🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:39:54 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:03:50 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> 
> >On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
> >> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >> 
> >> > off topic
> >> > Two page ad by United Aircraft describing new B-52 bomber.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> https://books.google.com/books?id=ElYEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=life%20bus&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false
> >> 
> >> AAAnd, they are still flying!
> >
> >Retired airforce pilots have not spoken well of them--the airframes
> >are too old.
> 
> Those pilots' kids will be retired before the B-52 goes out of
> service.
> 
> >Anyway, in looking over the above ad, it appears to be a pitch
> >by a big defense contractor for more military spending, which
> >of course would benefit the contractor.
> >
> >In the 1950s, the government spent a ton of money for the Cold
> >War, building tons of nuclear weapons*, defense radar networks,
> >and aircraft and submarines.  Extremely expensive.  Kept the
> >military draft going for years.
> 
> For certain values of "expensive".
> 
> >Was it all necessary?  Very tough to say.  I can certainly
> >understand the mindset of the era--the U.S. was caught flatfooted
> >after Pearl Harbor and didn't want to be in that position again,
> >quite understandably.  Further, the Soviets under Stalin and
> >Kruschev were not exactly extending the olive branch and
> >causing trouble worldwide.
> >
> >
> >* Nuclear weapons poisoned the atmosphere and ground from 
> >above-ground testing. 
> 
> I don't feel very poisoned.

It has been said that above-ground testing led to higher
radiation levels in the food chain, resulting in an increased
occurrence of diseases like leukemia.  I don't know if that
claim is scientifically accurate.  But knowing a number of people
with leukemia, I find it troubling.




> >The nuclear plants left behind an
> >enormous mess of highly toxic radioactive crap, such as the
> >ongoing big mess in Hanford, WA. 
> 
> Hanford was the _first_ large-scale nuclear reactor complex, created
> during a war in which it was feared that the other side might be doing
> the same thing.  It was not a "nuclear plant" in the sense that that
> term is usually used.

Hanford, like Oak Ridge, was indeed a "nuclear plant".  It made
plutonium.

It was built in a rush during WW II with minimum safeguards.  The
making of plutonium is extremely toxic and they knew it back then.
Stainless steel storage tanks for the waste proved to be inadequate.

Anyway, once the Cold War got underway, production was increased
at Hanford, and new sites were created (I think Pucadah, KY was
one).  Hanford is now a mess.





> >It blows my mind that
> >they want to _increase_ today's nuclear arsenal--can't we
> >now already blow up the world many times over?
> 
> You seem to have missed a number of treaties.