>>After talking with Andy last week Chimay sounded like a fun idea, old >>bikes, strong beer and luxurious 5* accommodation. I've just had my >>leave confirmed for the Friday & Monday 18/21 July. Not yet booked >>train/ferry, so who's going and when? What's the score for finding the >>UKRM contingent in a campground full of drunken reprobates?
>Did you get the email I sent you? I cc'd Adie and she claimed it never >reached her so if you didn't receive it either I'll get it sorted.
Just arrived, I didn't get the first one but I've got a mail from you 18:18 this evening. I'll read & reply in a bit.
bo...@despammed.com wrote: >On 9 May 2008 14:28:16 GMT in uk.rec.motorcycles, Buzby says:
>>Boots wibbled:
>>> I considered taking the SO Bonneville, however, I want to get there >>> and back with minimum hassle so it will almost certainly be the >>> sprint.
>>If it's anything like my old one you'd never get there, let alone back.
>Good point, well presented.
If its in reasonable condition and you ride it like its an *old bike*, there shouldn't be anything other than tweaking needed, surely?
Steady 65, chill out, no worries... unless it happens to be a bit neglected. --
>>>After talking with Andy last week Chimay sounded like a fun idea, old >>>bikes, strong beer and luxurious 5* accommodation. I've just had my >>>leave confirmed for the Friday & Monday 18/21 July. Not yet booked >>>train/ferry, so who's going and when? What's the score for finding the >>>UKRM contingent in a campground full of drunken reprobates?
>>Did you get the email I sent you? I cc'd Adie and she claimed it never >>reached her so if you didn't receive it either I'll get it sorted.
>Just arrived, I didn't get the first one but I've got a mail from you >18:18 this evening. I'll read & reply in a bit.
>>On 9 May 2008 14:28:16 GMT in uk.rec.motorcycles, Buzby says:
>>>Boots wibbled:
>>>> I considered taking the SO Bonneville, however, I want to get there >>>> and back with minimum hassle so it will almost certainly be the >>>> sprint.
>>>If it's anything like my old one you'd never get there, let alone back.
>>Good point, well presented.
>If its in reasonable condition and you ride it like its an *old bike*, >there shouldn't be anything other than tweaking needed, surely?
I had one when they were new, OK a 750 and the current one is a 650 but they were far from reliable then. It does look a bit of a shed but mechanically it's as good as they get - which ain't great.
>Steady 65, chill out, no worries... unless it happens to be a bit >neglected.
Steady 65 for a few hours and lots of bits will fall off, trust me on this, no matter how well bolted together things are they *will* vibrate loose.
bo...@despammed.com wrote: >Steady 65 for a few hours and lots of bits will fall off, trust me on >this, no matter how well bolted together things are they *will* >vibrate loose.
Champ wrote: > On Fri, 09 May 2008 17:11:34 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon > <grimly4REM...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the >> drugs began to take hold. I remember Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> saying >> something like:
>>> Mind you, do you know how many people were died from radiation after >>> the 5 or so original fire-fighters snuffed it? Zero. Do you know >>> how many 'additional' cancers have been attributed to it in Ukraine? >>> Zero. Do you know how many defects have been found in animals in >>> the exclusion zone? Zero.
>> Imo, it's still too soon to draw conclusions like that.
>>> Radiation: not nearly as nasty as people think it is.
>> If you buy that line, you're swallowing the nuke lobby's gropapanda.
> Actually, I got it all from a Horizon programme.
> The think is, the graph of radiation vs cancer risk is all derived > from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As the doses there were high, there was > no data at the low doses end - the working assumption has been that > the relationship can be extrapolated in a straight line down to zero. > The Chernobyl data is suggesting that below a certain threshold, the > impact is in fact much lower.
I'm the dying proof that radiations isn't so bad..... unless you ingest it
Boots wrote: > After talking with Andy last week Chimay sounded like a fun idea, old > bikes, strong beer and luxurious 5* accommodation. I've just had my > leave confirmed for the Friday & Monday 18/21 July. Not yet booked > train/ferry, so who's going and when? What's the score for finding the > UKRM contingent in a campground full of drunken reprobates?
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> saying something like:
>>>Radiation: not nearly as nasty as people think it is.
>>If you buy that line, you're swallowing the nuke lobby's gropapanda.
>Actually, I got it all from a Horizon programme.
>The think is, the graph of radiation vs cancer risk is all derived >from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As the doses there were high, there was >no data at the low doses end - the working assumption has been that >the relationship can be extrapolated in a straight line down to zero. >The Chernobyl data is suggesting that below a certain threshold, the >impact is in fact much lower.
There *might* be something to that, but I'll reserve judgement until more figures are in. I'm not anti-nuke, and I would like to see safe, clean Nu Kleer power being generated in a responsible manner. Nothing has yet been done to meet the challenge of long-term storage or obliteration of nuclear waste, though, and that's a biggie.
<cue darsy and rail-gun to the sun>
I wish they'd pull their fingers out and get on with fusion.
Of course, every new nuke facility would have to be surrounded by armed rent-a-cops 24/7 because of the world situation, but that's not new. -- Dave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a
"It's a moron working with power tools. How much more suspenseful can you get?" - House
>Of course, every new nuke facility would have to be surrounded by armed >rent-a-cops 24/7 because of the world situation, but that's not new.
They're already surrounded by armed cops 24/7.
It's slightly disconcerting to suddenly have an armed cop appear out of the darkness when you're sitting on a bench having a smoke break at 3am and don't expect anyone else to be about.
Andy Bonwick <nos...@bonwick.me.uk> wrote: >On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:00:24 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon ><grimly4REM...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
>snip>
>>Of course, every new nuke facility would have to be surrounded by armed >>rent-a-cops 24/7 because of the world situation, but that's not new.
>They're already surrounded by armed cops 24/7.
>It's slightly disconcerting to suddenly have an armed cop appear out >of the darkness when you're sitting on a bench having a smoke break at >3am and don't expect anyone else to be about.
We have armed renta-cops securing our building (that's our corporate HQ, in a leafy suburb of Colorado, not some outpost in Afghanistan). I've experienced the same, in my own office, of an evening or a weekend. Took some getting used to.
On one ocassion, I jumped out of my skin, and said to the bloke "you startled me", to which he replied "yeah, you startled me too". In a bastardized version of Mat Tab's saying, I thought - but didn't say - "why - you're the cunt with the gun"
Champ wrote: > Actually, I got it all from a Horizon programme.
> The think is, the graph of radiation vs cancer risk is all derived > from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As the doses there were high, there was > no data at the low doses end - the working assumption has been that > the relationship can be extrapolated in a straight line down to zero. > The Chernobyl data is suggesting that below a certain threshold, the > impact is in fact much lower.
To begin our journey, we must learn a little something about radiation. It is really very simple, and the device we use for measuring radiation levels is called a geiger counter . If you flick it on in Kiev, it will measure about 12-16 microroentgen per hour. In a typical city of Russia and America, it will read 10-12 microroentgen per hour. In the center of many European cities are 20 microR per hour, the radioactivity of the stone.
1,000 microroentgens equal one milliroentgen and 1,000 milliroentgens equal 1 roentgen. So one roentgen is 100,000 times the average radiation of a typical city. A dose of 500 roentgens within 5 hours is fatal to humans. Interestingly, it takes about 2 1/2 times that dosage to kill a chicken and over 100 times that to kill a cockroach.
This sort of radiation level can not be found in Chernobyl now. In the first days after explosion, some places around the reactor were emitting 3,000-30,000 roentgens per hour. The firemen who were sent to put out the reactor fire were fried on the spot by gamma radiation. The remains of the reactor were entombed within an enormous steel and concrete sarcophagus, so it is now relatively safe to travel to the area - as long as we do not step off of the roadway.......
The map above shows the radiation levels in different parts of the dead zone. The map will soon be replaced with a more comprehensive one that identifies more features.
It shows various levels of radiation on asphalt - usually on the middle of road - because at edge of the road it is twice as high. If you step 1 meter off the road it is 4 or 5 times higher. Radiation sits on the soil, on the grass, in apples and mushrooms. It is not retained by asphalt, which makes rides through this area possible.
I have never had problems with the dosimeter guys, who man the checkpoints. They are experts, and if they find radiation on you vehicle, they give it a chemical shower. I don't count those couple of times when "experts" tried to invent an excuse to give me a shower, because those had a lot more to do with physical biology than biological physics.
-- ZX10R in the correct colour. Triumph Sprint ST for long two up touring. http://sportstourer.org
Champ wrote: > On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:57:30 +0100, "Cab" > <my_email_address_is_in_my_...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Wicked Uncle Nigel wrote:
>>>> No really, it's a bit vague after Peterborough ... >>>> http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d132/zx6r2000/crapmap.jpg >>> "Fog will come in from the East" >> Heh, that reminds me of Chernobyl. The French government said that the >> radioactive cloud wouldn't come into France.
>> Couldn't get a passport, I guess.
> heh.
> Mind you, do you know how many people were died from radiation after > the 5 or so original fire-fighters snuffed it? Zero. Do you know how > many 'additional' cancers have been attributed to it in Ukraine? > Zero. Do you know how many defects have been found in animals in the > exclusion zone? Zero.
> Radiation: not nearly as nasty as people think it is.
Over 650,000 liquidators helped in the cleanup of the Chernobyl disaster in the first year. Many of those who worked as liquidators became ill and according to some estimates about 8,000 to 10,000 have died from the radioactive dose they received at the Chornobyl Power Plant. This group apparently includes those who built the containment building over the destroyed reactor No. 4 which is called the SARCOPHAGUS.
-- ZX10R in the correct colour. Triumph Sprint ST for long two up touring. http://sportstourer.org
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote: > We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the > drugs began to take hold. I remember Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> saying > something like:
>>>> Radiation: not nearly as nasty as people think it is.
>>> If you buy that line, you're swallowing the nuke lobby's gropapanda.
>> Actually, I got it all from a Horizon programme.
>> The think is, the graph of radiation vs cancer risk is all derived >> from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As the doses there were high, there was >> no data at the low doses end - the working assumption has been that >> the relationship can be extrapolated in a straight line down to zero. >> The Chernobyl data is suggesting that below a certain threshold, the >> impact is in fact much lower.
> There *might* be something to that, but I'll reserve judgement until > more figures are in. I'm not anti-nuke, and I would like to see safe, > clean Nu Kleer power being generated in a responsible manner. Nothing > has yet been done to meet the challenge of long-term storage or > obliteration of nuclear waste, though, and that's a biggie.
That's not right for the high level stuff. Glassification, sealed in concrete and stainless steel, buried deep (a mile) underground out under the sea. The much greater mass of low level contaminated waste is more problematic. I think the huge *vast* underground workings in Salt Domes might be the best solution for that.
There are those who say it is unacceptable due to the tiny risk that a few radionucletides could find there way to the surface in water in perhaps 100,000 years. I don't think I need voice an opinion of them.
> <cue darsy and rail-gun to the sun>
> I wish they'd pull their fingers out and get on with fusion.
It doesn't take much of a look with an engineers eye to see that the Torus designs are unlikely to provide an economic power producing reactor this century if ever . They are experiments in high energy physics. OTOH implosion and fusion of beads of fuel looks more interesting and might provide something this century.
There is no need for angst about power production. The French (and AEA) have quietly proved a fission cycle with Fast Breeders can provide for many centuries to come.
> Of course, every new nuke facility would have to be surrounded by > armed rent-a-cops 24/7 because of the world situation, but that's not > new.
They always have been as Andy has said. Bit of a joke but it's incredibly hard to keep them motivated over decades. The SAS used to mount the odd mock raid. Probably good enough to repel the odd raghead.
> > Actually, I got it all from a Horizon programme.
> > The think is, the graph of radiation vs cancer risk is all derived > > from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As the doses there were high, there was > > no data at the low doses end - the working assumption has been that > > the relationship can be extrapolated in a straight line down to zero. > > The Chernobyl data is suggesting that below a certain threshold, the > > impact is in fact much lower.
On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:52:27 +0100, ogden <og...@pre.org> wrote:
>eric the brave wrote:
>> Champ wrote:
>> > Actually, I got it all from a Horizon programme.
>> > The think is, the graph of radiation vs cancer risk is all derived >> > from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As the doses there were high, there was >> > no data at the low doses end - the working assumption has been that >> > the relationship can be extrapolated in a straight line down to zero. >> > The Chernobyl data is suggesting that below a certain threshold, the >> > impact is in fact much lower.
On Fri, 09 May 2008 20:27:16 GMT, vulgarandmischevious
<vulgarandmischevi...@gmail.com> allegedly wrote: > On one ocassion, I jumped out of my skin, and said to the bloke "you > startled me", to which he replied "yeah, you startled me too". In a > bastardized version of Mat Tab's saying, I thought - but didn't say - > "why - you're the cunt with the gun"
>>> Actually, I got it all from a Horizon programme.
>>> The think is, the graph of radiation vs cancer risk is all derived >>> from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As the doses there were high, there was >>> no data at the low doses end - the working assumption has been that >>> the relationship can be extrapolated in a straight line down to zero. >>> The Chernobyl data is suggesting that below a certain threshold, the >>> impact is in fact much lower. >> http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html
> That web site was discredited as being complete bollocks some time ago.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
-- ZX10R in the correct colour. Triumph Sprint ST for long two up touring. http://sportstourer.org
|
