On 14/02/2024 03:39, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> In article <ewsxN.78098$Sf59.8@fx48.iad>,
> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Given the current decade+ and $$$$$$ it takes to build a plant, ...
>
> It didn't used to take that long to build a nuclear power
> plant, and the laws of physics have not changed.
>
> What we have once accomplished in the past, we can
> aspire to do in the future.

I think we don't want to have more
nuclear power stations built the old way.

And "the old way" probably runs up to about
last year.

I'm speaking in general, not particularly.
But there are conspicuous examples of "oops".

On 14/02/2024 03:35, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <uqeof0$1ud4r$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 13/02/24 08:35, D wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> About 20% of Russian households do not have flush toilets.
>>
>> 9% of Urban households.
>
> To be honest, the second fact is far more alarming than the first. The
> county adjacent to mine here in Virginia has something like 200 homes
> with outdoor toilets but... living without a flush toilet in a city has
> got to be a horror.

Some people speak well of the earth closet,
but I don't know if Russia has those instead.

Also, if the statistic is sourced, and
is reasonably current i.e. later than
say 1990, I'd also want to know whether
/access/ to an indoor toilet counts.
Such as in a boarding-house.

As worded, I'd expect that /exclusive/
access to an /outhouse/ with plumbing
counts. Though now I'm anxious about
washing of hands.

On 13/02/2024 20:40, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 2/13/2024 4:46 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 3:33:29 AM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I perceive that your "natural gas"
>>> is fossil reserves of methane.
>>> Which is worse to let into the
>>> atmosphere than carbon dioxide is,
>>> on a human lifespan scale.
>>
>> This applies to cow farts.
>>
>> When people dig natural gas out of
>> the ground, it is done with the intent
>> of burning it, producing some
>> carbon dioxide, and some water
>> vapor. While most hydrocarbons
>> have about half as many carbon atoms
>> as hydrogen atoms, the ratio in the case
>> of methane is one carbon atom to four
>> hydrogen atoms.
>>
>> Of course, methane production and use
>> is not absolutely without a small percentage
>> of leakage, but that doesn't automatically
>> make natural gas worse than other
>> hydrocarbons.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> Natural gas is typically 90+% methane.  Methane is 40% hydrogen by
> weight.  The conversion equation is CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O.
>
> Methane in the atmosphere naturally converts to CO2 and H2O within ten
> years.

Math varies on the last point, but it's
not "within" ten years. Some sources
propose that /after/ ten years, "most"
of a release of methane is gone.
I would guess at a linear process, but
I also suppose that human knowledge
of how pollution behaves at various
heights in the atmosphere is limited.
I assume that the methane is distributed
uniformly between the ground and the sky,
unless it isn't, but what happens next?

On 12/02/2024 19:35, D wrote:
> I can add some anecdotal evidence here as well. I met a Ukrainian
> refugee in my local bar a couple of months ago and she told me that in
> her home town, after the russians invaded, all the toilets where missing
> from the houses.
>
> The russian soldiers removed all of them, loaded on trucks and sent back
> to their home villages in russia.

I'm shocked by the loo-ting. :-)
And by the murderous iniquitous
aggression, of course.

On 13/02/2024 11:08, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:39:41 AM UTC-7, D wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>>> Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.
>
>> Undiscovered is not wishful thinking. As economics change new areas and
>> ways will become profitable to exploit. This has happend with oil and
>> will happen with any material that is traded on a free market.
>
> I suppose that hypothetically, all future attempts to find either oil or
> uranium in places that we haven't already detected them could suddenly
> start to consistently fail.
>
> The likelihood of this, however, can be estimated by a simple technique.
>
> What are the geological characteristics of existing known oil and uranium
> reserves? Of the land that has been explored for oil and/or uranium, what
> proportion of the land with those characteristics has actually had oil
> and/or uranium?
>
> And how much land with those same characteristics has _not_ yet
> been explored to look for those resources?
>
> This is how estimates of unknown mineral resources are made, and it
> is quite a reasonable technique.

But with satellites and all that, in what
sense have we not now looked everywhere?

With that said, we can be pretty sure that
jupiter is mostly hydrogen. And the Sun is,
come to that. However -

On 13/02/2024 11:02, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:52:56 AM UTC-7, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> From a technical standpoint this makes perfect sense. The problem is
>> that those transuranics are greatly desired by people who want to make
>> bombs. You don't need a lot of security to transport reactor-grade
>> uranium rods because nobody sane really wants to steal them. But stuff
>> containing even relatively small amounts of plutonium have to be kept
>> under pretty tight security because the difficulty of refining it to make
>> a bomb is not anywhere near as great.
>
> This is true; however, I see no reason to believe that the United States
> is not capable of providing adequate security to shipments of nuclear
> materials for its power plants.

But what if the U.S. decides, for radiological
safety, to build its nuclear power plants
in Canada?

And what about the rest of the world's need
for energy production?

On 12/02/2024 23:19, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 4:20 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>> On 2024-02-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>> On 2024-02-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>>>>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think shooting nuclear waste into the sun probably won't be
>>>>>>>>> feasible
>>>>>>>>> until we have some form of launch system that does not rely on
>>>>>>>>> rockets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It takes far less energy to "shoot nuclear waste" into deep space.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To hit the sun requires massive amounts of fuel to slow the orbital
>>>>>>>> speed of the rocket, or very long trips using multiple gravity
>>>>>>>> assists
>>>>>>>> around the inner planets to slow the rocket.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Throwing "nuclear waste" into the sun is a non-starter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then, you must consider the mass of the waste - it consists of
>>>>>>>> heavy elements and there is a considerable amount of it.  We're
>>>>>>>> talking thousands of rocket launches.  Just one launch
>>>>>>>> failure could contaminate large areas of the planet.   Are you
>>>>>>>> willing to take that risk?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I agree that the danger is large.  It's already difficult
>>>>>>> politically to launch nuclear powered spacecraft where the dangerous
>>>>>>> amounts are much smaller.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we ever accumulate much nuclear waste in orbit or on the
>>>>>>> moon,it may
>>>>>>> be less dangerous to shoot it into the sun than let it stay around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Surely you meant "shoot it into deep space"?    What if it turns out
>>>>>> to be potentially useful in 200 years?  (even today, some can be
>>>>>> reprocessed into useful fuel).
>>>>>> I'd park it in the orbital plane of the asteroid belt.
>>>>>
>>>>> No.  There are two types of danger here to avoid.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first is the direct danger of the nuclear material.  Deep space
>>>>> is fine for that and the benefits are as you say.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second is that nefarious parties could take control of the
>>>>> material.
>>>>
>>>> A bit of a stretch, perhaps.   If someone has the wherewithal to
>>>> get to the the asteroid belt (or interstellar space, if that's
>>>> where you decide to send it) they probably don't need the waste
>>>> stocks to cause trouble.
>>>> But, point noted.
>>>
>>> Somewhat a stretch.  It occurrs to me now that terrestrial governments
>>> not wanting to give such a weapon to outer-space populations may be more
>>> of a reason to fire the dangers into the sun.
>>
>> Elon Musk aside, 'outer-space populations' are also a bit of a stretch,
>> and it's likely that any outer-space population will have a high
>> technology level.  It doesn't require transuranics to nudge an asteroid
>> into an earth-interesecting orbit.
>>
>>> I really don't know what society will be like in, say, 150 years. As
>>> technology increases, the availability of civilization-affecting
>>> catastrophes increases.  Society is going to have to have to have
>>> some mechanisms for controlling those dangers; I don't know what they
>>> will be.  I fear I won't like many of those mechanisms!
>>
>> Resource conflicts are already underway....
>
> The first documented resource conflict happened over 6,000 years between
> Cain and Able.  Who knows how many resource conflicts happened before
> that ?

Abel. I think the message of that story
is, "When it comes to sacrificing property
to God, priests prefer meat. Also,
if your sacrifice pleases God, you may
still get killed. Don't come crying to us
if you do."

I think I recall another story where
the availability of good fruit to eat
seemed to be a concern.

I also recall an interpretation that meat
eating was prohibited until Noah's time,
so why was Abel raising livestock anyway?

On 11/02/2024 14:50, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <d807a0be-c3f4-ddf3-66c5-c4035902b1aa@example.net>,
> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/9/2024 4:35 AM, D wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> Throw the unreclaimable nuclear waste into the Sun.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lynn
>>>>
>>>> I often thought about this, and of course one question that does pop up
>>>> is...
>>>>
>>>> How would an exploding rocket full of nuclear waste affect our
>>>> environment if it explodes within our atmosphere?
>>>>
>>>> At the risk of becoming a bit "sci fi" here, I could easily imagine
>>>> however, if we had rail gun launch systems or even more "sci fi" space
>>>> elevators, that this could become much more feasible and more safe than
>>>> putting the stuff in a rocket and throwing it in the sun.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards, Daniel
>>>
>>> I actually started writing a short story once about nuclear waste hauler
>>> space ships throwing nuclear waste into the Sun. The haulers were specially
>>> built with water ringed centers for crew protections during solar storms.
>>> The problem is that the solar storms are becoming more frequent.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>
>> I think shooting nuclear waste into the sun probably won't be feasible
>> until we have some form of launch system that does not rely on rockets.
>
> In terms of delta vee, interstellar space is closer than the Sun. Of
> course, there are much easier to reach sufficiently safe to me
> repositories on Earth.

There's a _Star Trek: Voyager_ plot about
a dirty civilisation who dump their
industrial waste in interstellar space
which is environmentally bad.

Come to think, a _Star Trek: The Next Generation_
story addresses how starships ripping through
outer space all the time are wearing it out.

In resl life, we've already thrown pornography
into extra-solar space. I say "we", I wasn't
involved. I think Carl Sagan was?

On 2/13/2024 10:32 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> In article <uq35b6$22opb$2@dont-email.me>,
> Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/7/2024 6:33 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>> Assuming, of course, that the "environmental hysterics"
>>> really care about the environment, and aren't just using
>>> it as a ploy for an entirely other agenda.
>>
>> What 'other agenda' are you proposing?

Being anti-nuclear makes no sense now that we have
anthropic climate change to worry about. I suspect
that at least some of the Green's anti-nuke stance
is a hangover from before when ACC was a major worry.

pt

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Natural gas is typically 90+% methane. Methane is 40% hydrogen by
>weight. The conversion equation is CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O.

Yes. Unfortunately methane is very very effective at trapping radiation in
the atmosphere, something like 28 times more effective than CO2. So even
though the total amount of methane in the atmosphere is pretty low, it has
an outsized contribution to warming.

Most of that methane has been the product of agriculture but nobody is really
sure what the actual amount produced by fracking is now. Finding that out is
the first step and there is some resistance on the part of the industry to
do that.

>Methane in the atmosphere naturally converts to CO2 and H2O within ten
>years.

Yes, but ten years is a very long time. This is the problem.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 8:40:49=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7, Scott Dorsey wro=
>te:
>
>> It's alarming enough that the US government has nuclear weapons. I am muc=
>h=20
>> more worried about Google, Wells Fargo, AT&T, or MS13 having them.
>
>In that case, panic! Because General Electric already has them!

Oh, I have been panicking about that for a long time now, yes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 14/02/2024 03:39, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>> In article <ewsxN.78098$Sf59.8@fx48.iad>,
>> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> Given the current decade+ and $$$$$$ it takes to build a plant, ...
>>
>> It didn't used to take that long to build a nuclear power
>> plant, and the laws of physics have not changed.
>>
>> What we have once accomplished in the past, we can
>> aspire to do in the future.
>
>I think we don't want to have more
>nuclear power stations built the old way.
>
>And "the old way" probably runs up to about
>last year.
>
>I'm speaking in general, not particularly.
>But there are conspicuous examples of "oops".

Much of the problem to my mind is that these plants are being designed by
civil engineers.... aero engineers think very differently about risks...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>As worded, I'd expect that /exclusive/
>access to an /outhouse/ with plumbing
>counts. Though now I'm anxious about
>washing of hands.

You really don't want an outhouse with plumbing in a cold climate where
it freezes. Okay in Thailand though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>As worded, I'd expect that /exclusive/
>>access to an /outhouse/ with plumbing
>>counts. Though now I'm anxious about
>>washing of hands.
>
>You really don't want an outhouse with plumbing in a cold climate where
>it freezes.

You don't want an outhouse _without_ plumbing in a cold climate, either.

Trust me, it's quite unpleasant at 2200 hours when it's -10F.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 14:39:16 -0800, The Horny Goat wrote:

> If there really were that many more men than women then there would be
> a major push to encourage them to travel in search of foreign brides.

This would assume China is considerably wealthier than it actually
is on a per capita basis, I would think.

John Savard

On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 4:28:03 AM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> I also recall an interpretation that meat
> eating was prohibited until Noah's time,
> so why was Abel raising livestock anyway?

If the Bible is the Word of God, that implies that what it _really_ says
must be the truth. The same, however, is not implied concerning any
*interpretations* of the Bible advanced by mere mortals. _Those_ can
just be wrong.

John Savard

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 08:56:15 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/13/2024 10:32 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>> In article <uq35b6$22opb$2@dont-email.me>,
>> Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/7/2024 6:33 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>>> Assuming, of course, that the "environmental hysterics"
>>>> really care about the environment, and aren't just using
>>>> it as a ploy for an entirely other agenda.
>>>
>>> What 'other agenda' are you proposing?
>
>Being anti-nuclear makes no sense now that we have
>anthropic climate change to worry about. I suspect
>that at least some of the Green's anti-nuke stance
>is a hangover from before when ACC was a major worry.

More likely it stemmed from the Comintern, to try to get nuclear
weapons out of Europe so Europe could be conquered.

Note that your "at least some" applies here.

I have no idea what "ACC" refers to. Bing shows a sports organization
and an instution of higher learning, neither of which seem likely.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 14 Feb 2024 03:35:52 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>In article <uqeof0$1ud4r$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>On 13/02/24 08:35, D wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> About 20% of Russian households do not have flush toilets.
>>
>>9% of Urban households.
>
>To be honest, the second fact is far more alarming than the first. The
>county adjacent to mine here in Virginia has something like 200 homes
>with outdoor toilets but... living without a flush toilet in a city has
>got to be a horror.

If back yards exist, it shouldn't be any worse than in the country.

Or before "water closets" were developed.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 14 Feb 2024 14:11:36 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 14/02/2024 03:39, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>> In article <ewsxN.78098$Sf59.8@fx48.iad>,
>>> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Given the current decade+ and $$$$$$ it takes to build a plant, ...
>>>
>>> It didn't used to take that long to build a nuclear power
>>> plant, and the laws of physics have not changed.
>>>
>>> What we have once accomplished in the past, we can
>>> aspire to do in the future.
>>
>>I think we don't want to have more
>>nuclear power stations built the old way.
>>
>>And "the old way" probably runs up to about
>>last year.
>>
>>I'm speaking in general, not particularly.
>>But there are conspicuous examples of "oops".
>
>Much of the problem to my mind is that these plants are being designed by
>civil engineers.... aero engineers think very differently about risks...

Being run by MBAs may not be helping very much either.

IIRC, the people actually doing the work at one such plant reported
having to mark the really important switches with pull-tabs because
the people-in-charge wanted to see nice clean control boards with all
switches looking exactly the same.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 08:56:15 -0500, Cryptoengineer
><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2/13/2024 10:32 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>> In article <uq35b6$22opb$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/7/2024 6:33 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>>>> Assuming, of course, that the "environmental hysterics"
>>>>> really care about the environment, and aren't just using
>>>>> it as a ploy for an entirely other agenda.
>>>>
>>>> What 'other agenda' are you proposing?
>>
>>Being anti-nuclear makes no sense now that we have
>>anthropic climate change to worry about. I suspect
>>that at least some of the Green's anti-nuke stance
>>is a hangover from before when ACC was a major worry.
>
>More likely it stemmed from the Comintern, to try to get nuclear
>weapons out of Europe so Europe could be conquered.
>
>Note that your "at least some" applies here.
>
>I have no idea what "ACC" refers to. Bing shows a sports organization
>and an instution of higher learning, neither of which seem likely.

From context, I'd guess "Anthropological Climate Change"

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:27:56 +0000, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/02/2024 23:19, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 2/12/2024 4:20 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>> On 2024-02-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think shooting nuclear waste into the sun probably won't be
>>>>>>>>>> feasible
>>>>>>>>>> until we have some form of launch system that does not rely on
>>>>>>>>>> rockets.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It takes far less energy to "shoot nuclear waste" into deep space.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To hit the sun requires massive amounts of fuel to slow the orbital
>>>>>>>>> speed of the rocket, or very long trips using multiple gravity
>>>>>>>>> assists
>>>>>>>>> around the inner planets to slow the rocket.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Throwing "nuclear waste" into the sun is a non-starter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then, you must consider the mass of the waste - it consists of
>>>>>>>>> heavy elements and there is a considerable amount of it.  We're
>>>>>>>>> talking thousands of rocket launches.  Just one launch
>>>>>>>>> failure could contaminate large areas of the planet.   Are you
>>>>>>>>> willing to take that risk?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I agree that the danger is large.  It's already difficult
>>>>>>>> politically to launch nuclear powered spacecraft where the dangerous
>>>>>>>> amounts are much smaller.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we ever accumulate much nuclear waste in orbit or on the
>>>>>>>> moon,it may
>>>>>>>> be less dangerous to shoot it into the sun than let it stay around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Surely you meant "shoot it into deep space"?    What if it turns out
>>>>>>> to be potentially useful in 200 years?  (even today, some can be
>>>>>>> reprocessed into useful fuel).
>>>>>>> I'd park it in the orbital plane of the asteroid belt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.  There are two types of danger here to avoid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first is the direct danger of the nuclear material.  Deep space
>>>>>> is fine for that and the benefits are as you say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The second is that nefarious parties could take control of the
>>>>>> material.
>>>>>
>>>>> A bit of a stretch, perhaps.   If someone has the wherewithal to
>>>>> get to the the asteroid belt (or interstellar space, if that's
>>>>> where you decide to send it) they probably don't need the waste
>>>>> stocks to cause trouble.
>>>>> But, point noted.
>>>>
>>>> Somewhat a stretch.  It occurrs to me now that terrestrial governments
>>>> not wanting to give such a weapon to outer-space populations may be more
>>>> of a reason to fire the dangers into the sun.
>>>
>>> Elon Musk aside, 'outer-space populations' are also a bit of a stretch,
>>> and it's likely that any outer-space population will have a high
>>> technology level.  It doesn't require transuranics to nudge an asteroid
>>> into an earth-interesecting orbit.
>>>
>>>> I really don't know what society will be like in, say, 150 years. As
>>>> technology increases, the availability of civilization-affecting
>>>> catastrophes increases.  Society is going to have to have to have
>>>> some mechanisms for controlling those dangers; I don't know what they
>>>> will be.  I fear I won't like many of those mechanisms!
>>>
>>> Resource conflicts are already underway....
>>
>> The first documented resource conflict happened over 6,000 years between
>> Cain and Able.  Who knows how many resource conflicts happened before
>> that ?
>
>Abel. I think the message of that story
>is, "When it comes to sacrificing property
>to God, priests prefer meat. Also,
>if your sacrifice pleases God, you may
>still get killed. Don't come crying to us
>if you do."

An interesting possibility.

>I think I recall another story where
>the availability of good fruit to eat
>seemed to be a concern.
>
>I also recall an interpretation that meat
>eating was prohibited until Noah's time,
>so why was Abel raising livestock anyway?

IIRC, this was sheep. He could have been raising them for the wool.
And the hide. You don't have to eat 'em for them to have value.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 10:03:08 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> From context, I'd guess "Anthropological Climate Change"

Anthropogenic, please. It isn't the fault of people like Franz Boas.

John Savard

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:25:59 +1100, Mad Hamish
<newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 18:40:50 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber
><naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
>
>>On 2024-02-13, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Didn't russia persuade Ukraine to hand back all nuclear weapons on their
>>> soil when they became free
>>
>>It's a bit more complicated, but basically Ukraine received security
>>assurances, including from Russia, for giving up the Soviet nuclear
>>weapons it had inherited on its territory.
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
>
>and they've almost been worth the paper they're printed on...

The one with Russia, yes. But the USA and others helping the Ukraine
could be viewed as honoring them.

At least in the past. And in the future as well if the Republicans
ever wake up and decide to actually /do/ their jobs.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 3:40:59 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 2/13/2024 4:46 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 3:33:29 AM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >
> >> I perceive that your "natural gas"
> >> is fossil reserves of methane.
> >> Which is worse to let into the
> >> atmosphere than carbon dioxide is,
> >> on a human lifespan scale.
> >
> > This applies to cow farts.
> >
> > When people dig natural gas out of
> > the ground, it is done with the intent
> > of burning it, producing some
> > carbon dioxide, and some water
> > vapor. While most hydrocarbons
> > have about half as many carbon atoms
> > as hydrogen atoms, the ratio in the case
> > of methane is one carbon atom to four
> > hydrogen atoms.
> >
> > Of course, methane production and use
> > is not absolutely without a small percentage
> > of leakage, but that doesn't automatically
> > make natural gas worse than other
> > hydrocarbons.
> >
> > John Savard
> Natural gas is typically 90+% methane. Methane is 40% hydrogen by
> weight. The conversion equation is CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O.
>
> Methane in the atmosphere naturally converts to CO2 and H2O within ten
> years.

The mean time to decay is about ten years. Meaning that after ten years half of
it will still be left.

Methane is largely eliminated by combination with OH radicals. As the amount
of methane increases, this scavenging becomes less efficient and the mean
lifetime of methane in the atmosphere will increase.

Methane in the stratosphere has a lifetime about an order of magnitude
longer. When it decays it adds extra H20 to the normally very dry
stratosphere. This water adds strongly to the greenhouse
effect (Mhyre et al, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2007).

And industry estimates of CH4 release have been shown time and time
again to be utter fantasy, making this discussion on-topic.

William Hyde

On 15/02/24 00:13, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On 12/02/2024 19:35, D wrote:
>> I can add some anecdotal evidence here as well. I met a Ukrainian
>> refugee in my local bar a couple of months ago and she told me that in
>> her home town, after the russians invaded, all the toilets where
>> missing from the houses.
>>
>> The russian soldiers removed all of them, loaded on trucks and sent
>> back to their home villages in russia.
>
> I'm shocked by the loo-ting.  :-)

The reason why about 20% of Russian households do not have flush toilets
is that villages do not have a common sewerage collection point nor the
underground piping to do so.
Stealing toilets would be illogical. Together with the great army
discipline, it smells strongly of naive bullshit.

> And by the murderous iniquitous
> aggression, of course.
>

Most refugees leaving Ukraine would be doing so to avoid conscription.
Is that form of slavery what you mean by "murderous iniquitous aggression"?