Delbert

Irrelevant, chaos and madness. I was surprised you didn't mention smoking as a comparison. A number of individuals I know clearly died of problems caused by smoking - in including my father. And then there's alcohol! Taking your philosophy, such activities could well make just about any other dodgy human activity perfectly safe in comparison. You keep asking for figures, well I haven't any. Like a lot of things in life where we may not have 'figures', and can only make a judgement not to do it, keep clear or don't touch it with a barge pole. I for one wouldn't go anywhere near the Fukushima plant, let alone volunteer to sweep up the residue from the leaking storage tanks. As a general point, I can't reconcile your apparent view that nuclear power is quite safe, and at the same time we have this plant clearly still out of control. And probably will still be for a very long time. How many reactors was it that melted down? What on earth does one do with them? And then there's Chernobyl with the encasement apparently still a cause for concern. How many hundreds of years will they have to be encased and still giving problems? Again, those who like nuclear power should feel free to volunteer to help with the clear-up, if not being there and helping out at the beginning during the initial loss of control (even if it's only to make the coffee). If they wouldn't be prepared to do such, then as far as I'm concerned their argument falls. I seem to recall with Chernobyl some brave souls had to fly over the thing to dump covering material. I also recall reading they, and other workers at the site, died fairly soon afterwards. I'm sorry, figures or no figures, I think I'm expressing a valid viewpoint.

Presumably you know that for a fact. You presumably know for a fact there hasn't been any subsequent cancers that wouldn't have occurred without Sellafield. I suggest you don't know, and neither does anyone else. I'm sorry, but I find your certainty quite disturbing. Think I read this morning that the operators of Fukushima are saying some of the radiation doesn't penetrate and therefore not dangerous. Presumably they a referring to Alpha particles. And Alpha particles I suggest are extremely dangerous for at least one reason, if not a few more. The reason I refer is the reason they refer, i.e. they don't penetrate - not even tissue paper I understand. Sounds safe doesn't it. Presumably that's why that Russian died with it - because it's so safe. The poor penetration makes them almost if not totally undetectable with counters and the like. Like for example, on media reports showing white coated bods with geiger counters in polythene bags! They won't get through that. And even if they did they'd doubtless be stopped by the Geiger counter window. And even when in the body they wouldn't get through the surface of the skin - so don't even bother running counter over the body. But how does that make them dangerous once ingested? I suggest the reason is that whilst be in the body each particle will be banging away at the immediate surrounding cells. And with particles spread all over the body the whole body may be affected. Like that Russian who was poisoned with the stuff. And its invisibility to detectors was probably the reason they took so long to find the cause. I find said operator's statement quite disingenuous.

Presumably you're referring to your reference to the wildlife, like nature is doing some recycling. Well, from what I read a while ago there's numerous deformities, deformed amphibians, bent trees etc. The area unsafe to enter - possibly for ten of years if not hundreds. And that's the short term. I suggest we've no idea whatsoever of the long term effects. As for Fukushima, from what I keep reading and hearing from the media, it's worse and more precarious now than at the start. The unknown fragility of morphogenesis may be open to all sorts of influences that perhaps we can only imagine. A few brainless cells somehow manage to organise themselves to form a complex creature. Probably affected by the merest influence. And the affect of radiation on such is probably outside our understanding. Makes me recall the apparent fragility of the swans in my local area. Last year after hatching I watched them attempting to relocate the newly hatched cygnets to their safe night-time residence. Unfortunately their path was blocked by a coots nest. And being feisty, they forced the swans back to their incubation and daytime nest (they have two). The result was all eight cygnets were killed during the first and second night by something. But this year, the council in their infinite wisdom, cleaned out and removed the coot's nest, with the result that the swans could now take the cygnets to the night-time dormitory, resulting in five cygnets surviving to juveniles this year. So a coot's feistiness results in death. Like the swans, I'm also thinking of those cells during morphogenesis - the slightest influence and who knows what. So, the possibilities of what radiation might do must be too complex to imagine.

If I've understood all this correctly, it seems you're looking at the universe as a whole. And as such the total may well be the same as what I understand to be the total amount of energy in the universe adding up to zero. As for gravity, I'd have thought the gravity at any given point to be the sum of the gravity of the surrounding objects. We see this everyday with the tides; and doubtless, we'll be a tad lighter on a similar regular basis. But anything farther away past the solar system, the effect will be difficult to measure - if at all. So we experience the resulting effect. Then there's the quantum effect. Presumably at a sufficient distance from an object such that the gravitational force is less that a graviton, supposedly it must therefore be ineffective to the point of zero at other parts of the universe. So, objects at a vast enough distant won't be part of the calculation. The conclusion being that there's no universal total.

And I think the UK is also a member and has voted not to intervene. As for increased gas attacks if the west gets involved, what reason would they have to cease should the west stand back? There are dangers whichever action is taken. We have a long standing agreement about chemical weapons, but like all agreements, what does one do if someone disregards such an agreement. If nothing, then the agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on - in other words it's the same as no agreement. And those so disposed will take advantage. Yes, there's always the one little snag!

Nope. I'm sorry but locating something worse (assuming that's the case) is no answer to anything. Like, presumably if it's not worse than (say) Chernobyl, then everything's okay. That's a policy of descent to eventual chaos As I've said before (not here), if those that take such a viewpoint aren't willing to volunteer to help in some way to deal with any problem with such plants (even if it's just to make the coffee), in particular during the initial and subsequent emergency, then their argument in favour falls. For example, they could probably do with some help right now cleaning up the water leaking from the storage tanks. I suggest they grab their brooms and volunteer for that.

Apparently they are storing the cooling water in leaking tanks at or near the plant. Doubtless the leaking is bad enough, but lets hope there isn't another disturbance similar to the one that preceded the current situation, resulting in all that apparently highly radioactive water being dumped into and onto who knows where. Yes, you've guessed correctly, I'm of the view that nuclear power is the most dangerous method of power generation.

Perhaps we need a Gort.

Exactly. If the financial burden on business in one country is greater than another, it's the another that fairs better. And the financial burden runs through all activities, from simple parking rules, traffic jams, taxation and just about everything. And that doesn't include location. Like if you're on an island and you're exporting to a larger area across water, you have extra transport costs to include. And then there's the rest of the world. If they can make something for sixpence that costs Europe a shilling to make, then Europe goes out of business. Like, when I look around my local shops it appears a large quantity of the goods seem to have been made by the rest of the world. For the simple reason if we made the things, we wouldn't be able to afford them. And until such a situation is reversed, the European dream will be nothing more than a dream.

Exactly. Like that weed at the end of the garden, it's not much so I'll pull it out if it gets bigger. But six months later you've got a young tree that needs a spade. So, by the time you've bothered to go down shops and bought a spade... A neighbour of mine has a bloody great eucalyptus tree with a trunk the same diameter as my waist (yes, it's that big), which I recall about two years ago was a nice little sapling! I think worst should read: those of a different view. How does one resolve problems when there are those of a different view: introduce a simple majority voting system, mayhap? But I think we all know about things when the difference is one vote! But even with a large majority what does one do. Send the offender to Coventry? Possibly with the result that ten or so years later the situation is still the same, if not worse. Like all good ideas, it's what we do when the euphoria of a brave new world has died down and there's a problem. Sadly, at the end of the day it probably comes down to military action.

How else would you decide how a particular law affects us other than by construing the significance of, or clarifying the meaning, or to convey or represent the spirit or meaning (definition of interpret)? Spirit! Now there's another word for you to apply 'arbitrary' to. As for the legal redress and newspaper reporting what is called news, from what I saw on the televised news it wasn't a report, more like a clear accusation from a self constructed high altar of moral rectitude. On a different tack, and as I tried to infer, if the guy was carrying nothing more than newspaper articles or information appertaining to, or even personal items, I can't see what all the fuss and objections he had were all about. But if the authorities had exceeded there authority such for some legal reason he was outside their remit, perhaps it was because it might be the official secrets act only applies to those who have signed the thing. I'm not sure about that, so perhaps others know better. But if it is, then the conclusion might be that once documents escape and end up outside their control, there's a bit of a problem. If that's right then the law needs attention. But in the meantime, if the authorities simply let these things go (as seems to be the only conclusion if an arrest warrant was needed and wasn't obtained) and consequences followed, then clearly, they would be culpable. Possible and justifiable public outrage may even follow such consequences. Especially if loss of life was the result. If the authorities did go above the law, then the law is inadequate. But should state secrets be involved then I for one remain undisturbed if they acted outside it to secure them. On this point we clearly diverge.

Again, I think you are misreading my comments. I didn't say or infer not sticking to the law, I said stretching the rule of law. Perhaps I should've used something like interpreting the law to one's advantage or something like that. Again, I didn't say arbitrary justice. As I think we all know, the law is written down and as hard as they try it's effect isn't really known until it is tested in court. Interpretation was what I was hinting at. I'm sorry, but the intense and overweening protestations by the relevant newspaper seems to me to infer there's a hint of fertilizing underpants. If they take the view that what the authorities did was wrong, then just calmly, coolly and quietly set about taking the appropriate legal redress. Perhaps as we all know, the likely outcome of public protestations and statements is to weaken any future legal action or court case.

I'm not sure about that. For example, If I've a leak around the rear door of my estate car the air comes in with exhaust fumes. And by coming in would it not indicate a higher pressure and not lower as you say? Then there's this faster air stream at the rear you mention, since I'd have thought the fast air flow is the air going over the top centre of the vehicle - like the rounded top surface of an aircraft wing produces a lower pressure. In fact, I think if you go fast enough this lower pressure will lift you off the ground.

"They knew about his travel plans in advance. While he was on the flight in to the UK they would have had plenty of time to get a warrant. But, because they knew that their purpose was harassment, rather than law enforcement, they didn't do that." Presumably you know all this. As for the harassment bit, without support that is an outrageous statement. And unless you have inside knowledge or even evidence, I suggest it is withdrawn. "The custodians of the law were committing criminal acts..." Ditto above. "Lord Justice Beatson and Judge Kenneth Parker issued an injunction blocking the government from using or sharing material seized..." Well, if it isn't their material that's okay. But if it is the government's own classified material, I can't see it applies. It seems it probably just stops them using anything other than their own classified, or unclassified, material. On a general point, I for one have no problem with authorities acting in whatever way they need to protect the nation, its citizens at home and abroad, its agents and all those involved in obtaining information hazardous to its citizens. I'm not saying they do, but should they stretch the rule of law on occasions (I'm not saying that in this case), within limits, I've no problem with that. Maybe that's where we differ, so I'll leave it there.

As far as I understand he was changing planes. It seems to me that any court order would possibly have to be obtained at the speed of light. But read through what I said again. I didn't say 'valid' evidence. I said evidence to satisfy a brief. That's a mile away from 'valid' evidence. Gathering evidence presumably has to start somewhere, possibly following up suspicious activity. But if the consequences of that suspicious activity is subject to time (changing planes for example. Or a bomb likely to go off), then it seems to me that time is of the essence. From what I understand there was a suspicion of classified information in the wrong hands. And from what you appear to be saying I gather suspicion is no reason for apprehending an individual, whatever the criticality in time there may be. That's fair enough. And if that's the general view then that must be the path taken (I'm an advocate of democracy). But all I'd say, and heaven forbid, should there a be consequence involving damage or loss of life then I for one don't want to hear: why didn't they know about all this going on and did something about it? And regarding the current news event, I understand that according to latest media reports the custodians of the law are considering criminal acts. If that's the case (yes, I know news reports are only news reports), then the suspicions were correctly founded and the security of the nation was at risk.

So, presumably if you believe someone has possession of material that if not secured may well derange your activities in protecting the country and its citizens, but there's no evidence to satisfy a brief or arrest warrant or any other civil arrest process other than emergency authority offering you unlimited power, you'd say: hay-ho that's life, we can't do anything about it. I'm just trying to imagine the situation whereby someone is believed to have information about a suitcase nuclear weapon held somewhere in London (UK) and its timing. But no evidence sufficient to satisfy due legal process, you understand. Presumably the due process is to just forget about it. Ultimate power has to be available; if it's not we lay ourselves open who knows what. The only experience I've had is being apprehended by the constabulary. And quite right to, as my actions may well have given the impression I could have been up to no good. I just let them do their job, and the plain fact I was just going about my innocent business manifested itself in the fullness of time, and all was well. Was I annoyed? Certainly not. In fact quite the contrary, I was greatly reassured that the boys in blue were on-the-ball and keeping us all safe.

I haven't been following this business to much of a degree, but the essential point seems to me to be security and protection of the country and its citizens. If it is believed that someone is out there at liberty with information believed to be contrary to a country's wellbeing, then that information has to be secured with all speed. As I think we all know, any delay these days and information can be spread all over the world very quickly. It seems to me that if the authorities have reasonable suspicion of the release or otherwise of information that would derange their to the ability to protect the country and its citizens from acts of terrorism or even warfare, then its acquisition must be permitted. We might not like it, but protecting a nation and its citizens is doubtless not a polite armchair front room debating activity.

Sorry for my last abrupt reply as I was also dealing with three phone calls at the same time. Anyway, aerodynamics is doubtless a complex issue if not mysterious, but all I know is that when I raced motorcycles for a while I couldn't achieve quite as high revs with someone close behind as I could otherwise. And there's also what appears to me to be the physics of the situation; if the guy in front gains as well as the guy behind, who or what loses? There has to be loss somewhere as you can't get something for nothing. Or to put it another way, energy has to be obtained from somewhere if they both gain.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with that.

I don't think I said I was an advocate of the big bang. It's a conclusion from observation (microwave background and all that). But like all science it is possibly subject to modification with future findings. As for energy, I understand the total energy of the universe ads up to zero. I think we need to remember that we can't see the universe as it is today, all we can see is the past. I for one find it something difficult to get my head around. Like doubtless some of the distant stars we see in the night have perhaps exceeded their sell buy date and no longer there. So what would I see should I undertake a journey to one (forgetting I'd die on the journey!)? I'll stop there because it's doubtless off subject. As for the subject, we are travelling though time all the time. And we can alter that rate by being in a different place. Like the space station for example, whereby I understand time runs a tad faster. Apparently, if I stand on a ladder I'm ageing faster because I've moved into a slightly lower gravitational field. Even my head is ageing faster than my feet! Or if I go for a ride on my bike I'm ageing slower than someone who isn't. I suppose it all depends on how much time travel you want. Although going backwards in time I understand is a bit more difficult. That's right. And light is still travelling at light speed for us!

There is no such thing as an inertial observer. And no such thing as absolute speed. You cannot travel at the speed of light no matter at what rate and for how long you accelerate. For you the speed of light will still be the speed of light for you wherever you are and at whatever 'speed' you think you are doing. Like trying to locate the end of a rainbow, mayhap. The problem seems to be in trying to analyse the universe using Classical Physics. The universe doesn't conform to Classical Physics. It seems to me that if for some reason the universe really did conform to Classical Physics with inertial observers and absolute speeds, like one really could 'catch up' and travel with a beam of light, we really would have a very difficult - nay, impossible - job in explaining anything about the universe. Point relative to what? There's no point somewhere in the vast out-there where the universe started, like (say) the the location of an explosion. Time and space didn't exist before the big bang. It seems to me humankind has got a bit of a hang-up over reality and Classical Physics. Classical Physics do not apply to the universe. If you or me set off towards a black hole (think I've mentioned this elsewhere) whilst flashing a torch (say every second) back to those on Earth; and at the same time they similarly flashed a torch to us, we would see the frequency of their flashes increase as we neared the black hole. Whereas those on Earth would see the gap between our flashes get ever longer. In other words we would see Earth (and the rest of the universe) speeding up, but those back on Earth would see us slowing down. In other words wherever we are in the universe we'd feel normal, it would be the other party that was wrong. And vice versa. Or to put it another way, travelling towards the black hole we would travel into the future. And I think it can even be argued that should we get as far as approaching close to the event horizon (ignoring the crushing and stretching) we would approach far enough into the future to the end (end as in death) of the universe.

Think it's a matter of semantics what word is used. And as I mentioned, the turbulence as you call it is also changed for the vehicle in front, thus increasing drag on vehicle A. Haven't you ever noticed when being tailgated down a motorway a slight drag effect?

There is no such thing as absolute speed, only relative speed. Just ask yourself: what speed am I doing right now? I suggest you could come up with anything from zero to a cat's whisker from the speed of light - or possibly the speed of light! So you have your answer. Clark Maxwell's equations are based on physics, and nothing to do with what we might call absolute speed. There is nothing in Maxwell's equations that takes into consideration what speed you might be doing already. So whatever you do the speed of light will be the same for you - whether you say you're travelling near the speed of light or not. So, to say travelling near the speed of light - or even at the speed of light - is an irrelevance in terms of your physiology.

Worm holes and the like, why on earth would you need such things? As I understand time runs a tad faster in the space station (similar to GPS satellites) presumably every visiting astronaut has moved slightly backward it time compared to earthlings when he or she returns to Earth (I think I've got that the right way around! He experiences the Earth having aged less).

Was the phrase 'big bang' used by a physicist? It seems to me all we can see is that things are apparently moving apart. I also understand it has been shown that things are apparently moving apart faster now than previously. How do we know that? Because by looking far enough away we are looking at the very distant past. So, we look at the past which appears as a large shell surrounding us. And upon looking farther away we see further into the past, which is an even bigger shell surrounding us! So, would I be taking things too far by saying that the past universe looks - nay, is - much larger than the present? And would it be too much to say the younger it is the bigger it was? It seems to me we can't see the universe at all (as it is now), so how do we know what it's doing now?