Don't Get Sore ...

  >>Just like walking around on the moon during a solar flare.
  >>Just a handwaving
  >>dismissal of the problem, right?
 >
 >I am an old amateur radio operator, and I know that Sun storms
 >(which disrupt the Earth's ionosphere and terrestrial RF
 >communications, not to mention inducing voltages across
 >terrestrial long lines) are predictable _months in advance_.
 >In an earlier message I already commented that most people
 >are smart enough to avoid cloudbursts.
 >

They are also smart enough to see that purple trefoil on the surface of the
moon and say "Danger, Will Robinson, danger. Turn around! This place is
unhealthy!"

--
Ferengi rule of acquisition #192: Never cheat a Klingon...unless you're sure
you can get away with it.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

 >From: rball84213

   >>>Earlier you were giving me a ration because you claimed
   >>>what I proposed was impossible -- it is possible.
  >>
  >>Quote any of my posts where I called it "impossible."
 >
 >"Too much delta v required yadda yadda yadda."

And I put this in terms of economics and feasibility, not in terms of
"impossible."

  >>I'm not the one who wants to completely remove nuclear waste.
  >>I think it is a
  >>lousy idea even fi we do figure out a way to do so economically.
  >>Put it into
  >>orbit where we can retrieve if later if we want that "gasoline."
  >>Yes, we make
  >>sure the orbit is high enough that it will not decay during the
  >>life of the
  >>universe, or maybe we put it into lunar orbit, but don't throw
  >>it away.
 >
 >Earlier you were complaining about the sheer volume of
 >nuclear waste and the cost of launching it. Now you
 >propose launching it into orbit for later retrieval.
 >

Did you notice the phrase "even fi (sic) we do figure out a way to do so
economically?" Did my typo confuse you?

  >>Oh yeah, that might contaminate our precious bodily fluids,
  >>or create nuclear
  >>space junk. Right. Besides, won't this contaminate the sun?
  >>We don't want
  >>to do that, do we?
 >
 >"Precious bodily fluids"? Did you just view the film
 >"Dr. Strangelove"? (Do you like word games?) Who was
 >your favorite actor: Peter Sellers or Slim Pickens?

Tracy Reed, no question about it. Too bad she did not do more films.

Between Sellers and Pickens, the choice is Sellers. I am not familiar with
Pickens other than in this film. I also liked Sellers in the Pink Panther
films and in The Mouse That Roared.

I don't particularly like word games, but I do like telling a fool that he is a
fool.

 >As to your concern about contaminating the Sun, the Sun
 >is a thermonuclear fusion furnace. There is no danger
 >of contaminating the Sun. [Of course, if you launch
 >a hu/manned mission to the Sun's surface to touch down
 >at night you might encounter problems. (ROTFLMAO!)]
 >

Huh? If we can get rid of it this way, why not just bury it alongside the
warhead the next time we do a nuclear test at the Nevada test site?

  >>Instead of the thousands and thousands of launches your program
  >>needs (and the
  >>trillions of dollars) let's use a sensible number of launches
  >>and a sensible
  >>budget to build solar power satellites.
 > <RB snipped URL>
 >
 >IMO desert energy farms are a better concept. Unused desert
 >acreage is inexpensive and plentiful. The energy farm can
 >employ eutectic salt thermal storage to store excess energy,
 >can help support daytime terrestrial electric peak needs directly,
 >and can draw stored heat from eutectic storage at night. The
 >system might be photovoltaic, a heliotrope (reflected sunlight
 >converted to heat), or both. And it is (less expensive and)
 >easier to build and maintain systems that are located on the
 >terrestrial surface.

So far, the free market seems to say that this is not economical, since we are
not doing it. As energy prices rise, and as fossil fuels become scarce, solar
energy, whether from orbit or from the desert, might become the solution of
choice. A ridiculously expensive solution (launching nuclear waste into space,
whether or not we send it into the sun) will never be the solution of choice.

If we do come up with cheap launch vehicles, I still think solar power
satellites make more sense than building nuclear plants and launching the
waste. No nighttime problems, much more efficient utilization, and all that.

--
Ferengi rule of acquisition #192: Never cheat a Klingon...unless you're sure
you can get away with it.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

lvpokerplayer snipped much of my earlier response
without annotation. The issue is science (feasibility)
versus engineering (affordability, including maintainability).

In article <20040407131942.26806.00000801 DeleteThis @mb-m12.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer DeleteThis @aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
   >>>>Earlier you were giving me a ration because you claimed
   >>>>what I proposed was impossible -- it is possible.
   >>>
[RB comment: lvpokerplayer DeleteThis @aol.com (LV Poker Player) wrote:]
   >>>Quote any of my posts where I called it "impossible."
  >>
[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
  >>"Too much delta v required yadda yadda yadda."
 >
 >And I put this in terms of economics and feasibility, not in
 >terms of "impossible."

No, you said the idea was not feasible due to fuel expenditure
required to counter excessive delta v. I pointed out the
feasibility of an ion retrorocket energized by incident photons
from the Sun. THEN you began discussing economics. Science
discusses feasibility. Engineering discusses economics (including
maintainability).

   >>>I'm not the one who wants to completely remove nuclear waste.
   >>>I think it is a
   >>>lousy idea even fi we do figure out a way to do so economically.
   >>>Put it into
   >>>orbit where we can retrieve if later if we want that "gasoline."
   >>>Yes, we make
   >>>sure the orbit is high enough that it will not decay during the
   >>>life of the
   >>>universe, or maybe we put it into lunar orbit, but don't throw
   >>>it away.
  >>
  >>Earlier you were complaining about the sheer volume of
  >>nuclear waste and the cost of launching it. Now you
  >>propose launching it into orbit for later retrieval.
 >
 >Did you notice the phrase "even fi (sic) we do figure out a way
 >to do so
 >economically?" Did my typo confuse you?

I saw "lousy idea ... gasoline", understood your point, and
commented that even with a desire for potential future
extraction of fissionable materials, nuclear waste is nasty
stuff to park where somebody might accidentally or purposefully
blunder into it. Again, imagine "Lucifer's Hammer" deliberately
implemented with a multitude of nuclear waste capsules. If you
park it for retrieval presumably it can be aimed and dropped into
the Earth's gravity well -- big hot rocks.

   >>>Oh yeah, that might contaminate our precious bodily fluids,
   >>>or create nuclear
   >>>space junk. Right. Besides, won't this contaminate the sun?
   >>>We don't want
   >>>to do that, do we?
  >>
  >>"Precious bodily fluids"? Did you just view the film
  >>"Dr. Strangelove"? (Do you like word games?) Who was
  >>your favorite actor: Peter Sellers or Slim Pickens?
 >
 >Tracy Reed, no question about it. Too bad she did not do
 >more films.
 >
 >Between Sellers and Pickens, the choice is Sellers. I am not
 >familiar with
 >Pickens other than in this film.

Slim Pickens played the character who worried about his
'precious bodily fluids' -- your quote.

 >I also liked Sellers in the Pink Panther
 >films and in The Mouse That Roared.

'The Mouse That Roared' was a farce and a bluff. It also
reflected an era when the United States was relatively rich
and provided a large amount of domestic development
assistance in its foreign aid programs. I have what some
consider an odd viewpoint. My viewpoint is that we have
been exporting vast quantities of United States dollars
since the late 1960's in exchange for foreign petroleum.
We burnt the petroleum, the petroleum is gone, and now
those dollars are returning to haunt us, purchasing
United States factories, real estate and farmland.

As to cinema, I prefer Woody Allen in 'Bananas'.
'Bananas' is a futuristic comedic rendition of "1984".
The Energy Police are alarmed when Woody Allen's hosts
use excessive energy as they revive his timefrozen
body. The Energy Police chase Woody Allen because
the Energy Police do not like Woody Allen's antique
liberalism or his sexuality.

 >I don't particularly like word games, but I do like telling
 >a fool that he is a fool.

Are you always this pleasant with people who
do not agree with you?

  >>As to your concern about contaminating the Sun, the Sun
  >>is a thermonuclear fusion furnace. There is no danger
  >>of contaminating the Sun. [Of course, if you launch
  >>a hu/manned mission to the Sun's surface to touch down
  >>at night you might encounter problems. (ROTFLMAO!)]
 >
 >Huh? If we can get rid of it this way, why not just bury it
 >alongside the
 >warhead the next time we do a nuclear test at the Nevada test site?

I wonder how often those underground explosions create (OOPS)
an airburst? I do not know, but I would not want to compound
the problem by dispersing atomized nuclear waste.

   >>>Instead of the thousands and thousands of launches your program
   >>>needs (and the
   >>>trillions of dollars) let's use a sensible number of launches
   >>>and a sensible
   >>>budget to build solar power satellites.
  >> <RB snipped URL>
  >>
  >>IMO desert energy farms are a better concept. Unused desert
  >>acreage is inexpensive and plentiful. The energy farm can
  >>employ eutectic salt thermal storage to store excess energy,
  >>can help support daytime terrestrial electric peak needs directly,
  >>and can draw stored heat from eutectic storage at night. The
  >>system might be photovoltaic, a heliotrope (reflected sunlight
  >>converted to heat), or both. And it is (less expensive and)
  >>easier to build and maintain systems that are located on the
  >>terrestrial surface.
 >
 >So far, the free market seems to say that this is not economical,
 >since we are
 >not doing it. As energy prices rise, and as fossil fuels become
 >scarce, solar
 >energy, whether from orbit or from the desert, might become the
 >solution of
 >choice. A ridiculously expensive solution (launching nuclear waste
 >into space,
 >whether or not we send it into the sun) will never be the solution
 >of choice.

This is science fiction. And who can say what direction
future engineering developments (and our rapid accumulation
of toxic nuclear waste) will lead us?

 >If we do come up with cheap launch vehicles, I still think
 >solar power
 >satellites make more sense than building nuclear plants and
 >launching the
 >waste. No nighttime problems, much more efficient utilization,
 >and all that.

You have not convinced me concerning 'more efficient
utilization'. IMO California (and the nearby desert
areas) present the greatest opportunity.

I still believe that terrestrial energy farms (heliotrope or
photovoltaic) located on desert _acreage_ (LOTS with less
expensive collectors) with eutectic salt thermal storage of
excess energy are less expensive, more maintainable, and
modularly expandable/replacable. As to affordability,
I do _not_ observe our current energy sources getting
_less_ expensive. Terrestrial technology is understood today,
and who can what will be _competitively_ affordable in five years?

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404071231190.25820-100000 RemoveThis @ccc1.wpi.edu>,
Stacy Haponik <haponik RemoveThis @WPI.EDU> writes:

 >Question: why did you bring up anthracite coal, and why
 >do you believe it is gone?

Anthracite coal, a fuel with high calorific value and less
ash, got used up first. Then low sulfur bituminous coal
(with less calorific value and greater ash) got used up.
In the late 1960's when environmentalism became a vocal social
issue, we were begining to use higher sulfur bituminous coal.
Burning high sulfur coal creates sulfur dioxide gas, a gas
often characterized as having a 'rotten egg' smell. Sulfur
dioxide gas combines with water in your lungs to create
aching sulfuric acid.

You ever heard of a London pea soup fog? Ash from coal fires
combined with misty fog was nearly opaque and difficult to
breathe. We had a similar condition in my locale in the early
1900's. An engineer was elected mayor and enacted some
environmentally relevant laws.

"Used up" is an _economic_ sense. All the anthracite coal
is not gone, but the remainder is _not_ economical to extract
at current market prices. Ditto with low sulfur bituminous
coal. Higher market prices dictate a reexamination, but the
easy-to-extract coal is gone. Similarly, some oil wells that
were 'pumped dry' will be reopened and water / steam / solvent
extraction used to extract additional petroleum when market
prices rise sufficiently.

Apparently there are vast deposits of 'oil shale' in the
United States northwest central region -- petroleum bound
in porous shale. Very messy and uneconomical to extract
for fuel purposes -- mountains of powdered shale result.
But if you're freezing in the dark ...

Energy is all about affordability, and various forms of
environmental damage are included in the cost equations.
Energy conservation brings unpopular lifestyle changes but
reduces the various forms of energy costs.

Utilizing the Sun's energy was studied widely in the
mid-1970's (and before), but was not affordable given
the era's energy costs. Energy costs are _much_ higher
in the 21st Century, and I wonder when people will begin
dusting off those old studies.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <20040407130050.26806.00000797.RemoveThis@mb-m12.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer.RemoveThis@aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

[RB comment: lvpokerplayer.RemoveThis@aol.com (LV Poker Player) wrote:]
   >>>Just like walking around on the moon during a solar flare.
   >>>Just a handwaving
   >>>dismissal of the problem, right?
  >>
[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
  >>I am an old amateur radio operator, and I know that Sun storms
  >>(which disrupt the Earth's ionosphere and terrestrial RF
  >>communications, not to mention inducing voltages across
  >>terrestrial long lines) are predictable _months in advance_.
  >>In an earlier message I already commented that most people
  >>are smart enough to avoid cloudbursts.
 >
 >They are also smart enough to see that purple trefoil on the
 >surface of the
 >moon and say "Danger, Will Robinson, danger. Turn around!
 >This place is unhealthy!"

That also would work in my local city park, but I do not
recommend that you try it. You would be hunted down and
beaten to death by young mothers with infants.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

 >From: rball84213

  >>Between Sellers and Pickens, the choice is Sellers. I am not
  >>familiar with
  >>Pickens other than in this film.
 >
 >Slim Pickens played the character who worried about his
 >'precious bodily fluids' -- your quote.
 >

No, Slim was the B52 pilot, Major Cong. General Jack T. Ripper was played by
Keenan Wynn, I think (not sure on that one).

  >>I don't particularly like word games, but I do like telling
  >>a fool that he is a fool.
 >
 >Are you always this pleasant with people who
 >do not agree with you?

There is a big difference between disagreeing with me and being willfully
ignorant, and not even making a minimal attempt to study the issues involved
before making utterly idiotic pronouncements about them. In other words, you.
I am often quite unpleasant to those people.

 >As to cinema, I prefer Woody Allen in 'Bananas'.
 >'Bananas' is a futuristic comedic rendition of "1984".
 >The Energy Police are alarmed when Woody Allen's hosts
 >use excessive energy as they revive his timefrozen
 >body. The Energy Police chase Woody Allen because
 >the Energy Police do not like Woody Allen's antique
 >liberalism or his sexuality.

Hehehe. You just described Sleeper.

--
Ferengi rule of acquisition #192: Never cheat a Klingon...unless you're sure
you can get away with it.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: From ABIA and ABLN]

In article <20040408015821.22202.00000733.DeleteThis@mb-m22.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer.DeleteThis@aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

 >From: rball84213
 >
[RB comment: lvpokerplayer.DeleteThis@aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:]
   >>>Between Sellers and Pickens, the choice is Sellers.
   >>>I am not familiar with
   >>>Pickens other than in this film.
  >>
[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
  >>Slim Pickens played the character who worried about his
  >>'precious bodily fluids' -- your quote.
 >
[RB comment: lvpokerplayer.DeleteThis@aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:]
 >No, Slim was the B52 pilot, Major Cong. General Jack T. Ripper
 >was played by Keenan Wynn, I think (not sure on that one).

You are correct. Slim Pickens' major dialogue was a
hat waving "YAHOO!".

General Jack T. Ripper -- what was the man's middle name?

   >>>I don't particularly like word games, but I do like telling
   >>>a fool that he is a fool.
  >>
  >>Are you always this pleasant with people who
  >>do not agree with you?
 >
 >There is a big difference between disagreeing with me and
 >being willfully
 >ignorant, and not even making a minimal attempt to study
 >the issues involved
 >before making utterly idiotic pronouncements about them.
 >In other words, you.
 >I am often quite unpleasant to those people.

I guess I am not sufficiently secure to be so judgmental
about other people.

  >>As to cinema, I prefer Woody Allen in 'Bananas'.
  >>'Bananas' is a futuristic comedic rendition of "1984".
  >>The Energy Police are alarmed when Woody Allen's hosts
  >>use excessive energy as they revive his timefrozen
  >>body. The Energy Police chase Woody Allen because
  >>the Energy Police do not like Woody Allen's antique
  >>liberalism or his sexuality.
 >
 >Hehehe. You just described Sleeper.

You did not include the Message ID (with its embedded timestamp)
of my original message. It was near midnight and I was hungry,
not sleepy. You apparently are the expert -- do the Energy
Police make deliveries if you telephone and ask nicely? Or
are the Energy Police too busy enforcing affordability and
maintainability in societal infrastructure?

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

 >From: rball84213

 >General Jack T. Ripper -- what was the man's middle name?
 >

I would say that it is fairly obvious that it is a play on the name Jack the
Ripper, although we don't actually find out directly what the T. stands for.

  >>There is a big difference between disagreeing with me and
  >>being willfully
  >>ignorant, and not even making a minimal attempt to study
  >>the issues involved
  >>before making utterly idiotic pronouncements about them.
  >>In other words, you.
  >>I am often quite unpleasant to those people.
 >
 >I guess I am not sufficiently secure to be so judgmental
 >about other people.

I am, given sufficient provocation. For example, I pointed out why nuclear
waste disposal problems are different on the moon, and simply are not
comparable to the situation on Earth. I did this multiple times, yet you STILL
compared it to setting up a disposal dump in an Earthside park. That goes
beyond mere stupidity and into utter idiocy.

Also, I deliberately made an utterly idiotic suggestion that would have made
the disposal situation FAR worse than what we actually have today. If you had
the remotest clue as to the problems and issues involved in the disposal of
radioactive waste, you would have known why putting it into a hole with a
warhead and setting off the warhead is a lousy idea. No, it has nothing to do
with the possibility of the explosion breaking through to the surface, which
has never happeened.

--
Ferengi rule of acquisition #192: Never cheat a Klingon...unless you're sure
you can get away with it.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA ad ABLN ]

In article <20040408124411.10106.00000023 DeleteThis @mb-m17.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer DeleteThis @aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
  >>General Jack T. Ripper -- what was the man's middle name?
 >
 >I would say that it is fairly obvious that it is a play on
 >the name Jack the
 >Ripper, although we don't actually find out directly what
 >the T. stands for.

Peter Sellers [I am thinking of this (stage?) name in terms
of Peter Pander], Slim Pickens [alone and moneyless on a
Saturday night], Jack T. Ripper [cruisin' lookin' for a date].
Either these names are remarkable coincidence or we have
evidence of a humorous trend within "Dr. Strangelove".

   >>>There is a big difference between disagreeing with me and
   >>>being willfully
   >>>ignorant, and not even making a minimal attempt to study
   >>>the issues involved
   >>>before making utterly idiotic pronouncements about them.
   >>>In other words, you.
   >>>I am often quite unpleasant to those people.
  >>
  >>I guess I am not sufficiently secure to be so judgmental
  >>about other people.
 >
 >I am, given sufficient provocation. For example, I pointed out
 >why nuclear
 >waste disposal problems are different on the moon, and simply
 >are not
 >comparable to the situation on Earth. I did this multiple times,
 >yet you STILL
 >compared it to setting up a disposal dump in an Earthside park.
 >That goes
 >beyond mere stupidity and into utter idiocy.

I pointed out that by international treaty the Moon is international
territory (a lunar park). I do _not_ know the legalities of
establishing a nuclear waste dump on international territory,
but I am sure that littering is frowned upon, just like littering
is frowned upon in city parks.

 >Also, I deliberately made an utterly idiotic suggestion that would
 >have made
 >the disposal situation FAR worse than what we actually have today.
 >If you had
 >the remotest clue as to the problems and issues involved in the
 >disposal of
 >radioactive waste, you would have known why putting it into a hole
 >with a
 >warhead and setting off the warhead is a lousy idea.

_You_ originally discussed colocating nuclear waste at an
underground nuclear test site.

I can imagine somebody proposing that idea -- the underground blast
site will be radioactive (and fused?) anyway, so why not colocate
nuclear waste? Yet I agree this is an incredibly messy solution,
a solution that I would not propose. Unexpected bedrock fracturing
as a result of the explosion could allow voluminous nuclear waste
to propagate unexpectedly both through the bedrock and also into
the aquifer.

 >No, it has nothing to do with the possibility of the explosion
 >breaking through to the surface, which has never happeened.

I have no information concerning the history of underground
nuclear testing, other than some eclectic reading that indicates
occasional disturbance (local sinking) of the terrestrial surface
at the site of underground nuclear tests.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

Richard Ballard wrote:
 > I pointed out that by international treaty the Moon is international
 > territory (a lunar park). I do _not_ know the legalities of
 > establishing a nuclear waste dump on international territory,
 > but I am sure that littering is frowned upon, just like littering
 > is frowned upon in city parks.

It hurts, it hurts.... So many false or misleading factoids given
without evidence....

I've gotten sick of Ballard comparing the moon to a city park without
any more backing for the comparison than his saying it's so. Therefore,
I did what he should have done and looked up the actual "Agreement
Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and other Celestial
Bodies" as presented by the United Nations office at Geneva. *much
sarcasm snipped, as it was not particularly ladylike and my mother would
disapprove.* Here's a link to the agreement:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.unog.ch/frames/disarm/distreat/moon.htm" target="_blank">http://www.unog.ch/frames/disarm/distreat/moon.htm</a> .

The pertinent section is Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2. In paragraph 1,
the agreement talks about cautions to be taken to prevent the
disruption of the lunar environment. Paragraph 2 mentions that that the
Secretary-General of the UN should, as much as possible, be told in
advance when any radioactive materials shall be placed on the moon.

If you're interested further, read the link. It's not horrendously long.
I mostly posted this to give Richard a leg up on actually backing up his
statements.

(Note: Article 4, paragraph 1 could also be of assistance to Ballard in
drawing comparisons between the moon and a city park.)






--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GE dpu(!) s-: a--->? C++ UL(++++) P+ L+ E? W++ N+ !o K- w+ !O M V?
PS+(+++) PE+ Y+ PGP- t+() !5 X+ R+ !tv() b+++ DI++++ D-- G
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

Richard Ballard wrote:

 > [RB comment: From ABIA and ABLN]
 >
 > In article <20040408015821.22202.00000733.TakeThisOut@mb-m22.aol.com>,
 > lvpokerplayer.TakeThisOut@aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:
 >
 >
  >>From: rball84213
  >>
 >
 > [RB comment: lvpokerplayer.TakeThisOut@aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:]
 >
   >>>>Between Sellers and Pickens, the choice is Sellers.
   >>>>I am not familiar with
   >>>>Pickens other than in this film.
   >>>
 > [RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
 >
   >>>Slim Pickens played the character who worried about his
   >>>'precious bodily fluids' -- your quote.
  >>
 > [RB comment: lvpokerplayer.TakeThisOut@aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:]
 >
  >>No, Slim was the B52 pilot, Major Cong. General Jack T. Ripper
  >>was played by Keenan Wynn, I think (not sure on that one).
 >
 >
 > You are correct. Slim Pickens' major dialogue was a
 > hat waving "YAHOO!".
 >
 > General Jack T. Ripper -- what was the man's middle name?
 >
 >
   >>>>I don't particularly like word games, but I do like telling
   >>>>a fool that he is a fool.
   >>>
   >>>Are you always this pleasant with people who
   >>>do not agree with you?
  >>
  >>There is a big difference between disagreeing with me and
  >>being willfully
  >>ignorant, and not even making a minimal attempt to study
  >>the issues involved
  >>before making utterly idiotic pronouncements about them.
  >>In other words, you.
  >>I am often quite unpleasant to those people.
 >
 >
 > I guess I am not sufficiently secure to be so judgmental
 > about other people.
 >
 >
   >>>As to cinema, I prefer Woody Allen in 'Bananas'.
   >>>'Bananas' is a futuristic comedic rendition of "1984".
   >>>The Energy Police are alarmed when Woody Allen's hosts
   >>>use excessive energy as they revive his timefrozen
   >>>body. The Energy Police chase Woody Allen because
   >>>the Energy Police do not like Woody Allen's antique
   >>>liberalism or his sexuality.
  >>
  >>Hehehe. You just described Sleeper.
 >
 >
 > You did not include the Message ID (with its embedded timestamp)
 > of my original message. It was near midnight and I was hungry,
 > not sleepy. You apparently are the expert -- do the Energy
 > Police make deliveries if you telephone and ask nicely? Or
 > are the Energy Police too busy enforcing affordability and
 > maintainability in societal infrastructure?
 >


See?

Knucklehead.


TBerk<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: From ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <c54qi0$lob$1@bigboote.WPI.EDU>,
Stacy <haponik+pleasenospam@wpi.edu> writes:

 >Richard Ballard wrote:
  >>I pointed out that by international treaty the Moon is international
  >>territory (a lunar park). I do _not_ know the legalities of
  >>establishing a nuclear waste dump on international territory,
  >>but I am sure that littering is frowned upon, just like littering
  >>is frowned upon in city parks.
 >
 >It hurts, it hurts.... So many false or misleading factoids given
 >without evidence....

Why are you so insulting and patronizing about this issue?
You must have been very popular in college classes
(and please don't say you were the prom queen --
I won't believe you).

 >I've gotten sick of Ballard comparing the moon to a city park
 >without
 >any more backing for the comparison than his saying it's so.
 >Therefore,
 >I did what he should have done and looked up the actual "Agreement
 >Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and other Celestial
 >Bodies" as presented by the United Nations office at Geneva. *much
 >sarcasm snipped, as it was not particularly ladylike and my mother
 >would
 >disapprove.* Here's a link to the agreement:
<RB snipped URL>
 >
 >The pertinent section is Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2.
 >In paragraph 1,
 >the agreement talks about cautions to be taken to prevent the
 >disruption of the lunar environment. Paragraph 2 mentions that
 >that the
 >Secretary-General of the UN should, as much as possible, be told in
 >advance when any radioactive materials shall be placed on the moon.
 >
 >If you're interested further, read the link. It's not horrendously
 >long.
 >I mostly posted this to give Richard a leg up on actually backing
 >up his statements.
 >
 >(Note: Article 4, paragraph 1 could also be of assistance to
 >Ballard in
 >drawing comparisons between the moon and a city park.)

Thank you for the URL that you provided. I shall file it for
future reference [in (the unlikely) case I ever have occasion
to establish a nuclear waste dump on the Moon -- much
preferable to littering my local city park].

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

 >From: Stacy

 >I've gotten sick of Ballard comparing the moon to a city park without
 >any more backing for the comparison than his saying it's so. Therefore,
 >I did what he should have done and looked up the actual "Agreement
 >Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and other Celestial
 >Bodies" as presented by the United Nations office at Geneva. *much
 >sarcasm snipped, as it was not particularly ladylike and my mother would
 >disapprove.* Here's a link to the agreement:
 >http://www.unog.ch/frames/disarm/distreat/moon.htm .

As you point out, this does not prohibit disposing of nuclear waste on the
moon, assuming we can get it there without enormous expense and/or the chance
of launch accidents.

It really does not apply though, because the U. S. never ratified it. None of
the significant players in space ratified it, and only a few nations overall.
One of the reasons was that Article 11, paragraph 3 for all intents and
purposes outlawed any sort of private property. What corporation or other
entity is going to put any sort of facility on the moon if they have no
ownership rights over the facility?

I can go along with the idea that no one nation or other entity owns the entire
moon, or should be allowed to claim ownership. We have to allow adverse
possession though. Once someone has a colony there, then either the Earthside
entity that established it, or the colonists, have to own the area they have
settled. The treaty does have some good ideas in it, but the "no ownership"
simply was not one of them. I am glad we and most other nations were sensible
enough to reject this.

The 1967 treaty, which we did sign, specifically allows for private property in
Article 8. Article 9 does prohibit the contamination of any celestial body
including the moon, but as I and others have pointed out, radioactive material
on the moon is not contamination. It is about like "contaminating" the ocean
by adding water. It is kind of hard to imagine what we COULD do to
"contaminate" the surface of the moon, even if we wanted to.

--
Ferengi rule of acquisition #192: Never cheat a Klingon...unless you're sure
you can get away with it.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ...