Hello neighbor.
I worked at that hardware store for, like, 100 years.
I would normally be jealous of your setup, but I just got a house with a basement and am in the middle of a transition of my own. I will share when it’s complete.
One thing I know - you will all envy my drill press.
Can we mix nuc waste with concrete to immobilize it and then bury it? Iunno, maybe there’s lead shieldin in the mix, too?
It’s called Pondcrete and they did that at the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Manufacturing Plant in the 1970’s. Pulled this from Wikipedia, although I really, really recommend the book “Making a Real Killing” by Len Ackland if you wanna hear about some fucked up nuclear shit. Remember my statistic on deaths in the U.S. from radiation at power plants? NOT accurate for nuclear weapons manufacturing.
“Rockwell workers mixed hazardous and other wastes with concrete to create one-ton solid blocks called pondcrete. These were stored in the open under tarps on asphalt pads. The pondcrete turned out to be weak storage, an outcome that had been predicted by Rockwell’s own engineers. Relatively unprotected from the elements, the blocks began to leak and sag. Nitrates, cadmium and low-level radioactive waste began to leach into the ground and run downhill toward Walnut Creek and Woman Creek.”
Most nuclear waste is stored submerged in water on-site. Like giant, nuclear swimming pools.
[quote=crowding]Recently moved up to Maple Leaf. New place has a real detached garage to settle into.
[/quote]
I don’t want to alarm you, but I think you might have a ghost in the right back corner of your garage.
What do you think heated floors are made of?
What do you think heated floors are made of?[/quote]
Money
What do you think heated floors are made of?[/quote]
Money[/quote]
Accurate.
Same. Modernity is too fragile, too new…and we’re creating a problem that will hang around about as long that civilization itself has existed. We can barely hold our shit together now.
Sum up the number of people killed by nuclear 1950-2016, including the tens of thousands killed by Chernobyl, and calculate how much energy nuclear power plants generated around the world. Then calculate the emissions and mining deaths and such like that would have come from generating the same amount of energy using coal. coal would have killed more. In fact coal kills 10,000+ people in the US… EACH YEAR. It just doesn’t sound as weird and scary.
http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v314/n4/full/scientificamerican0416-11.html?WT.ec_id=SCIENTIFICAMERICAN-201604&spMailingID=50966854&spUserID=ODkwMTM2NjQyNAS2&spJobID=882710922&spReportId=ODgyNzEwOTIyS0
[quote=crowding]Recently moved up to Maple Leaf. New place has a real detached garage to settle into.
[/quote]
KLR with a milk crate? 
Sum up the number of people killed by nuclear 1950-2016, including the tens of thousands killed by Chernobyl, and calculate how much energy nuclear power plants generated around the world. Then calculate the emissions and mining deaths and such like that would have come from generating the same amount of energy using coal. coal would have killed more. In fact coal kills 10,000+ people in the US… EACH YEAR. It just doesn’t sound as weird and scary.
http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v314/n4/full/scientificamerican0416-11.html?WT.ec_id=SCIENTIFICAMERICAN-201604&spMailingID=50966854&spUserID=ODkwMTM2NjQyNAS2&spJobID=882710922&spReportId=ODgyNzEwOTIyS0
You can even figure in nuclear weapons and coal still wins. Especially if you are talking internationally.
Sum up the number of people killed by nuclear 1950-2016, including the tens of thousands killed by Chernobyl, and calculate how much energy nuclear power plants generated around the world. Then calculate the emissions and mining deaths and such like that would have come from generating the same amount of energy using coal. coal would have killed more. In fact coal kills 10,000+ people in the US… EACH YEAR. It just doesn’t sound as weird and scary.
http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v314/n4/full/scientificamerican0416-11.html?WT.ec_id=SCIENTIFICAMERICAN-201604&spMailingID=50966854&spUserID=ODkwMTM2NjQyNAS2&spJobID=882710922&spReportId=ODgyNzEwOTIyS0
That’s the thing that I don’t get. The damage from burning carbon for energy is so evident now that we are facing the largest mass extinction in 75,000,000 years because we loved it so much. With nuclear, there’s a chance we destroy the world, but if we stick with it, we’ll keep getting better. If we keep burning carbon, we kill most life on earth. I get that there are third paths, but can someone explain why nuclear isn’t considered more strongly, in light of the melting of Greenland?
Because human psychology is biased to visible threats. 400,000 years of dodging lions will do that to your brain.
Serious question have you ever seen smog and / or smokestacks
Serious question have you ever seen smog and / or smokestacks[/quote]
If you were right, we would have already solved the problem
We’re still boiling water. Definitely not ready.
Serious question have you ever seen smog and / or smokestacks[/quote]
If you were right, we would have already solved the problem[/quote]
there’s not a “we” with consistent motives, hence the pickle we’re in.
Not really my bike mess, which is actually pretty tidy, but here is my recently assembled workbench. Still missing some essential tools, because most everything I have lives in my rollaway, which I don’t keep in my basement.
