From: bugbear on 9 Jul 2010 06:54
Albert T Cone wrote:
> boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote:
>> Chernobyl is the worst case. Its very hard to make something that'll
>> go off
>> in a thermonuclear explosion which is why north korea took so long to
>> do it
>> and Iran still hasn't managed. If all it took was sticking a load of
>> uranium in a large lump then Luxembourg would probably have nukes by
>> now, never mind all of the middle east.
> That is all it takes
IIRC, you have to make the lump before
the lump has time to explode, which adds
a bit of difficulty.
From: Mrcheerful on 9 Jul 2010 08:13
> Albert T Cone wrote:
>> boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote:
>>> Chernobyl is the worst case. Its very hard to make something that'll
>>> go off
>>> in a thermonuclear explosion which is why north korea took so long
>>> to do it
>>> and Iran still hasn't managed. If all it took was sticking a load of
>>> uranium in a large lump then Luxembourg would probably have nukes by
>>> now, never mind all of the middle east.
>> That is all it takes
> IIRC, you have to make the lump before
> the lump has time to explode, which adds
> a bit of difficulty.
interesting type of nuclear power generation was the 'pacer' type, literally
have a big cave full of sodium, insert a small thermonuclear device, explode
it, the sodium melts and is then used for steam generation which runs
generators. repeat every so many hours. happily the project did not get
too far, but did give rise to some other ideas, like nuclear mining for
certain ores, again happily not done.
From: JNugent on 9 Jul 2010 10:58
> JNugent <jenningsltd(a)fastmail.fm> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>> The Bristol area is a bit smaller, as is Tyneside, and there is the
>> Solent area to take into account, but larger conurbation totals (rounded
>> to a half million) are probably something like...
> If you're taking "larger conurbation", then London is going to be
> considerably higher. That 7m is the London Boroughs - so "London proper".
I think the population of so-called "Greater London" (from Hounslow to
Dagenham W-E and from Barnet to Croydon N-S), bordered by Kent, Surrey,
Bucks, Herts and Essex, is about the 7,000,000+ you quoted. No question about
The same area (more or less) used to be quoted as nearly ten million (back in
the late 1940s), but that was back before the days of the satellite new
towns, general drift out into the Home Counties and other push factors.
Using an expression like "London" is fine, as long as it is realised that the
only "London" that contains seven million odd is the whole thing*, and that
it has logically to be compared with the entirety of each of the major
metropolitan areas rather than with just the city at the heart of each of them.
[*No London Borough has a population anything like as big as the City of
Birmingham, for instance.]
From: Mrcheerful on 9 Jul 2010 11:52
Mike P wrote:
> Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 09:08:15 +0100, Brimstone wrote:
>>> You've missed Catford. One, at least, of its residents is there by
>> I've been there, I wouldn't want to live there and I suspect 75% of
>> the population would swap for a semi-D further out.
> You missed the "99." before the 75% off...
> It's a hole, I was there by accident about a month ago. That'll teach
> me to drive in bits of London I don't know without an A-Z..
if I ever drive through there I will keep an eye out for illegal electric
bikes to ram.
From: Nick Finnigan on 9 Jul 2010 12:32
Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:49:56 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:
>> Not when you consider non-greenness of the increased number of ships /
>> airships /crew /accommodation needed to travel slowly.
> surely having more ships etc is greener than having aeroplanes?
Find some figures to support your dismissal of those already posted.
>Nothing is less green than aeroplanes.
Plenty is less green than aeroplanes. Especially steam trains.