Newsgroup sci.energy 66403

Directory

Greig Ebeling (eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz) wrote:
: Nuclear waste (when treated) is dangerous for only a few decades.
: Petro-chemical wastes are dangerous forever.
  One wonders what  Greig Ebling has in mind.  No doubt he
believes he has a magic wand hidden somewhere.
  I so, it seems reasonable to me that it be demonstrated to be workable
by a full scale plant before being used to promote the production of more
nuclear waste.
  And as to Petro-chemical wastes being dangerous forever.  It appears
curious to me that Grieg would not consider the treatment of this waste as
well.
  Why does Grieg compare treates waste with untreated waste?
  Perhaps because his purpose is to misinform.

Magnus Redin (redin@lysator.liu.se) wrote:
: I find most of the stupidity in the risk assesments.
  An interesting admission during a period where there is pressure to
justify all decisions based on cost benefit analysis.
  I don't support using "stupidity in the risk assessments" to make
policy.

Michael Richmann wrote:
> 
> zcbag@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (B. Alan Guthrie) wrote:
> >In article <5qe6q1$ota@milo.mcs.anl.gov>,
> >Michael Richmann   wrote:
> >>zcbag@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (B. Alan Guthrie) wrote:
> >>>>And the most expensive to decommission once they've passed their 20 year life span.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>  The life span is more than 20 years.  There is discussion of
> >>>  extending the lives of some power reactors to 60 years.
> >>>
How does that account for the fact that the Hallam, Nebraska and the
Piqua, Ohio reactors barely made ten years before they were shut down?
And what happened to the Army Package Power Reactor constructed at Ft.
Belvoir, Virginia?  It certainly didn't operate very long.
> >>>>> >: At least nuclear fuel is solid, non-flammable, and insoluable,
I wouldn't say that exactly.  Zirconium metal is flammable, as is the
uranium or plutonium metal component of cermet fuels.  Sodium and
potassium coolant in breeder reactors is highly flammable.  Uranium
oxide and its fission products are soluble in very hot, high pressure,
irradiated water.
> >>>>
> >>>>The fuel is, but not all of the fission products.  Recall that containment vessels need
> >>>>periodic venting to relieve gas pressure buildup?
> >>>>
So what do they vent up the high smokestacks of these nuclear plants? 
If it's not CO2 it must be radioactive.
> >>>
> >>>   No, please tell me about them.  From where does the gas pressure
> >>>   increase come?  Since the fuel pellets are encased by a sealed zircaloy
> >>>   clad, the pressure increase cannot come from gaseous fission products
> >>>   (of course, the amount of gaseous fission products, if released, would
> >>>   not make a perceptible increase in the containment pressure).
The presure can come from the radiolytic hydrolysis of the water
coolant.  Of course there are devices which can recombine the hydrogen
and oxygen in situ to form water again.
> >>
> >>Xenon and radon are two gases that immediately come to mind.  A reactor
> >>that has run for some time has numerous cracks and pinhole defects in the
> >>zircalloy...
> >>
> >
> >   I think you mean krypton, not radon.  Remember, the assertion above is
> 
> Correct.
> 
> >   that "containment vessels need periodic venting to relieve gas pressure
> >   buildup," not that fission product gases accumulate in fuel rods.
> >
> >   A reactor that runs for a long time does not have numerous cracks and
> >   pinhole defects in the clad.  Our customers get very upset if such is
> >   the case.
> 
> Hmmm... The last presentation I saw on the subject must have been a
> coffee induced mirage then.
> 
The high pressure, high temperature environment obtaining in a PWR
combined with a high gamma and neutron flux is extremely hard on reactor
components.  The temperature and radiation cause hardening or
embrittlement of the metal cladding as well as the reactor containment
vessel and piping.  The radiolytic products from coolant and reactor
component irradiation form extremely caustic chemical activities in
solution. The fission products swell the fuel and can rupture the
cladding.  Hot spot burnout of the cladding due to nucleate boiling or
surface contmination of the cladding can release fission products into
the primary coolant. Hydrogen from the coolant diffuses into the
cladding an causes hydride embrittlement.  Carbide and nitride can also
degrade the cladding if there are trace amounts of these elements
around.  In other words there is a whole host of problems with nuclear
fuel rods, coolant and containment which have not yet been solved and
shorten the operatioal lifetime of nuclear plants.  These chemical,
radiological and metalurgical problems are what make nuclear plants
uneconomical even without the attendent waste disposal problem.
Dennis Nelson

[Posted to sci.energy]
lparker@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:
>Greig Ebeling (eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz) wrote:
>: Nuclear power is the only source which factors in all aspects of power
>: production including environmental issues.  
>
>
>I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, but this is a lie.  Decommissioning
>costs are NOT factored in.  Environmental contamination is NOT factored
>in.  The radioactive uranium tailings near mines are NOT factored in.  And
>nobody knows if the tiny surcharge will be enough for centuries of waste
>storage. 
The issue of decommissioning costs is a matter for the legislation in
all of the different countries. However, in Canada (and the US, too),
the owners of the plant (or mine) are responsible for the
decommissioning of plants and mines. The costs are factored into the
costs for electricity or Uranium. I am not very familiar with the
setup for mines, but there is a lot of experience now as to
decommissioning costs, as many plants have been decommissioned, and
the typical 5% levy is adequate.
What environmental contamination? Nuclear's major waste is the spent
fuel, which is sequestered and disposed of.
>: >Since we have less of the
>: >shit called Strontium 90 ( not as poisones as plutonium, but shure as
>: >deadly), they every year sends a lot of cancerous children from the
>: >area around Tjernobyl to us for a "clean" summer holiday. 
>: 
>: Again I call for a valid reference.  Studies by the IAEA and WHO have
>: so far only discovered an increase in thyroid cancer (most likely due
>: to  I-131 exposure).  Leukemia and other cancers more associated with
>: Sr-90 have not been observed.
>
>Perhaps because they take DECADES to show up?  We're still assessing all 
>the effects from Hiroshima!
Sorry. The latency time for leukemia (the primary cancer associated
with Sr-90) is about 5 years. If leukemia were to be a problem due to
Chernobyl, it would have shown up by now.
Patrick Reid  (pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca)
ALARA Research, Incorporated
Saint John, NB, Canada
http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/pjreid    ICQ UIN: 1052176

 also anti-spouseidents :-) (I love hot peppers, she loves me when I don't
have any)
--
Steve Spence
sspence@sequeltech.com
Http://www.sequeltech.com
SteveSpence@worldnet.att.net
Http://www.areaairduct.com/spence
MSMVP, MSDN, ClubIE
BetaID# 254651
ICQ 2063316
____________________________________
Wm James wrote in article <33d984ff.5641236@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>...
>
>:Along these lines, there was a fascinating piece in Science News this
>:week, suggesting that the very chemicals that are regarded to have
>:anti-cancer properties in some veggies, are also sensed as intensely
>:bitter and distasteful to about 25 % of the population.  Interesting
>:article.
>:
>: Eric Lucas, who senses some loneliness in his love of broccoli
>
>
>Hot peppers and such are considered antioxidents.
>
>
>
>William R. James
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

In article <5qivlk$paq$2@news.wco.com>, hatunen@shell. (David Hatunen) wrote:
|In article <5qirfh$i3n$7@glisan.hevanet.com>,
|Would you like to have conservatives equated to Timothy McVeigh?
I dont care.  Most of the conservatives Ive met tacitly approve of him, just 
as many enviros Ive met have read the books on the unabombers short list.  
Which includes Gore's book, if Im not mistaken.
Are you free?
Do you own your body?  Can you prostitute yourself, sell your organs, or
medicate yourself?  Do you own your labor?  Can you work for any wage
you want, whatever hours you want, and keep the fruits of your sweat?
Do you own your possessions?  Can the terms of your property ownership
be changed at any time, or for any reason?  Can your property be taxed
without limitation?
Can you travel freely?  Must you carry identification papers for you and your
property, submit to search without warrant, cause, or recourse?
There is a spectrum upon which lie two endpoints.  One point is slavery, and
at the other end:  FREEDOM.

On 15 Jul 1997 15:51:58 +1000, khorsell@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym
Horsell) wrote:
>Ahhh.... we're back to the one square metre argument again. ;-)
>
>
>As I said -- argument appears to assume a lot of things as yet to be proven
>by anything more than de facto practices...
Ahhh.... we're back on the old psychobabble argument again. ;-)
As we observe -- response mimics many aspects yet to be shown as
something greater than currently accepted standards... 
:-)
...Greig
********************
Add .au to email me
********************

On Sun, 13 Jul 1997 11:16:40 -0700, Reverend Chuck 
wrote:
>Michael Pelletier wrote:
>> 
>> You remove the trans-uranic elements created from uranium neutron
>> capture, and the leftover uranium, using straightforward chemical
>> processes, and make new fuel pellets out of them.
>
>Yes, that considers the heavier-than-uranium elements.  This includes about what, a 
>dozen from Plutonium up?  Has this extraction process been used outside of research?
>
>What of the fission products that are _lighter_ than Uranium?  Such as gaseous radon?  
>Radium?  Used to paint watch dials.  First ones sold still glow like they were made this 
>morning.
Radium arises naturally from the decay of naturally occurring
isotopes.  U-238 -> Ra-226 (hl=1599y) and Th-223 -> Ra 230 (hl=5.8y).
As Mike says: after reprocessing, fission products remain and...
>> Next, you store the fission products (the fragments of the split
>> uranium and plutonium atoms) in radiation-proof casks.
>
>You've taken into consideration that a few other isotopes are created.  Good...
Yes.
>>  The longest
>> lived fission product has a half-life of about 30 years, and using
>> the 10-halflife rule of thumb, they decay to stable elements in
>> about 300 years.  Much of the fission product waste is not these
>> long-lived elements, however, and  the radiation level would
>> fall to original-ore levels much more quickly than this.
>> 
>>         -Michael Pelletier.
>
>Got the specific decay sequence and half-life data?  Anyone?
There  are roughly 70 or so significant isotopes in nuclear waste.
Many have such short half-lives that they decay almost completely
prior to transportation from the reactor site and processing.  Others,
like Xe and Kr are gaseous and non-reactive, and of little biological
importance.  Here are the most important constituents of the waste and
their half-lives:
Manganese-54, 	312 days.
Iron-55, 	657 days.
Iron-59, 	44.56 days.
Cobalt-60, 	5.27 years.
Zinc-65, 	244 days.
Strontium-89, 	50.5 days.
Strontium-90, 	28.8 years.
Iodine-131, 	8.04 days.
Cesium-134, 	2.06 years.
Cesium-137	30.2 years
Isotopes of Pu typically removed by reprocessing
Plutonium-238	87.7 years
Plutonium-239	2.41x10e4 years
Plutonium-240   6580 years 
Plutonium-241   131 years
On most of these, I have info on biological half-life, sources (some
of the above are activation products), principle modes and energies of
decay, and principal human metabolic and dosimetric parameters (too
much to transcribe).
As Mike says, the longest lived isotope is ~ 30 years.  However,
because most isotopes have a much shorter hl, the waste decays rapidly
to negligible radiological levels (particularly when it is sealed in a
concrete drum 500m underground) within only a few decades.  After
about 500-1000 years, the waste is no more radioactive than the
original ore ie not very radioactive.
I can see all those anti-nukers out there quickly slapping their hands
to their ears and eyes is total disbelief.  I apologise for shattering
your illusions, but someone has to tell the truth, and put a stop to
the endless lies and misinformation on the subject of nuclear waste.
...Greig
********************
Add .au to email me
********************

On 15 Jul 1997 19:34:39 GMT, Michael Richmann 
wrote:
>zcbag@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (B. Alan Guthrie) wrote:
>>In article <5qe6q1$ota@milo.mcs.anl.gov>,
>>   I think that they are rather well-known.  There have been many
>>   studies on the matter.
>
>I don't.  Give it another 20-30 years and we'll know for sure.
If we don't know now, we never will.
...Greig

David Hatunen wrote:
> 
> In article <33CBD320.F07@geol.niu.edu>,
> Neil Dickey   wrote:
> >In another post of this date further up in the thread I note a "Sci-
> >TV" program I saw some years back which was looking at the practical
> >aspects of using hydrogen fuel in cars.  Some tests were done to
> >determine how dangerous metal-hydride fuel tanks would be, and they
> >were found to be safer than virtually all other feasible fuels,
> >including gasoline.
> 
> I might suggest that even recently shown SCi-TV shows be taken with a large
> grain of salt, 
Or Usenet posters.
> and that memories of shows some years back would require the
> consumption of halite rocks.
Innovation and technology change over time.
Cheers,
-- 
Will Stewart
To reply, remove "_spam" from the reply line
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free:  - J.C.

Dennis Nelson (icconsult@worldnet.att.net) writes:
> And one more time I will tell you that Ted Taylor told me personally
> that commercial nuclear plant fuel CAN be made into a plutonium bomb. 
> We went over all this a few months ago and now there have been other
> posters who have confirmed my earlier assertion.  When will you finally
> give up on this silly claim.  And I still believe that it is also
> possible (maybe not practical) to make a bomb out of Am-241 as well
> (that's my guess, not Taylor's).
The real "silliness" is the notion that anyone would seriously pursue a
nuclear weapon made from civilian spent fuel.  The device would have to be
far more sophisticated than any warhead designed to date, in order to
solve the heating problem (which would melt high explosive), and the
problem of compression.  Even then there would be a radiation dose problem
for the perpetrators, no guarantee that the thing would go off, and a
maximum yield comparable to conventional "blockbuster" devices that we see
in the news.  The thermodynamic, mathematical, metallurgic, and mechanical
engineering geniuses that pursued such a project would have to be quite
silly indeed, as are the people with vested interests who try to use this
idea against nuclear power.
There is a section summarizing this in my FAQ.
--
Jeremy Whitlock
cz725@freenet.carleton.ca
Visit "The Canadian Nuclear FAQ" at http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cz725/

Michael J. Ramsey (mjramsey@bellatlantic.net) wrote:
: I support nuclear power but with one caveat.  That caveat has to do
: with safely disposing of the thousands of tons of nuclear waste that
: have been and will be generated over the life time of all the fission
: power plants.
  I would also add requirements that steps be taken to make it impossible
for countries to use their nuclear facilities to create or mask the
production of nuclear weapons, and a requirement that all nuclear
facilities be at least as safe as Canadian ones.
  In addition I will support nuclear power only when improvements in
consumption efficiencies are such that no further significant savings can
be had and solar, both passive and PV, are in common use.
  Nuclear is not the least attractive way of producing energy, but it is
obvious that there will be considerable difficulty controlling it when the
world is populated with the hundreds of thousands of reactors needed in
McCarthies nuclear paradise.
---
Let me repeat that 25,000 reactors was computed on the basis of
(1) all countries reaching American energy usage levels
(2) all energy, including for transportation, being nuclear.
- John McCarthy 1996/02/05
The U.S. has about 1/20 of the world population, so it would seem that
40,000 reactors would be required to meet the world's energy requirement
at American usage levels. American energy usage levels will only be
required at an American standard of living. - John McCarthies web page
/04/96
The arithmetic suggests 120,000 reactors - in say 6,000 power plants.

On Wed, 16 Jul 1997 13:28:04 -0500, Lon Levy <"levy"@[a]execpc.com>
wrote:
.
>
>Alternate methods cannot keep up with exponential population growth. 
>Continued migration implies that there is still some frontier to which
>to move.  Neither appears viable.  It is time to stop population growth.
>
>Regards,
>
>Lon.
I have a very beautiful exponential curve of human population done in
1955 that shows we now have 50 billion people on Earth.  Another nice
curvre drawn in 1970 shows that we have 20 billion. What? We don't?
How can that be?  The curves are so nice, so smooth, so exponential,
so alarmingly doom laden.
Bummer I guess these curve drawers have about as good a record of
accuracy as the grocery press psycics.
Regards,
Chris Baron - removeme-chris@hypertising.com

Kathie Robbins wrote:
> 
> E.M. Ennis wrote:
> >
> > : yes but how much does one have to eat before they are poisoned? one ton?
> >
> > : : broccoli -  benzpyrene (carcinogen)
> >
> > Isn't broccoli actually alleged to ward off cancers?
> >
> 
> Broccoli contains several potent chemicals, some which may even cause
> cellular death to cancer cells (much like chemotherapy I would assume).
> I guess whether broccoli is good or bad depends on what chemicals you to
> retain from eating it. :)
> 
> Kathie, who hates broccoli
Along these lines, there was a fascinating piece in Science News this
week, suggesting that the very chemicals that are regarded to have
anti-cancer properties in some veggies, are also sensed as intensely
bitter and distasteful to about 25 % of the population.  Interesting
article.
	Eric Lucas, who senses some loneliness in his love of broccoli

David Hatunen (hatunen@shell.) wrote:
: 
: Whether France's nuclear power industry is an economic success is open to
: question. Since the plants are owned by the government and used as a social
: instrument as well as an industrial facility, it is not really clear just
: how much the electricity actually costs, and the government is less than
: forthcoming in presenting a clear accounting.
The French have published a study (similar to one published in 1993) in 
which they compare the costs of nuclear, coal, and gas.  Depending on the 
discount rate, nuclear and combine cycle gas turbine are the cheapest at 
about $0.03/kw-hr.  While the capital intensive nuclear varies more with 
the discount rate, gas is highly dependent on the cost of fuel.  If 
anyone has a *serious* interest, I'll provide more info.
tooie

: In article <33CC68D7.703@worldnet.att.net>,
: Dennis Nelson   wrote:
: [...]
: >I don't believe it is even true.  Take for example General Travis, after
: >whom the airbase near San Francisco was named.  I believe he has the
: >singular distinction of being the only US general officer to ever be
: >killed by an exploding hydrogen bomb.
According to the on-line history of Travis AFB, Gen. Travis was killed in
a B-29 accident on the base on 5 August 1950.
At that time he was the base commander.
This accident did not (according to my recollection) involve an exploding
hydrogen bomb.
--
Al Stangenberger                      forags@nature.berkeley.edu            
Dept. of Env. Sci., Policy, & Mgt.    145 Mulford Hall # 3114
Univ. of California at Berkeley       Berkeley, CA  94720-3114
(510) 642-4424  FAX: (510) 643-5438   

Wm James wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 16:20:35 -0500, Leonard Evens
>  wrote:
> 
> :Eric Lucas wrote:
> :>
> :> Andrew Karpinski wrote:
> :
> :> This is a badly oversimplified view of capitalism.  Ever heard of
> :> advertising?  Ever noticed what has gotten about 70 % of all automobile
> :> advertising in the last several years?  Ever notice the tactics used to
> :> advertise SUVs (can you say "testosterone", boys and girls?)  You say
> :> you don't believe in the power of advertising to get you to do something
> :> that is very, very bad for you and society as a whole?  Ever heard of
> :> cigarettes?
> :>
> :> Driving is not a right, it is a privilege.  In that light, drivers have
> :> a responsibility to make choices that are consistent with the good of
> :> all, and I maintain that SUVs and minivans are contrary to the greater
> :> good.  The most obvious reason is that they waste precious resources and
> :> as a result, pollute more (including CO2) and produce more greenhouse
> :> gases.  However, there is also an issue of the safety of other drivers.
> :> When I choose to drive my socially-responsible efficient subcompact, I
> :> cannot see around, over, or now with nearly-black tinted windows,
> :> through those damn things.  I simply cannot see what is going on ahead
> :> of those vehicles.  This compromises my right and responsibility to
> :> drive as safely as possible and to know what is happening on the road
> :> ahead of my car.  Just because some insecure idiot needs the
> :> testosterone rush of driving a vehicle that the auto makers have
> :> convinced them that they cannot live without.  The one legitimate reason
> :> people might have for buying an SUV is hauling things that won't fit
> :> into a car.  However, I refuse to believe that people all the sudden in
> :> the 90s have so much to haul that they can't do what they need with a
> :> car.  Funny, in the 70s, I'm sure people had every bit of much to haul,
> :> and far, far fewer people had SUVs and trucks.
> :>
> :>         Eric Lucas
> :
> :I happen to agree that all these vans and trucks are a bit stupid.   I
> :also agree that people don't buy them simply because they need them for
> :functional reasons and that advertising and cultural trends play a role.
> :Also misinformation plays a role.  I remember that Mike Royko in an
> :artilce explained how he went out and bought one of those vehicles after
> :a particularly bad snow storm.  However, recently, when I was driving my
> :wife to the airport in her Ford Escort and having no trouble whatsovever
> :despite deplorable weather conditions, I was constantly slowed down by
> :large vans and small trucks which either were sliding all over the place
> :or had bad visibility.  In any event all the drivers of such vehicles I
> :encountered seemed to be going extremely slowly for the driving
> :conditions and were very uneasy in their large vehicles.   Meanwhile our
> :front wheel drive subcompact had no trouble at all.
> :
> :All that aside, let me add that the real point is that there is no
> :reason whatsoever that these trucks and vans need to be gas guzzlers.
> :They were originally left out of the regulations because there were so
> :few of them.   However, now that they are so popular, Detroit ought to
> :be required to live up to fuel efficiency standards for such vehicles
> :also.   And one can't even argue that it can't be done.  American auto
> :manufacturers have opposed extending the standards to these vehicles and
> :one of their arguments is that the Japanese would have an advantage
> :because they already know how to do it.
> :
> :Leonard Evens       len@math.nwu.edu      491-5537
> :Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
> :Evanston Illinois
> 
> Come on, Mr. Stalin,
> 
> Let the market decide.
> 
> If they can afford to pay for the fuel, it is their buisness and
> no one elses.
> 
> William R. James
I disagree.  It is socially irresponsible to use a vehicle that wastes
resources and pollutes more.  And as someone that has to both share
those resources, breathe the extra pollution, and put up with the
generation of larger quantities of CO2 (a greenhouse gas), I demand that
the government force people to at least consider acting in a socially
responsible manner.  Given the interconnectedness of modern society,
it's unreasonable fear-mongering to equate the government mandating
social responsibility with Stalinism.  I suppose you consider government
regulations on the chemical industry to be Stalinist too....  Well, look
where our air quality would be now without those standards!
	Eric Lucas

Guerilla wrote:
> 
> In article <33CB52C2.2E3C@mcd.alcatel.be>,
>    Lin Zhen  wrote:
> |Lon Levy wrote:
> |>
> |> All of these are great reductions of energy used per person (assuming
> |> that people actually do them), but with the number of people continuing
> |> to rise exponentially we are fighting a losing battle.  The United
> |> States can support between forty million and one hundred and fifty
> |> million people, with nearly double the high estimate currently.  The
> |> planet can support between half a billion and two billion people, with
> |> nearly three times the high estimate currently.  Until we take serious
> |> measures to reduce our national and global populations, reducing energy
> |> consumption is doing little more than rearranging the chairs on the deck
> |> of the titanic!
> |>
> |> Regards,
> |>
> |> Lon.
> |That's right. Human being cannot do everything they THINK is right.
> |Derivation from logic to logic is nonsense concerning the fact of live
> |or death.
> |Reduce the population, reduce the power consumption, those are all
> 
> Reduce the pop?  How?  Like they do in China?  And how are you going to reduce
> power consumption?
> 
> |measures that human kind can take to protect themselves from future
> |disaster. Do anyone think walking for a mile instead of using a car such
> |a threaten to his life?
> 
> In some cities, yes.
> 
> | Do one think taking bus or train or bicycle
> |instead of his private car a matter of death or life?
> 
> Its a matter of choice.  We have the Freedom to choose.
> 
> |It's a little inconvenient, but only extreme selfish men will take such
> |little inconvenient as an big threaten to their lifestyle: the one they
> 
> I not only have the Freedom to choose, but my choice is really none of your
> business.  Gawd.  You sound like some kind of fascist.  Live and let live.
> 
> Are you free?
> 
> Do you own your body?  Can you prostitute yourself, sell your organs, or
> medicate yourself?  Do you own your labor?  Can you work for any wage
> you want, whatever hours you want, and keep the fruits of your sweat?
> 
> Do you own your possessions?  Can the terms of your property ownership
> be changed at any time, or for any reason?  Can your property be taxed
> without limitation?
> 
> Can you travel freely?  Must you carry identification papers for you and your
> property, submit to search without warrant, cause, or recourse?
> 
> There is a spectrum upon which lie two endpoints.  One point is slavery, and
> at the other end:  FREEDOM.
Yes, we have freedom to choose.  However, along with that freedom comes
the responsibility to consider the greater good of society in making
that choice.  Freedom to choose is not the same thing (nor should it be)
as "I can do whatever the hell I want to, and you have no right to
complain."  If you are irresponsibly wasting resources that I have to
share with you, then you damn well better believe I want some say in how
you waste those resources.  And if you don't believe that, then perhaps
I should go to your bank and demand that they give me all your money. 
After all, it is my freedom to choose to take your money, and "after
all, it's really none of your business".
No one is suggesting government control of all things.  What we are
suggesting is that people in a highly interconnected society should be
expected to consider the social implications of their actions, and
modify their actions accordingly.  The pendulum has swung *way* too far
to the "I'll do whatever the hell I please, and the hell with what you
think about it." end of things, and needs to return toward the middle,
where people consider the consequences of their actions on the rest of
society.  And if you won't do it on your own, I'm damn well going to ask
the government to make you, since I have to share the planet with you.
	Eric Lucas

hatunen@shell. (David Hatunen) writes:
> And you are absolutely positively certain that USA, French, German,
> et al, reactors do compensate for all human stupidity?
Its enough if the accidents are small and far between enough to hurt
much less people and nature then fossil fuels. And it could be far
worse then TMI for that. You dont need perfect safety to advocate a
better alternative to a harmfull one.
> Having worked on, at, or for, six nuclear power plants, I'm not so
> certain. I am certain that there are still a lot of stupidities
> hidden in the original construction that may or may not become
> important at some point. I am not, admittedly, as familiar with
> Operations.
There ought to be a lot that can be improved. If we for instance would
replace large scale coal power with nuclear power the reactors built
would be of a more recent design so I hope the old stupidities are not
forgotten.
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Rydsvägen 214B, 584 32 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)13 214600

On Wed, 16 Jul 1997 20:51:53 -0400, epastore@erols.com (Toe)
wrote:
:In article <5qig4i$dhn@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Steve Spence"
: wrote:
:
:>  Most of us don't find it disturbing, nor do we feel the need to justify our
:> actions.
:
:Most people didn't find slavery disturbing. Nor feel the need to justify
:their actions.
:
:Through history, people seem to have gradually become more civilized.
:Slavery used to be totally acceptable. So was murder before that. Now we
:are finally starting to question war. I predict that within a century or
:two, people will look back on the meat eating (and other animal killing) of
:previous ages with horror.
:
:
:
:  Toe!  ("`-/")_.-'"``-._ 
:      \  . . `; -._    )-;-,_`)
:         (v_,)'  _  )`-.\  ``-'
:        _.- _..-_/ / ((.'
:      ((,.-'   ((,/
:epastore@erols.com
What did you do with your canine teeth?
William R. James

For your sake I hope your asshole doesn't fall off.

:So what do they vent up the high smokestacks of these nuclear plants? 
:If it's not CO2 it must be radioactive.
Where did you get that nonsense?  Greenpeace, or Earth First?
What you see coming out of those stacks is water vapor. 
There is a heat transfer system in the reactors that does the
following:
The fuel rods heat water that is radioactive and contained.
The radioactive, heated, contained, water is used to heat
non-radioactive water through the heat transfer system.
  Note thet no water is transfered!
The radioactive water (now cooler) is returned to the chamber
with the fuel rods to be re-heated.
The heated, non-radioactive water (now steam) is used to drive
turbines.
The steam is released into the air.
This is a bit simplistic. but is the basics.
William R. James

On Wed, 16 Jul 1997 07:42:52 -0700, Uncle Al Schwartz
 wrote:
:justin wrote:
:> 
:> >
:> >
:> >
:> > Couldn't it be argued that petrol-based fuels are actually biomass fuels?
:> 
:> Indirectly, yes, but we seem to be burning fossil fuels faster than it can be naturally
:> produced. In theory if we can produce biomass, either through plantations of forest or
:> algae farms, as fast as we burn it then we'll never run out, and there'll be no net CO2
:> emmisions.
:
:Burn babies, not trees.
:
:Not only are babies an abundant and high-calorie resource, their removal will 
:staunch the Population Explosion and the World Famine.  Having lowerd the need 
:for inputs, the Greenhouse Effect and the Ozone Hole will also be blunted.  
:Massive Third World infantile diarrhea empidemics will be ended.  Water resources 
:will again be in balance with remaining population (end the World Drought!).  The 
:general absence of baby-chewed breasts will naturally lead to the restoration of 
:an abudance of Mammaries of Colour in "National Geographic."  Eden will finally 
:be ours.
:
:
:Burn babies, not trees.
:
:-- 
:Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
:UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
I am an atheist Unk, but I would almost beleive you to be god !
:)
That was very good !
William R. James

redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin) wrote:
>Michael Richmann  writes:
>
>> It is in that human screwups occur all over, not just in the
>> ex-Soviet sphere of influence. On the western side of the pond,
>> lucky for us, that "little" hydrogen bubble in the TMI core didn't
>> cause problems or the cleanup problem would be quite a bit more
>> significant than it is now.
>
>It would still have been a far smaller accident then Tjernobyl. There
>were nuthing that could burn like a pile of graphite inside TMI.
Nope.  Just melt and fall to the bottom of the containment vessel.
Sure, it wouldn't be the multibillion dollar decades long catastrophe
that now resides at Chernobly but it'd still be a hell of a train wreck.
>
>> As it is, we're still studying ways to properly dispose of the
>> melted material from that particular accident.
>
>Why? What is the problem with hacking it into small pieces and perhaps
>enclose it in a extra metal layer. If you as a thought example use
>zirkonium as a cladding you will get something about as good or bad as
>regular spent fuel elemets. If that is wrong since it need to be
>mostly pure uranium oxide to be safely stored dissolv the pieces in a
>reprocessing plant and turn it into somewhat dirty oxides and
>glassified waste. Why would the experiments needed to do this take
>more then a decade to do?
Encasing it in metal would simply make it harder to treat and would 
effectively turn it into a non-standard form of spent fuel, many cores
of which are already corroding in holding pools anyway.  That's not
handling the problem...
-- 
Mike
My opinions, not Argonne's...

In article <33CAAEE0.4261@awwwsome.com> "David B. Green"  writes:
>> |
>There are several cases a year of Lima Bean poisoning.  The toxic dose
>is about three pounds in a one day.
It's hard to imagine the self-destructiveness of a person who could force 
three pounds of Lima beans down themselves in a day.  Follow it up with a 
platter of parsnips and brussels sprouts, too?
Bill
************************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
   526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville IL 60540, USA
   630-548-3548, fax 630-369-9618, email wpenrose@interaccess.com
************************************************************
Purveyors of contract R&D; and gas sensor-based product 
development to this and nearby galaxies.
************************************************************

DUMBTH ON 620 khz
Anyone hear the opening minutes of the Charlie Sykes
program on WTMJ-AM? Today, Sykes presented listeners with
an angry--and mindless--attack on Wisconsin's Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC). It was a strange speech.
According to Sykes, the NRC is being "unusually persnickety"
(does anyone under the age of 75 use that word anymore?)
and that's why an "unusual" number of nuclear power plants
are shut down.
Again, Mr. Sykes doesn't know what he's talking about.
Here are three facts.
Fact #1: NRC rules are in place to protect the public
from potential radiation leaks. Those rules are rational
and valuable. Even opponents of nuclear energy (that community
is filled with credentialed scientists (Amory Lovins,
Barry Commoner, etc.) think that NRC
rules are a good idea. Also, supporters of nuclear energy
--if asked--would state that the offline plants wouldn't be
safe to operate if they hadn't been shut down for repairs.
Fact #2: lousy air quality hurts many disabled adults and
children. The Ozone Action Day suggestions are rational.
Fact #3: The Ozone Action Day suggestions are just that--
suggestions. They're not dictates. Mr. Sykes should not
pretend that they are. (If Sykes is interested in identifying
authoritarian ideas, then perhaps he should scrutinize his wife's
odd antiabortion stance. Imagine what Wisconsin would be like
if her ideas were converted into law.)
NEGATIVE EFFECT
Sometimes words have a negative effect--especially if they're diffused
via a mass forum and are paired with high production values.
Media outlets sometimes legitimize points of view. Sometimes
those same outlets don't present counterspeech.
So what's the possible effect of today's WTMJ-AM attack on
Ozone Action Day suggestions (drive less, use mass transit,
fill up your gas tank in the evening) and NRC regulations?
Perhaps some rightist listener who is internally "split" on whether or
not to properly dispose of some toxic sludge will make a decision--
and choose to not do the right thing.
Are WTMJ listeners supposed to ignore Ozone Action Day suggestions?
Aren't adults supposed to function as responsible role models for
Wisconsin youth? Apparently Sykes hasn't read the specifics of the
mission statement posted in the lobby of the building he works in.
His radio program has a large following. What does that say about
Milwaukee?
MODEL
So on one side is Charlie Sykes of WTMJ-AM and WTMJ-TV. On the other:
usable water, air, soil, lakes, rivers, and food. The two are mutually
exclusive. As a practical matter, it's one way or the other.
Chris Roth

Following is the text of the letter making a new LAER determination for
NOx.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA  94105-3901
July 2, 1997
Robert Danziger
Goal Line Environmental Technologies
2045 East Vernon Avenue
Los Angeles, CA  90058
Dear Mr. Danziger:
	I would like to congratulate you on the impressive results you
have achieved with your SCONOxTM pollution control system at your “Federal
Cogeneration” combustion turbine facility (Mod 2).  Based on our review of
the emissions data that you submitted to us, EPA has determined that
SCONOx has met EPA’s criteria as a pollution control technology which has
been “demonstrated in practice.”  Specifically, our review indicates that
over the six month period from December 28, 1996 to June 28, 1997, SCONOx
has demonstrated that it can achieve compliance with an oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) emission limit of 3.5 ppmv on a 3-hour rolling average.  Notably,
SCONOx has achieved this low emission rate with no ammonia emissions, and
with extremely low carbon monoxide (CO) emissions.
	In determining whether a level of control has been demonstrated in
practice, EPA focuses on the extent to which the source would have been in
compliance if it had been operating under a permit that required that
level of control.  Our review of the Mod.  2 NOx emissions data indicates
that the SCONOx control system has typically been achieving average NOx
emissions of approximately 2 ppmv (and less than 1 ppmv during the most
recent month).  However, because operational fluctuations occasionally
caused emission rates to exceed those levels, EPA has determined that the
Mod.  2 facility would have been in compliance with an emission limit of
3.5 ppmv.
	EPA’s determination takes into account that the SCONOx system
would at some times emit NOx at levels above 3.5 ppmv due to periodic
malfunctions.  Our review of the SCONOx data indicates that excursions due
to malfunctions at Mod.  2 resulted in only slight emissions increases,
typically ranging from 3.5 to 7.5 ppmv, and that the total amount of time
for these excursions was acceptable for this type of control device. 
These brief excursions therefore did not prevent EPA from determining that
SCONOx has demonstrated in practice that it can achieve compliance with a
3.5 ppmv NOx emission rate.
	As you are aware, a determination that a control technology has
been demonstrated in practice has important implications for future
control technology requirements at other similar facilities.  Section
173(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (the Act) requires that all new major
sources and major modifications in nonattainment areas must comply with
the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER).  Section 171(3)(B) of the Act
requires that LAER must be at least as stringent as the lowest emission
rate which any source in the same class or category has achieves in
practice.  Thus, as a result of this determination, any future combustion
turbine cogeneration project that is subject to the LAER requirement for
NOx must either achieve compliance with a 3.5 ppmv NOx emission limit, or
demonstrate that unique circumstances at that specific facility make
compliance with a 3.5 ppmv NOx emission limit technically infeasible.  It
is important to note, however, that under the LAER requirement, a source
would not be required to use a specific control technology, but would be
free to choose any technology which can achieve the required emission
rate.  For a more detailed description of EPA’s requirements for LAER and
controls which have been demonstrated in practice, please see  section
G.II of EPA’s 1990 new source review (NSR) workshop manual, and EPA’s NSR
Reform Package (July 23, 1996, 61 FR 38250,38275).
	As we have discussed, EPA is encouraged to see that during the
last month of our review, SCONOx has been achieving an emission rate of 1
ppmv NOx (or less).  We would therefore be happy to continue reviewing the
Mod.  2 SCONOx data as it becomes available.  If SCONOx continues to
achieve these impressive results for an additional five months, EPA would
be able to make a revised determination to reflect the emission rate
achieved over that period.
	Thank you again for providing us with the opportunity to review
your achievements.  If you have any questions regarding this matter,
please feel free to contact Steve Ringer of my staff at (415) 744-1260.
						Sincerely,
						Matt Haber
						Chief, Permits Office
						Air Division

On 16 Jul 1997 16:15:26 GMT, conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote:
>Dennis Nelson (icconsult@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>: 
>: 
>: Hydrogen is not explosive inless it
>: is mixed with oxygen in fairly specific proportions.
>
>Some recently posted the contentrations at which a hydrogen/oxygen
>mixture is explosive.  As I recall, it indicated a much broader
>range of potentially explosive contentrations than most other fuel/
>oxygen mixtures. 
Well if you want it in an oxygen atmosphere and would be satisfied
with limits of inflammability then I would think it is rather broad.
How about 4.65 to 93.9%.
Is that broad enough for you? Holly hell it doesn't take a whole bunch
of oxygen to make hydrogen gas combustible.
Deuterium is a little broader but also a tad more expensive as a fuel.
>Still, it would take a good reference to validate which
>posted fact is correct.  Sorry, I don't have one at hand.
I do. 
Is Handbook of Chem & Physics good enough?
>
  _               _   _                  Für d' Flöh gibts a Pulver 
 (_|   |   |_/o  | | | |  o              für d' Schuah gibts a Wix, 
   |   |   |     | | | |      _  _    ,   für'n Durst gibts a Wasser
   |   |   |  |  |/  |/_) |  / |/ |  / \_  bloss fuer d' Dummheit gibts nix.
    \_/ \_/   |_/|__/| \_/|_/  |  |_/ \/ 

: Greig Ebeling wrote:
: > In answer to CO2 atmospheric increase, perhaps we can enhance the
: > most  significant depletion mechanism of absorption in the ocean.
Will Stewart (wstewart@patriot.net) wrote:
: So you would add iron to the oceans and increase algae populations
: dramatically.  Amazing. So in order to avoid some impacts associated
: with climate change, you would sacrifice the oceans.
: Why would anyone give this a serious thought?
  Because conservatives will say anything in order to delay action against
global warming.  they will claim that the world is so large that man can
not alter the climate.  They will claim that the earth is so small that
man can easily controll the climate.
  Honest people don't act in this manner.

In article <5qh3qo$d01$2@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
Scott Nudds  wrote:
>  I was willing to give conservative hate monger "Uncle Al" the benefit of
>the doubt in interpreting his use of the term "potentially".
>
>  David Hatunen apparently wishes to expose Uncle Al's error.  No energy
>source is "potentially infinite".
>
>  David Hatunen must be upset that conservative hate monger "Uncle Al" has
>a very poor understanding of the physical sciences.
>
>  As I said.  I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
>Conservatives need all the help they can get.
Uh. Gee. That's a real fascinating contribution to the subject. Glad you
shared that with us.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *

:
:If there is only a choice between death and "slavery" then we need to
:explore that "slavery".  However, I don't see restrictions on activity
:as being the same as slavery.  The latter implies some "masters" who are
:free of those restrictions.  My proposals include no "free masters",
:thus there are no slaves.  
:
:Lon.
I choose death.  If people beleive that freedom is less important
than life, then they will have no freedom.
It is worth dying for.
Why do you think the military even exists?
Whould you prefer that we had surrendered to Hitler?
William R. James

Wm James wrote, regarding a purportedly invalid connection between
CFCs and ozone depletion:
: So learn a little science or come up with a little evidence.
There's a nice, accessible review of the actual evidence regarding
Antarctic ozone depletion in Nature Vol 347 pp 347 - 354, Sep 27, 1990,
for a start. Let us know what you think of that, in as much detail
as you care to provide.
With regard to your quandary about hemospheric asymmetry, Dr Solomon
states "There is abundant evidence for perturbed chemistry in the
Arctic similar to that of Antarctica (ref Geophys Res Lett V 17 # 4, 1990)
but the requisite cold temperatures are generally neither as widespread nor
as long-lasting as in the spring season in Antarctica. This suggests that
the conditions needed for ozone loss (namely, cold temperatures and
sunlight) (ref McKenna et al., Geophys Res Let V 17 pp 553 ff 1990)
are likely to be generally less effective in the Arctic than in Antarctica."
I would welcome any substantive discussion of the review article in
general and the proposed explanation of the interhemispheric asymmetry in 
particular.
Thanks in advance.
mt
(geology and math groups removed, followups trimmed)
(Numerous trailing blank lines removed as well. Do fix that, please.)

Eric Lucas  wrote:

>I disagree.  It is socially irresponsible to use a vehicle that wastes
>resources and pollutes more.  And as someone that has to both share
>those resources, breathe the extra pollution, and put up with the
>generation of larger quantities of CO2 (a greenhouse gas), I demand that
>the government force people to at least consider acting in a socially
>responsible manner.
And just who besides you decides what is "socially responsible"?  
Regards,
Bill Ward

IF YOUR TOPICS OF DISCUSSION ARE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO
GEOLOGY (IN THE STRICT SENSE), PLEASE DO NOT CROSS-POST
TO SCI.GEO.GEOLOGY.
STILL THEY PERSIST.
THANK YOU.

eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>On 15 Jul 1997 14:27:44 GMT, hatunen@shell. (David Hatunen) wrote:
>
>>In article <5qfrv0$1bma@sccat.pgh.wec.com>,
>>B. Alan Guthrie  wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>   Chernobyl is not relevant.  It was an aberrant design, produced
>>>   by an aberrant regime.
>>
>>Perhaps the design was abberant, but the accident was *caused* by human
>>stupidity, and I have not yet heard that stupidity was in short supply in
>>the USA.
>
>
>The Chernobyl accident was not so much caused by stupidity, but by
>bureaucracy.  There is a substantial difference between the level of
>bureacratic control in the old USSR and the USA.
The Chernobyl accident was caused in large part by the same kind of
failure to follow proper procedure as caused the TMI event.  The operators
attempted to goose up power output from a xenon poisoned reactor core
by removing control rods which were not to be removed.  The end result
was as you see it.  You can put all the administrative controls in place
that you want and someone will find a way around them...
-- 
Mike
My opinions, not Argonne's...

Newsgroup readers:
From time to time we see questions regarding out of print books in
these forums.
We offer a free international search service for books of all kinds,
and will be pleased to quote what we find.
There are no fees. There is no obligation. 24 hour reply.
We ship books anywhere in the world.
e-mail: ahab@mhv.net or visit our home page: http://www1.mhv.net/~ahab
Ashworth Books / VOX  39 West Market Street Red Hook NY 12571 USA

Eric Carruthers (carruthe@candu.aecl.ca) wrote:
: Back in 1987, the estimate was that about 10000 cancers/year were
: attributable to COAL POLLUTION in North America.  
Can you cite a source?  This seens really high.  Of the 400,000 cancer 
deaths in the US anually, 40,000-60,000 are attributed to environmental 
pollutatns.  It is awfully high to say 20% of these are due simply to coal.
: Haven't seen any recent
: studies which incorporate better scrubbers.  East European coal plants
: are/were much dirtier.  Now, how many Chernobyls per year could we have to
: meet this astounding safety level.  
Well, around 100,000 are projected to die as a result of Chernobyl.

spam@here.not (Wm James) wrote:
>
>:So what do they vent up the high smokestacks of these nuclear plants? 
>:If it's not CO2 it must be radioactive.
>
>
>Where did you get that nonsense?  Greenpeace, or Earth First?
>
>What you see coming out of those stacks is water vapor. 
>
>There is a heat transfer system in the reactors that does the
>following:
>
>The fuel rods heat water that is radioactive and contained.
>
>The radioactive, heated, contained, water is used to heat
>non-radioactive water through the heat transfer system.
>  Note thet no water is transfered!
>
>The radioactive water (now cooler) is returned to the chamber
>with the fuel rods to be re-heated.
>
>The heated, non-radioactive water (now steam) is used to drive
>turbines.
>
>The steam is released into the air.
>
>This is a bit simplistic. but is the basics.
>
>William R. James
So where are you gentlemen storing the xenon and krypton?
-- 
Mike
My opinions, not Argonne's...

In article <5qk0fr$4c8@laplace.ee.latrobe.edu.au>,
	Kym Horsell  wrote:
>In article <5qiou7$ihj@valhalla.comshare.com>,
>	Michael Pelletier  wrote:
>>In article <5qimfp$mfb@milo.mcs.anl.gov>,
>>	Michael Richmann   wrote:
>>>eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>As Mike P. says, it is to be reused in nuclear fuel.
>>>
>>>Not in this country.  Seems there's a political side to the equation
>>>as well as a scientific one...
>>
>>At least the political winds have the ability to change, whereas
>>the laws of physics do not.   ...
>
>Most amusing. Modern science education has a lot to answer for... ;-)
Don't be a pedant.  Just because we're ignorant of certain principles
of physics doesn't mean that the principles change once we discover
them.
	-Michael Pelletier.

In article <33CD5C75.5C0A@ix.netcom.com>,
   Eric Lucas  wrote:
|Yes, we have freedom to choose.  However, along with that freedom comes
|the responsibility to consider the greater good of society in making
|that choice.
No, this is not so.  While each Freedom may include responsibilities, 
pertaining to that Freedom, you cannot make a blanket statement like this.  I 
have the Right to do certain things, ie: Freedom of Speech.  I should not use 
this Right to directly cause harm to someone.  Eg:  Fire in a crowded building 
with one exit, just for fun.  But I do not have any responsibility to use my 
speech to ends that you or anyone else deems 'for the greater social good'.
|  Freedom to choose is not the same thing (nor should it be)
|as "I can do whatever the hell I want to, and you have no right to
|complain."  If you are irresponsibly wasting resources that I have to
|share with you,
Wo, now.  There are no resources that we share.  I purchase my resources, and 
what I do with them, is at my pleasure.  If we lived in a communist type 
structure, this wouldnt be so.  But I purchase my water.
| then you damn well better believe I want some say in how
|you waste those resources.  And if you don't believe that, then perhaps
|I should go to your bank and demand that they give me all your money. 
|After all, it is my freedom to choose to take your money, and "after
|all, it's really none of your business".
|
|No one is suggesting government control of all things. 
It sounds like YOU are.  You claim some control, out of your own moral system, 
for what I purchase, and therefor own.
| What we are
|suggesting is that people in a highly interconnected society should be
Where does the hermit fit in your little utopia?
|expected to consider the social implications of their actions, and
|modify their actions accordingly.  The pendulum has swung *way* too far
|to the "I'll do whatever the hell I please, and the hell with what you
|think about it." end of things, and needs to return toward the middle,
|where people consider the consequences of their actions on the rest of
|society.  And if you won't do it on your own, I'm damn well going to ask
|the government to make you, since I have to share the planet with you.
Please provide some examples of the above theory.
Are you free?
Do you own your body?  Can you prostitute yourself, sell your organs, or
medicate yourself?  Do you own your labor?  Can you work for any wage
you want, whatever hours you want, and keep the fruits of your sweat?
Do you own your possessions?  Can the terms of your property ownership
be changed at any time, or for any reason?  Can your property be taxed
without limitation?
Can you travel freely?  Must you carry identification papers for you and your
property, submit to search without warrant, cause, or recourse?
There is a spectrum upon which lie two endpoints.  One point is slavery, and
at the other end:  FREEDOM.