Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:50 AM - Re: Nuclear Energy (Bubblehead)
2. 06:40 AM - Registration Display (Dave Reel)
3. 06:55 AM - Re: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08 (glen matejcek)
4. 07:34 AM - Re: Re: Nuclear Energy (linn Walters)
5. 07:57 AM - Re: Registration Display (Bob)
6. 08:13 AM - Re: Re: Nuclear Energy (Bob)
7. 08:41 AM - Re: Registration Display (Bob Leffler)
8. 08:42 AM - Re: Re: Nuclear Energy (Steven Reynard)
9. 09:25 AM - Re: Registration Display (Greg Young)
10. 09:28 AM - Re: Re: Nuclear Energy (Terry Watson)
11. 11:53 AM - Re: Re: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08 (Chuck Jensen)
12. 01:21 PM - Re: Re: Re: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08 (ptrotter@optonline.net)
13. 03:22 PM - Re: Aircraft Sale (RV-8A) (Tim Lewis)
14. 06:08 PM - The Ethanol Fantasy (RScott)
15. 07:32 PM - Re: The Ethanol Fantasy (n801bh@netzero.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
Hey guys - please take this discussion off-line and off this forum. I get enough
conflict and argument in my day job! Neither of your opinions is going to change
as a result of the discussion, and I subscribe to this forum to learn about
and read about RVs!
This is the RV list, not the nuclear power list.
Thanks,
John
former USN "Nuke"
--------
John Dalman
Elburn, IL
RV-8 N247TD
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169777#169777
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Registration Display |
Does my RV-8A need it's FAA registration or other paper work displayed
in the cockpit or can I keep it in an envelope inside one of my panel
storage boxes? I do have the EXPERIMENTAL and the warning blurb text
attached so the passenger can read it from their aft seat & it passed
FAA inspection.
Tim flew and I rode passenger yesterday. Exciting. Tim can really land
smoothly & keep the nose up for roll out. Unfortunately, I'm now ready
to show everything to possible buyers because I got cancer & have to
sell a plane in great condition with only 50hr flight time.
Dave Reel
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08 |
Hi Chuck-
Indeed, the embrittlement of SS doesn't seem to be much of a concern
anymore, although it still does seem to be one for the fuel rods. Clearly,
that represents a lot less waste in a much more manageable form than if the
whole primary apparatus has to be scrapped periodically.
However, WRT the tritium issue:
You wrote "> As Jerry Isler pointed out...don't confuse commercial nuclear
power with Government
> weapons programs."
In response to what I wrote: "Not a direct correlation to the civil
power industry, "
You also wrote "However, to call tritium
> permanent and highly toxic is mistaken on all accounts.
In response to "but an example of a permanent, highly toxic waste leak that
wasn't supposed to happen, and won't get better by itself"
Okay, I could have phrased that more carefully. The comment was about the
leak in general. If tritium is leaking from the buried reactors and
getting into the ground water, you can bet other, highly toxic things are
as well.
Also: >With a half-life of
> 12 years, tritium decays away rapidly which is the reason the Government
keeps
> wanting to replenish its supply for warheads.
Okay, in geologic terms it has an excruciatingly short life span. To
someone drinking water laced with tritium on a daily basis, it lasts long
enough.
> As to it being highly toxic, this is simply not so. The beta radiation
given off
> by tritium will not penetrate a piece of paper or your skin. It is only
of
> interest when ingested.
Like from the city water supply.
>Even then, being water based, it is rapidly excreted
> from the body...especially if you help it along with a six-pack.
>From the Hazardous Substances Data Bank:
Human Toxicity Excerpts:
...Tritium in water form is readily retained in the body and remains with a
biological half-life of approximately 10 days. Due to the body's ready
adsorption of tritium in the form of tritiated water, exposure to tritiated
water in air is on the order of 15,000 to 25,000 times more hazardous than
exposure to gaseous tritium (HT, DT, and T2).
[USDOE; DOE Handbook Tritium Handling and Safe Storage
DOE-HDBK-11290YrXXXX-YR p. 5 (December 1991). Available from
http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/tsdrafts/doe-hdbk-1129-yr.pdf as of July 29,
2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED**
Okay, with a biological half life of 10 days, and drinking water repeatedly
each day, continuos exposure seems to be a given. And IIRC, the Pacific
northwest is rather fond and proud of it's local breweries, so I'm guessing
the six-pack will only hurt, not help.
> So, reactor embrittlement, like tritium, sound pretty ominous, but
neither are
> of consequence to the safety of the plant or public. Now, if you would
like to
> discuss the environmental safety of the DOE sites (Oak Ridge, Hanford,
Savannah
> River, et al), that's an altogether different animal, but has nothing to
do
> with commercial nuclear power used to produce electricity, so please
don't confuse
> the two.
I say again, "Not a direct correlation to the civil
power industry, "
> If given the choice to live 10 miles down wind of a coal fired plant or a
nuclear
> plant, the nuclear plant is the choice by a landslide. The coal fired
plant
> actually emits more radiation than a nuclear plant because of the natural
radioisotopes
> in coal that are continuously emitted into the air, along with sulfur,
> particulates and a potpourri of other chemicals. Nuclear is represented
> to be clean for a reason!
Clearly, that bit of marketing hasn't worked too well.
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.ne
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
Bubblehead wrote:
>
>Hey guys - please take this discussion off-line and off this forum.
>
PLEASE NOT YET!!! I'm learning a lot here! My knowledge is really
dated and this data dump is kinda reinforcing my position on nuke power.
> I get enough conflict and argument in my day job!
>
Ah, but I haven't seen any argument ...... just a difference of opinion
......
> Neither of your opinions is going to change as a result of the discussion,
>
Maybe yes, maybe no, but if factual data gets floated we all benefit
from the education.
> and I subscribe to this forum to learn about and read about RVs!
>
Yeah, me too. However, the nuke thread can be dealt with with by the
delete key, as any other thread.
>This is the RV list, not the nuclear power list.
>
I agree, but in addition to the nuclear power list info has been
presented that belongs on the 'alternative engine' list, and
'environmental disaster list' ....... etc. ..... and I don't belong to
those. My primary interest is in aviation ...... and at present I decry
the increasingly high cost of energy ..... that could be offset by nuke
power, thereby allowing me to transfer money from my 'energy account' to
my 'avgas account'.
>Thanks,
>
>John
>
>former USN "Nuke"
>
Ah, so you already know all about the subject of this thread. No wonder
you'd like to see it disappear. Well, it will, sooner or later. Until
then, if you decide not to add knowledge to the thread ..... whap that
delete key.
This isn't meant to flame John, nor encourage off-topic threads, but as
long as it's here, I'll put up with it.
Some suggestions though ..... filters do work, and so do 'reply to all'
in an off list discussion.
Linn ..... always looking to be educated ..... :-)
>
>--------
>John Dalman
>Elburn, IL
>RV-8 N247TD
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169777#169777
>
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Registration Display |
The Reg says it must be displayed. However, I keep mine in the glove
compartment. When the aircraft was signed off by the FAA, I asked
the inspector this question and did not get a response, more of a
shrug of the shoulders.
But, If an FAA guy is looking for a reason to write up a violation,
then this would be one.
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
At 07:36 AM 3/14/08, you wrote:
>Does my RV-8A need it's FAA registration or other paper work
>displayed in the cockpit or can I keep it in an envelope inside one
>of my panel storage boxes? I do have the EXPERIMENTAL and the
>warning blurb text attached so the passenger can read it from their
>aft seat & it passed FAA inspection.
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
At 09:31 AM 3/14/08, you wrote:
>>Hey guys - please take this discussion off-line and off this forum.
>
>PLEASE NOT YET!!! I'm learning a lot here! My knowledge is really
>dated and this data dump is kinda reinforcing my position on nuke power.
I too am learning a lot. Over the last 15 years on this list, I can
not believe some of the things I have learned that are not directly
RV related. I am on other building lists and we may have 2-3
messages a week (all building related)! The other lists are no fun at all.
One of the interesting things about this list is the diversity of
opinion, thought and experience and I for one enjoy the input. Yes,
some of the debate can get tiresome, but where else could you take
some of these issues and get the response that comes from an RV
builder/flyer/fanatic?
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Registration Display |
We were ramp checked during a Young Eagles event awhile ago. They wanted to
see it someplace visible in the cockpit. Mine was in my flight bag at the
time on the back seat of my Cherokee. But since I wasn't first to get
checked, I had an opportunity to put it back in the plastic pouch.
Ironically, it's by my left ankle, so there is no practical way anyone else
in the aircraft could see it.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Registration Display
The Reg says it must be displayed. However, I keep mine in the glove
compartment. When the aircraft was signed off by the FAA, I asked
the inspector this question and did not get a response, more of a
shrug of the shoulders.
But, If an FAA guy is looking for a reason to write up a violation,
then this would be one.
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
At 07:36 AM 3/14/08, you wrote:
>Does my RV-8A need it's FAA registration or other paper work
>displayed in the cockpit or can I keep it in an envelope inside one
>of my panel storage boxes? I do have the EXPERIMENTAL and the
>warning blurb text attached so the passenger can read it from their
>aft seat & it passed FAA inspection.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 2947 (20080314) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 2947 (20080314) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
I agree Bob. it isn't every day you get to hear from a specialist that
actually works in the nuke industry. Of course, if I didn't find it
interesting, I would have deleted them from my email unread. . . .
It seems pretty clear that avgas is going to keep going up with other energy
costs. Our current crop of politicians have made it perfectly clear that
they aren't going to do anything about it. There doesn't look to be much
hope from the next crop either. I had better really enjoy building because
at the current pace, I'm not sure how long I'll be able to afford to fly the
thing.
If they could ever design really efficient, high power density, quick-charge
batteries I would love to see electric planes charged by practically free
nuclear power. Hm, reminds me of old SF novels I read as a kid.
Steve
do not archive
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Registration Display |
Short answer is that the Airworthiness Certificate (not the
Registration)
must be displayed. The rest of the ARROW stuff must be carried but
doesn't
need to be displayed. See following for the long answer from an EAA
Question
of the Week...
Q & A: Question of the Week
Question for EAA Aviation Information Services:
I have purchased a homebuilt aircraft from the original builder. It was
issued a Special Airworthiness Certificate. Am I required to carry this
certificate in the aircraft after the initial test phase of flying has
been
completed?
Answer:
Yes, you are always required to carry (and display) the airworthiness
certificate in a US aircraft, regardless of what type of certificate has
been issued. This is called out in the following regulations:
14 CFR 91.203, which states in part:
=93(a) Except as provided in =A791.715, no person may operate a civil
aircraft
unless it has within it the following:
(1) An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate. Each U.S.
airworthiness certificate used to comply with this subparagraph (except
a
special flight permit**, a copy of the applicable operations
specifications
issued under =A7 21.197(c) of this chapter, appropriate sections of the
air
carrier manual required by parts 121 and 135 of this chapter containing
that
portion of the operations specifications issued under =A7 21.197(c), or
an
authorization under =A791.611) must have on it the registration number
assigned to the aircraft under part 47 of this chapter. However, the
airworthiness certificate need not have on it an assigned special
identification number before 10 days after that number is first affixed
to
the aircraft. A revised airworthiness certificate having on it an
assigned
special identification number, that has been affixed to an aircraft, may
only be obtained upon application to an FAA Flight Standards district
office.=94
**Information on =93Special Flight Permits=94 issued by the FAA can be
reviewed
in FAA Order 8300.10, Chapter 89.
Note that the airworthiness certificate be displayed in the aircraft, as
required by 91.203(b):
=93(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness
certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section or a special
flight
authorization issued under =A791.715 is displayed at the cabin or
cockpit
entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew.=94
Also be aware that your aircraft=92s special airworthiness certificate
was
issued with an attached set of operating limitations. These operating
limitations are considered to be a part of the airworthiness
certificate,
and as such must be carried in the aircraft at all times.
Regards,
Greg Young
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Reel
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 8:36 AM
Subject: RV-List: Registration Display
Does my RV-8A need it's FAA registration or other paper work displayed
in
the cockpit or can I keep it in an envelope inside one of my panel
storage
boxes? I do have the EXPERIMENTAL and the warning blurb text attached
so
the passenger can read it from their aft seat & it passed FAA
inspection.
Tim flew and I rode passenger yesterday. Exciting. Tim can really land
smoothly & keep the nose up for roll out. Unfortunately, I'm now ready
to
show everything to possible buyers because I got cancer & have to sell a
plane in great condition with only 50hr flight time.
Dave Reel
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
Use the delete key. You don't have to read what you aren't interested in.
Others might be interested. Let them pursue the thread.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bubblehead
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 4:47 AM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Nuclear Energy
Hey guys - please take this discussion off-line and off this forum. I get
enough conflict and argument in my day job! Neither of your opinions is
going to change as a result of the discussion, and I subscribe to this forum
to learn about and read about RVs!
This is the RV list, not the nuclear power list.
Thanks,
John
former USN "Nuke"
--------
John Dalman
Elburn, IL
RV-8 N247TD
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169777#169777
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08 |
Well, I wasn't going to post a reply, since nuclear power is certainly off topic,
but intellectual curiousity rarely knows bounds nor can it be easily pidgeon-holed
to just building an RV. Personnally, I enjoy education whereever I bump
into it but some are advised to avail themselves of the delete key if they
are not similarly stricken.
Hi, Glen,
Good comments all. Hanford particularly has some scary environmental stuff out
there...and certainly not as well contained as it should be. Billions have been
spent and many billions more are in line to be spent to mitigate, not solve
the problems. For instance, they have several, million-gallon single walled
tanks of suspect integrity containing a witches' brew that will actually boil
from the heat generated by the decaying cesium. I think most of this material
has been transferred to new double-walled tanks, but there are always residual
problems.
Hanford has had multiple plumes reach the Columbia River. There's no pretty face
that can be put on it. However, the fact that tritium has migrated off of
the reservation shouldn't be used as a marker for other, even more hazardous materials.
Tritium, because it will not ion exchange with the soil and can not
be filtered, is by far the worst migrator and toughest to contain.
Even in this circumstance, you would have to drink massive quantities of water
from the Columbia everyday, and not excrete any liquids, for a long period of
time to even begin to register a potential health threat. Yes, liquid tritium
is 10,000 times more of a threat than gaseous tritium, but then, 10,000 times
nothing is still not much. If you want to be scared, watch the trucks going
down the highway loaded with chemicals or the trains running through backyards
that contain massive quantities of toxic, hazardous, flammable and explosive
materials. THAT is a clear and present danger.
I happen to have beed appointed to the Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board.
Our responsibility is to oversee (some would say, second guess) the cleanup activities
of the Oak Ridge Reservation. To say we subject them to rigorous, even
adversarial, review ins an understatement. While Oak Ridge doesn't have the
degree of problem that Hanford does, its still significant. Even then, in the
worst case, a person that drank all of his water from the most polluted stream,
ate one deer and two turkey's from the reservation, ate 3 fish per week from
the stream and breathed the air in the worst part of the reservation 24x7,
he would receive a total exposure of 6 milliRem per year. To put that in perspective,
the average person in the U.S. receives approx. 350 milliRem exposure
from the food we eat, living in a brick house, radon, radium watches, medical
procedures, commercial airline flights, et al. While the unknown is often scary,
the facts are not.
The chemical contamination of our drinking water, including pharmaceuticals, is
something to be far more alarmed about than the isolated incident of a small
leak of tritium or other radioisotope (though even a small one is inexcusable).
Just my thoughts.
Thanks,
Chuck Jensen
Diversified Technologies
2680 Westcott Blvd
Knoxville, TN 37931
Phn: 865-539-9000 x100
Cell: 865-406-9001
Fax: 865-539-9001
cjensen@dts9000.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of glen matejcek
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 8:52 AM
Subject: RV-List: RE: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08
Hi Chuck-
Indeed, the embrittlement of SS doesn't seem to be much of a concern
anymore, although it still does seem to be one for the fuel rods. Clearly,
that represents a lot less waste in a much more manageable form than if the
whole primary apparatus has to be scrapped periodically.
However, WRT the tritium issue:
You wrote "> As Jerry Isler pointed out...don't confuse commercial nuclear
power with Government
> weapons programs."
In response to what I wrote: "Not a direct correlation to the civil
power industry, "
You also wrote "However, to call tritium
> permanent and highly toxic is mistaken on all accounts.
In response to "but an example of a permanent, highly toxic waste leak that
wasn't supposed to happen, and won't get better by itself"
Okay, I could have phrased that more carefully. The comment was about the
leak in general. If tritium is leaking from the buried reactors and
getting into the ground water, you can bet other, highly toxic things are
as well.
Also: >With a half-life of
> 12 years, tritium decays away rapidly which is the reason the Government
keeps
> wanting to replenish its supply for warheads.
Okay, in geologic terms it has an excruciatingly short life span. To
someone drinking water laced with tritium on a daily basis, it lasts long
enough.
> As to it being highly toxic, this is simply not so. The beta radiation
given off
> by tritium will not penetrate a piece of paper or your skin. It is only
of
> interest when ingested.
Like from the city water supply.
>Even then, being water based, it is rapidly excreted
> from the body...especially if you help it along with a six-pack.
>From the Hazardous Substances Data Bank:
Human Toxicity Excerpts:
...Tritium in water form is readily retained in the body and remains with a
biological half-life of approximately 10 days. Due to the body's ready
adsorption of tritium in the form of tritiated water, exposure to tritiated
water in air is on the order of 15,000 to 25,000 times more hazardous than
exposure to gaseous tritium (HT, DT, and T2).
[USDOE; DOE Handbook Tritium Handling and Safe Storage
DOE-HDBK-11290YrXXXX-YR p. 5 (December 1991). Available from
http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/tsdrafts/doe-hdbk-1129-yr.pdf as of July 29,
2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED**
Okay, with a biological half life of 10 days, and drinking water repeatedly
each day, continuos exposure seems to be a given. And IIRC, the Pacific
northwest is rather fond and proud of it's local breweries, so I'm guessing
the six-pack will only hurt, not help.
> So, reactor embrittlement, like tritium, sound pretty ominous, but
neither are
> of consequence to the safety of the plant or public. Now, if you would
like to
> discuss the environmental safety of the DOE sites (Oak Ridge, Hanford,
Savannah
> River, et al), that's an altogether different animal, but has nothing to
do
> with commercial nuclear power used to produce electricity, so please
don't confuse
> the two.
I say again, "Not a direct correlation to the civil
power industry, "
> If given the choice to live 10 miles down wind of a coal fired plant or a
nuclear
> plant, the nuclear plant is the choice by a landslide. The coal fired
plant
> actually emits more radiation than a nuclear plant because of the natural
radioisotopes
> in coal that are continuously emitted into the air, along with sulfur,
> particulates and a potpourri of other chemicals. Nuclear is represented
> to be clean for a reason!
Clearly, that bit of marketing hasn't worked too well.
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.ne
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08 |
Personally, I have enjoyed reading these posts. It is particularly interesting
when someone like Chuck, who is very knowledgable on the subject, can give us
real information.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Jensen
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08
>
> Well, I wasn't going to post a reply, since nuclear power is
> certainly off topic, but intellectual curiousity rarely knows
> bounds nor can it be easily pidgeon-holed to just building an
> RV. Personnally, I enjoy education whereever I bump into it but
> some are advised to avail themselves of the delete key if they
> are not similarly stricken.
>
> Hi, Glen,
>
> Good comments all. Hanford particularly has some scary
> environmental stuff out there...and certainly not as well
> contained as it should be. Billions have been spent and many
> billions more are in line to be spent to mitigate, not solve the
> problems. For instance, they have several, million-gallon
> single walled tanks of suspect integrity containing a witches'
> brew that will actually boil from the heat generated by the
> decaying cesium. I think most of this material has been
> transferred to new double-walled tanks, but there are always
> residual problems.
>
> Hanford has had multiple plumes reach the Columbia River.
> There's no pretty face that can be put on it. However, the fact
> that tritium has migrated off of the reservation shouldn't be
> used as a marker for other, even more hazardous materials.
> Tritium, because it will not ion exchange with the soil and can
> not be filtered, is by far the worst migrator and toughest to contain.
>
> Even in this circumstance, you would have to drink massive
> quantities of water from the Columbia everyday, and not excrete
> any liquids, for a long period of time to even begin to register
> a potential health threat. Yes, liquid tritium is 10,000 times
> more of a threat than gaseous tritium, but then, 10,000 times
> nothing is still not much. If you want to be scared, watch the
> trucks going down the highway loaded with chemicals or the
> trains running through backyards that contain massive quantities
> of toxic, hazardous, flammable and explosive materials. THAT is
> a clear and present danger.
>
> I happen to have beed appointed to the Oak Ridge Site Specific
> Advisory Board. Our responsibility is to oversee (some would
> say, second guess) the cleanup activities of the Oak Ridge
> Reservation. To say we subject them to rigorous, even
> adversarial, review ins an understatement. While Oak Ridge
> doesn't have the degree of problem that Hanford does, its still
> significant. Even then, in the worst case, a person that drank
> all of his water from the most polluted stream, ate one deer and
> two turkey's from the reservation, ate 3 fish per week from the
> stream and breathed the air in the worst part of the reservation
> 24x7, he would receive a total exposure of 6 milliRem per year.
> To put that in perspective, the average person in the U.S.
> receives approx. 350 milliRem exposure from the food we eat,
> living in a brick house, radon, radium watches, medical
> procedures, commercial airline flights, et al. While the
> unknown is often scary, the facts are not.
>
> The chemical contamination of our drinking water, including
> pharmaceuticals, is something to be far more alarmed about than
> the isolated incident of a small leak of tritium or other
> radioisotope (though even a small one is inexcusable). Just my
> thoughts.
> Thanks,
> Chuck Jensen
>
> Diversified Technologies
> 2680 Westcott Blvd
> Knoxville, TN 37931
> Phn: 865-539-9000 x100
> Cell: 865-406-9001
> Fax: 865-539-9001
> cjensen@dts9000.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of glen matejcek
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 8:52 AM
> To: RV-List Digest Server
> Subject: RV-List: RE: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08
>
>
>
> Hi Chuck-
>
> Indeed, the embrittlement of SS doesn't seem to be much of a concern
> anymore, although it still does seem to be one for the fuel
> rods. Clearly,
> that represents a lot less waste in a much more manageable form
> than if the
> whole primary apparatus has to be scrapped periodically.
>
> However, WRT the tritium issue:
>
> You wrote "> As Jerry Isler pointed out...don't confuse
> commercial nuclear
> power with Government
> > weapons programs."
>
> In response to what I wrote: "Not a direct correlation to the civil
> power industry, "
>
> You also wrote "However, to call tritium
> > permanent and highly toxic is mistaken on all accounts.
>
> In response to "but an example of a permanent, highly toxic
> waste leak that
> wasn't supposed to happen, and won't get better by itself"
>
> Okay, I could have phrased that more carefully. The comment was
> about the
> leak in general. If tritium is leaking from the buried reactors and
> getting into the ground water, you can bet other, highly toxic
> things are
> as well.
>
> Also: >With a half-life of
> > 12 years, tritium decays away rapidly which is the reason the
> Governmentkeeps
> > wanting to replenish its supply for warheads.
>
> Okay, in geologic terms it has an excruciatingly short life
> span. To
> someone drinking water laced with tritium on a daily basis, it
> lasts long
> enough.
>
> > As to it being highly toxic, this is simply not so. The beta
> radiationgiven off
> > by tritium will not penetrate a piece of paper or your skin.
> It is only
> of
> > interest when ingested.
>
> Like from the city water supply.
>
> >Even then, being water based, it is rapidly excreted
> > from the body...especially if you help it along with a six-pack.
>
> >From the Hazardous Substances Data Bank:
>
> Human Toxicity Excerpts:
> ...Tritium in water form is readily retained in the body and
> remains with a
> biological half-life of approximately 10 days. Due to the body's ready
> adsorption of tritium in the form of tritiated water, exposure
> to tritiated
> water in air is on the order of 15,000 to 25,000 times more
> hazardous than
> exposure to gaseous tritium (HT, DT, and T2).
> [USDOE; DOE Handbook Tritium Handling and Safe Storage
> DOE-HDBK-11290YrXXXX-YR p. 5 (December 1991). Available from
> http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/tsdrafts/doe-hdbk-1129-yr.pdf as
> of July 29,
> 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED**
>
> Okay, with a biological half life of 10 days, and drinking water
> repeatedlyeach day, continuos exposure seems to be a given. And
> IIRC, the Pacific
> northwest is rather fond and proud of it's local breweries, so
> I'm guessing
> the six-pack will only hurt, not help.
>
> > So, reactor embrittlement, like tritium, sound pretty ominous, but
> neither are
> > of consequence to the safety of the plant or public. Now, if
> you would
> like to
> > discuss the environmental safety of the DOE sites (Oak Ridge,
> Hanford,Savannah
> > River, et al), that's an altogether different animal, but has
> nothing to
> do
> > with commercial nuclear power used to produce electricity, so please
> don't confuse
> > the two.
>
> I say again, "Not a direct correlation to the civil
> power industry, "
>
> > If given the choice to live 10 miles down wind of a coal fired
> plant or a
> nuclear
> > plant, the nuclear plant is the choice by a landslide. The
> coal fired
> plant
> > actually emits more radiation than a nuclear plant because of
> the natural
> radioisotopes
> > in coal that are continuously emitted into the air, along with
> sulfur,> particulates and a potpourri of other chemicals.
> Nuclear is represented
> > to be clean for a reason!
>
> Clearly, that bit of marketing hasn't worked too well.
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba@earthlink.ne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Sale (RV-8A) |
I flew Dave's RV-8A yesterday for the first time (also my first time
flying an RV-8A). It's a very well built, well maintained, attractive,
simple, light, fast, day/night VFR airplane. Workmanship, speed, and
rate of climb are impressive.
Tim
--
Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
RV-6A N47TD -- 1000 hrs
RV-10 #40059 under construction
1.4 hrs in RV-8A N4032Q
Dave Reel wrote:
>
> 2006 RV8A 50hr. Has O-360-A1A, Hartzell c/s prop, Dynon D10 EFIS,
> Garmin transponder and GPS, Grand Rapids engine information system.
> High reliability, VFR, all new parts. Illness forcing sale. Based
> at HEF, Manassas VA. Call 703-385-9811 or email dreel@cox.net
> <mailto:dreel@cox.net> for pictures & questions.
>
>
>
> Sorry to have to start this event but please let anyone you know that
> might be interested in buying a nice RV8A.
>
>
>
> Dave Reel
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | The Ethanol Fantasy |
There is so much wrong with ethanol that it is disgusting that the state
of Oregon has bent over backwards to impose the stuff on the populace.
We all know about the food impacts. There is also the fertilizer
problem--corn requires more fertilizer than almost any other crop.
Fertilizer goes down the Mississippi and contributes to a massive dead
zone in the Gulf of Mexico. And natural gas is used to make fertilizer;
natural gas is not renewable. Ethanol can't go through the petroleum
pipelines, so it is trucked to the pipeline terminals where it is mixed
as it is put into the truck.
Then there is the energy balance question, which seems to have research
supporting both sides. However, not included in any of the research is
the loss of gas mileage you get when your burn ethanol. Theory suggests
that since ethanol has 70% as much energy per gallon as gasoline you
would have a 3% loss of mileage with a 10% ethanol fuel. Experience
says this is not the case.
I had seen about a 6% loss of mileage in both our vehicles when burning
ethanol, but some had claimed as much as a 15% loss. I was skeptical,
but now I am not. I recently drove to Colorado to pick up a Lycoming
for my RV. With ethanol in Oregon's gas and 65 mph speed limits, I got
15.9 mpg. Outside Oregon, with 75 mph speed limits, I got 18.4 mpg.
The higher speeds should have produced a lower mpg. Others have
reported similar results but different in magnitude, some higher, some
lower mpg loss. I have not seen anyone claim higher mileage with
ethanol. These gas mileage losses have not been included in energy
balance studies. One expert suggested that ethanol might change the
burning characteristics of the blend and might cool things down, giving
less power.
Suppose we average a 5% loss of mileage. Then we only get a 5%
reduction in oil imports, not the 10% that advocates claim. Are all the
impacts worth it?
Watch your legislatures and stop this virus before your state gets
suckered into the ethanol fad.
Richard Scott
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The Ethanol Fantasy |
The BTU content in alcohol is less then gas per given unit. Ethanol is a
bout 71% of gas and Methanol is about 56%. During my racing days I ran d
irt track sprint cars both with a gas motor and an alky motor. Gas motor
was 10-15 % less powerful then the Methanol motors, The Alky motors nee
ded just under twice as much fuel to run the same length race. 40 laps o
n a 1/3 mile track burned 25 or so gallons of methanol including all the
yellow flag laps. This same race could have been run on 14 gallons of r
acing gas... Pick your poison...
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- RScott <rscott@cascadeaccess.com> wrote:
There is so much wrong with ethanol that it is disgusting that the state
of Oregon has bent over backwards to impose the stuff on the populace.
We all know about the food impacts. There is also the fertilizer probl
em--corn requires more fertilizer than almost any other crop. Fertilize
r goes down the Mississippi and contributes to a massive dead zone in th
e Gulf of Mexico. And natural gas is used to make fertilizer; natural ga
s is not renewable. Ethanol can't go through the petroleum pipelines, s
o it is trucked to the pipeline terminals where it is mixed as it is put
into the truck.
Then there is the energy balance question, which seems to have research
supporting both sides. However, not included in any of the research is
the loss of gas mileage you get when your burn ethanol. Theory suggests
that since ethanol has 70% as much energy per gallon as gasoline you wo
uld have a 3% loss of mileage with a 10% ethanol fuel. Experience says
this is not the case.
I had seen about a 6% loss of mileage in both our vehicles when burning
ethanol, but some had claimed as much as a 15% loss. I was skeptical, b
ut now I am not. I recently drove to Colorado to pick up a Lycoming for
my RV. With ethanol in Oregon's gas and 65 mph speed limits, I got 15.
9 mpg. Outside Oregon, with 75 mph speed limits, I got 18.4 mpg. The h
igher speeds should have produced a lower mpg. Others have reported sim
ilar results but different in magnitude, some higher, some lower mpg los
s. I have not seen anyone claim higher mileage with ethanol. These gas
mileage losses have not been included in energy balance studies. One e
xpert suggested that ethanol might change the burning characteristics of
the blend and might cool things down, giving less power.
Suppose we average a 5% loss of mileage. Then we only get a 5% reductio
n in oil imports, not the 10% that advocates claim. Are all the impacts
worth it?
Watch your legislatures and stop this virus before your state gets sucke
red into the ethanol fad.
Richard Scott
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
_____________________________________________________________
Largest network of startups. Find new startup opportunities. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4s07PdJYesoy6Aumaib
hfEhftQ7xUrZNrpBo7AfBSP6uWCRF/
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|