 | | Re: Global Warming (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
|
|
(...) well, i didn't do the math but some other researchers have: (URL) maximum sea-level rise from the complete melting of these bodies of ice would be about 264 feet- that's about flooding times 13 by your definition above. There has be a lot of (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Global Warming (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
|
|
(...) Reason number one being that burning hydrocarbons is a huge waste of precious chemical feedstocks... the stocks used to make ABS, for example. Every mile you drive is a brick not made, or something like that. :-) ...and number two being that (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Global Warming (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
|
|
(...) I won't bite, cause I agree... I also seem to recall (though I have no proof, someone?) that it's LESS radioactive than coal! :P how's that for bait? Dan (25 years ago, 10-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Global Warming (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
|
|
Heck yeah fission is cleaner. We always seem to be worried about what to do with the spent rods - why not drop them into the sun? It's not like it's going to pollute the sun or anything, and the canisters wouldn't need much of a boost at all. I was (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Global Warming (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
|
|
(...) Back in college, I was researching power technologies a bit for SF RPGs. I remember that there was some theoretical maximum efficiency for solar panels which I'm pretty sure was less than 50% (might have even less than 25%). It's pretty clear (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Global Warming (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
|
|
(...) Part of the objection to this scheme stems from the (currently) prohibitive expense of such launches, as well as the perceived potential for wide scattering of radioactive waste in the event of a disastrous launch. Granted, both of these (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Global Warming (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
|
|
(...) Booster blows up - you now have radioactive material spread over an extremely wide area. And to make the launch somewhat econonomically feasible, you packed it to the max. Thankfully, it took off from Florida (which if we recall, is going to (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Global Warming (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
|
|
(...) packed (...) Which is worse, losing 3 dolphins or all of California? Mmmm, gotta get back to you on that one. ++Lar (25 years ago, 11-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Global Warming (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
|
|
That's assuming we'd use boosters, of course. I figure railguns would be more foolproof. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (25 years ago, 11-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Global Warming (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
|
|
(...) Rule Number 1: If you make something foolproof, they'll only go out and invent a better fool. :-) (Actually, until the working railgun exists, missles are the only option, and even getting teeny-tiny reactors for deep-space satellites takes an (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Global Warming (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
|
|
(...) Maybe we use too much energy then. We waste so much electricity. Many of the modern TV's use energy to keep the picture tube warm will it is off. I don't know how much this is but, since I began to unplug my television when I am not using it, (...) (25 years ago, 15-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
