🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:52:09 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>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.

It didn't produce power, which is what a "nuclear plant" does today,
and conflating it with one appears to be blatant propagandizing.

>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.

Which is the way things go when you're learning how to do something.
>
>
>
>
>
>> >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.