we can still borrow at relatively favourable interest rates, unlike the bulk of our hapless EU state peers. It could've been better, most certainly, but it could've been much, much worse too.
This sort of syndrome reminds me of Teen Angel #2, when she was about 8.
We'd play games of Monopoly with family and friends, back in the day. Bless her little cotton socks, she's quite the worst, sorest loser I've ever known (worse even than me), so, when it became clear she was not going to win, she'd "hand the controls" to someone else, then blame them when they inevitable lost about three rolls of the dice later, claiming they were a "terrible player". But of course, if your legacy is a metaphorical mortaged Old Kent Road and about £30 in cash, and your opponents are polishing their hotels on Mayfair and Park Lane, you can hardly blame the hapless soul who has the unenviable, and impossible task of trying to rectify the situation.
Seriously, what were they left to work with, post the "There's no money!!111(tm)", Scorched Earth Labour era?
It's hardly as though Cameron & Co. could simply magic up hundreds of billions of pounds from thin air (although, that's pretty much what QE is, but printing money has serious downsides of course) or reinstate the vast swathes of GOOD manufacturing industry that this country lost under Labour, with its blind, idiotic faith in the City Slickers; its belief that it alone had killed the Economic Cycle; its presiding over the worst property, private and public debt bubble ever, allied to the most catastrophic governmental and institutional regulatory failure of the Banking Sector the world has ever seen; it presiding over the worst slide in educational standards we have yet seen, with young people now - equipped with a tally of quite worthless GCSEs demanding "respect", with employers totally unwilling to take them on, even with a £2500 tax free bribe per head, plus training grants; its mortgaging of the next three generations with governmental debt that will be a drag on whatever post-apocalypse, post-globalisation economy "we" are able to muster between us (well, at least those of us who can be arsed to do so), in this Brave New World?
Alternatively, where does the electorate think we would be now, had Labour remained in charge - with Brown or Balls at the economic helm, the very architects of our demonstrable, with the full benefit of hindsight, collective doom?
I'm no fan of the Coalition but at least they have restored a barely sufficient modicum of credibility for this country in the world money markets; we can still borrow at relatively favourable interest rates, unlike the bulk of our hapless EU state peers. It could've been better, most certainly, but it could've been much, much worse too.
This sort of syndrome reminds me of Teen Angel #2, when she was about 8.
We'd play games of Monopoly with family and friends, back in the day. Bless her little cotton socks, she's quite the worst, sorest loser I've ever known (worse even than me), so, when it became clear she was not going to win, she'd "hand the controls" to someone else, then blame them when they inevitable lost about three rolls of the dice later, claiming they were a "terrible player". But of course, if your legacy is a metaphorical mortaged Old Kent Road and about £30 in cash, and your opponents are polishing their hotels on Mayfair and Park Lane, you can hardly blame the hapless soul who has the unenviable, and impossible task of trying to rectify the situation. 
I wouldn't be quite so anti-coalition if:
1. They hadn't essentially lied about the NHS and set us on the path to—at best—a profit-oriented European system, but, more like, an eventual US-style system.
2. They didn't apparently wish all disabled people would just fucking die already, knifing their benefits and support to help them on their way (or getting arseholes like Atos to do it for them).
3. They had the balls to hold corporations to account, rather than letting them get away without paying billions in taxes, despite the country being in some series financial shit.
As for what Labour would have done (or Lab/Lib had the numbers been there)? My guess is a less toxic version of what we're seeing now, and I certainly don't think Labour romping to power next week would do us a great deal of good. In fact, even a Labour victory in 2015 (which now looks almost certain, especially given that the Lib-Dems will block boundary reform the Tories need to make a Tory majority likely) will probably just result in a lot of "blame the last lot". Even regarding repealing the NHS Bill, Labour's being extremely cagey.
1. They hadn't essentially lied about the NHS and set us on the path to—at best—a profit-oriented European system, but, more like, an eventual US-style system.
2. They didn't apparently wish all disabled people would just fucking die already, knifing their benefits and support to help them on their way (or getting arseholes like Atos to do it for them).
3. They had the balls to hold corporations to account, rather than letting them get away without paying billions in taxes, despite the country being in some series financial shit.
As for what Labour would have done (or Lab/Lib had the numbers been there)? My guess is a less toxic version of what we're seeing now, and I certainly don't think Labour romping to power next week would do us a great deal of good. In fact, even a Labour victory in 2015 (which now looks almost certain, especially given that the Lib-Dems will block boundary reform the Tories need to make a Tory majority likely) will probably just result in a lot of "blame the last lot". Even regarding repealing the NHS Bill, Labour's being extremely cagey.
Point #2 was a Labour plan implemented by the government, and haven't we been around this before?
Labour won't win with Milliband in charge, and they are bankrupt. Lib dems are dead, forever, Tory majority until 2020.
Labour won't win with Milliband in charge, and they are bankrupt. Lib dems are dead, forever, Tory majority until 2020.
Captain Caveman wrote:
Alternatively, where does the electorate think we would be now, had Labour remained in charge...
Not much worse or better off, but that lot would be a bit more sleekit when it came to fucking the populous. Do you still honestly believe that there's that big a difference between any of those self-serving arseholes?
Captain Caveman wrote:
Alternatively, where does the electorate think we would be now, had Labour remained in charge...
In much the same place but witg id cards and more of that ilk and probably more abuse of power of the type seen when long in power and you see yoursleves as unbeatable. My sleeves are unbeatable too.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
My sleeves are unbeatable too.
that's because you keep your armies in them.
MaliA wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
My sleeves are unbeatable too.
that's because you keep your armies in them.
You didn't disappoint.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
My sleeves are unbeatable too.
that's because you keep your armies in them.
You didn't disappoint.
\o
http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/201 ... pe=article
Quote:
Ice melting in the Arctic has been linked to duller, wetter English summers in a much-anticipated study published online on Wednesday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Last month, the extent and volume of the ice reached a record low. Experts warned that the Arctic could be free of sea ice in summer within this decade. Satellite pictures of Greenland, where the ice sheet rests on land, showed more widespread melting than ever recorded.
Scientists from the Universities of Sheffield in the UK and Rutgers and Washington in the US, with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, have established what they say is a clear link between the shrinking ice and more extreme weather in lower latitudes, through weather effects such as the "Arctic amplification" and shifting wind patterns.
Last month, the extent and volume of the ice reached a record low. Experts warned that the Arctic could be free of sea ice in summer within this decade. Satellite pictures of Greenland, where the ice sheet rests on land, showed more widespread melting than ever recorded.
Scientists from the Universities of Sheffield in the UK and Rutgers and Washington in the US, with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, have established what they say is a clear link between the shrinking ice and more extreme weather in lower latitudes, through weather effects such as the "Arctic amplification" and shifting wind patterns.
Mm. Mrs G notes that Iceland's also been having a really shitty time of it this year. Still, I'm sure the severe weather and failing crops across the USA, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australasia are nothing to worry about.
The paranoiac in me begins to wonder if they're not coming right out and saying "you know what, we did the maths, and what it actually is is we're TOTES FUCKED" because of the hedonism, violence and lack of anyone ever bothering to turn up for work again it would cause.
I think we're sufficiently well insulated to withstand any food shortages. We can afford it.
CraigGrannell wrote:
Mm. Mrs G notes that Iceland's also been having a really shitty time of it this year. Still, I'm sure the severe weather and failing crops across the USA, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australasia are nothing to worry about.
Climate change is, undoubtedly, a reality. But of course, the Earth's climate has always been wholly dynamic, as evidenced by cataclysmic ice ages, the last of which was a mere 10,000 years ago (a mere blink of an eye in Earth history terms). Not to mention much more recent, though less profound, climate swings such as the so-called 'Little Ice Age' of 300-odd years ago (i.e. pre-industrialisation) - mean temps fell by ~1 deg C, this being a much greater magnitude loss than the recent c.+0.5 deg C 'temperature anomaly rise' seen now, ascribed to man made sources according to the current scientific zeitgeist.
Some stuff here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
I've briefly mentioned other things such as the apparent variability/melting of Martian polar ice caps as well, these being clearly beyond the reach of any Chelsea-registered, school-run performing Audi Q7:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html
People like me are not denying climate change - that would be stupid. We're not even denying that the causes are man made, merely questioning/skeptical of this assertion, the supposed infallibility or otherwise of the science behind it, albeit I myself know next to nothing about it, as I have frequently admitted. Given that the climate is clearly dynamic, that recent changes have occurred which could not be due to post-industrial, (relative) large scale industrialisation/deforestation, coupled with self-evident limitations of our knowledge of the Earth's climate and oceanic systems as a whole (not to mention the Sun itself of course), unfeasibly complex and chaotic as they are - this would not seem unreasonable?
Still, no doubt this puts me on the side of willful, corporate planet-rapers and evil-doers etc.
The side of "blinkered naivety" maybe. There's no way us pumping billions upon billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year whilst simultaneously dismantling the CO2 sinks is ineffectual. Not to mention the massive hole we cut in the ozone layer allowing in extra UV.
I do, by the way, happily put myself in the "cynical, paranoid doomsayers" camp.
I do, by the way, happily put myself in the "cynical, paranoid doomsayers" camp.
Page 4 of 10 [ 474 posts ]