What Ever Happened To.........

[mmhmm]

You're very welcome, frankq!

[moon/Laura]

Feb 23, 2013 9:24:27 GMT -5 frankq said:

Could we unlock this thread to Decoy so that he can respond? I makes thinks easier for sure. You can keep me off his threads. Thanks.

i have removed the restriction on decoy for this thread.

[frankq]

Thank you.

[sunrnr]

Very nice, Decoy.  

I've been watching the Hanford thing, as well.  Not a pretty story, is it?

mmhmm, this is not a new thing. T-101 thru T-112 were built as single wall tanks by design back in the 40's to contain the liquid wastes generated from enriching the uranium used in the two Japan bombs. The design was based on the fact the bottoms of the tanks would eventually erode and leak. The thought was the radioactive isotopes would leach into and be held by the underlying sediments. This has been going on for some time.

However, the original design philosophy was forgotten, so when T-106 was discovered to have leaked a significant volume into the underlying strata in the 60's, people were not happy at all. What happened was the cesium-137 and strontium-90 isotopes turned out have reached the underlying aquifer and into the Columbia River. Elevated levels of both were detected downstream as well as in the milk from dairies on the river.

In the 70's they starting building huge double wall tanks and transferring the materials from the single wall tanks to them. Unfortunately, these tanks also started developing problems. The proposed solutions have included solidifying the material in-situ in the tanks. Transfer of the solidified material to basalt dome storage at Yucca Mountain was the final solution, something that ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes.

Bottomline, the leaking sounds apocalyptic but it's not. The amounts of wastes leaching into the environment are in the hundreds of gallons and won't really go anywhere. The mitigation process will most likely potentially release considerably more.

[mmhmm]

Oh, make no mistake, sunrnr, I don't believe this to be an end of the world scenario.  It's certainly, however, not ideal.  While certain problems are inevitable at our current level of technology (and willingness and ability to allocate funds), I can understand why some would be upset by what's happening, and why they feel something should be done.  Something SHOULD be done.  What?  Well, that's the sticky wicket, ain't it?

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Feb 23, 2013 19:11:03 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Oh, make no mistake, sunrnr, I don't believe this to be an end of the world scenario.  It's certainly, however, not ideal.  While certain problems are inevitable at our current level of technology (and willingness and ability to allocate funds), I can understand why some would be upset by what's happening, and why they feel something should be done.  Something SHOULD be done.  What?  Well, that's the sticky wicket, ain't it?

 I agree mmhmm, however, I am wondering what the topic has to with the markets or investing?  I see from sun's post that the companies that make the tanks are going to see in influx of business.  Looking through the origins of the discussion between you and sun mmhmm, I see two or three more COC violations that you had to deal with, a lot of speculation about, I'm not sure, but I don't see any real talk on how this relates to the markets.  Almost seems like an "everything else" topic, I guess we will see if this leak affects the markets or company earnings.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Feb 23, 2013 9:15:22 GMT -5 frankq said:

From the Gold thread........

Yes the old audits can certainly get the sparks flying!


Why without a 'Hands On' and shhh....listen....they are going to tell us how much there is,how many are actually in belief of such?


Here is a great old piece of homework and the naysayers to the realists should get a great deal from as so much more is now known.


That interest rate part is a real screamer when you start adding in the ingreadiants such as Big 'D' and LIBOR,


www.goldensextant.com/commentary18.html

So, I read through a lot of this, not exactly a short synopsis, and I can't seem to find anything in here that speaks of how much physical gold we have and where it is stored and in what proportions. In fact, I'm not seeing anything in here quantifying Treasury's holdings or even speaking about them directly. There is a lot of talk of foreign exchanging and market influences pertaining to values and such, but nothing I can find that speaks to the subject at hand. Since I assume that you have studied the material better than I, could you point out where this "commentary" shows us that the audit is incorrect and provides the necessary backup information supporting said claim? Thank you.

In addition, could you please answer the question posed in post #453? Thanks.

I was wondering the same thing. Great point Q, looks like we are still waiting for an answer as to why all the deception regarding the audit. Seems like it has something to do with, whatever happen to...... "There really is no gold stored in the USA, it's all a conspiracy"...

[sunrnr]

Feb 23, 2013 21:01:57 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Feb 23, 2013 19:11:03 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Oh, make no mistake, sunrnr, I don't believe this to be an end of the world scenario.  It's certainly, however, not ideal.  While certain problems are inevitable at our current level of technology (and willingness and ability to allocate funds), I can understand why some would be upset by what's happening, and why they feel something should be done.  Something SHOULD be done.  What?  Well, that's the sticky wicket, ain't it?

 I agree mmhmm, however, I am wondering what the topic has to with the markets or investing?  I see from sun's post that the companies that make the tanks are going to see in influx of business.  Looking through the origins of the discussion between you and sun mmhmm, I see two or three more COC violations that you had to deal with, a lot of speculation about, I'm not sure, but I don't see any real talk on how this relates to the markets.  Almost seems like an "everything else" topic, I guess we will see if this leak affects the markets or company earnings.

I've always wondered why Decoy isn't moved to a more suitable forum (or one made for him) rather than MT. The few things I seem to understand from his posts often have nothing to do with markets, etc.

[sunrnr]

Feb 23, 2013 19:11:03 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Oh, make no mistake, sunrnr, I don't believe this to be an end of the world scenario.  It's certainly, however, not ideal.  While certain problems are inevitable at our current level of technology (and willingness and ability to allocate funds), I can understand why some would be upset by what's happening, and why they feel something should be done.  Something SHOULD be done.  What?  Well, that's the sticky wicket, ain't it?

I actually worked there for several years on the development of the original tank monitoring computer system as well as research projects on the migration means of radionuclides into the environment at Hanford. I could share some truly scary stories of "the good old days", but then I'd have to take you out into the desert for a one way scenic trip.

Many mistakes were made in the early days of nuclear energy.

[mmhmm]

LOL, sunrnr!  A trip to the desert suddenly doesn't sound as fetching as it might have before! 

Sounds like an interesting experience.  I'll bet you do have stories tucked away!  I believe, in any technological pursuit, there are things that aren't clear in the beginning.  They later become more clear, sometimes for the good of all, and sometimes not so much.  Yet, without striving, we go nowhere; so, strive, we do.  In this case, hopefully we're striving toward some sort of solution ... or will do.

[decoy409]

Not sure where you got the math from as to a few hundred gallons. A few hundred gallons?


excerpt - 200 square miles of contaminated groundwater beneath the site.....


I can pour a few hundred gallons in daily switching of the minnow tanks at one of the bait stores this way. A couple of hundred square miles is certainly more than a few hundred gallons,wouldent you agree?


And what does that have to do with the market? Funny you should ask as when we go cross the country and the world and we see these types of things 'all over' with puny fines yet so many clamoring about the great profits from them..... well that's to be desired.


It's simply,and has been,time to unlock the PATENT issue as was discussed back at The POST and allowing FREE ENTERPRISE to step forth that has been wallowing.


What does it have to do with the markets was the question!   Perhaps as mmhmm directs to not speak in riddles and to simply step up is all good after all!


Thanks mmhmm!

[decoy409]

But all the same,these are the types of things as explained above in that small example that we follow and discuss at The POST.

No foul.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

No decoy it's not clear at all. I asked what effect this nuclear leak was going to have on the markets and this is the response that you give...

And what does that have to do with the market? Funny you should ask as when we go cross the country and the world and we see these types of things 'all over' with puny fines yet so many clamoring about the great profits from them..... well that's to be desired.


It's simply,and has been,time to unlock the PATENT issue as was discussed back at The POST and allowing FREE ENTERPRISE to step forth that has been wallowing.


What does it have to do with the markets was the question!   Perhaps as mmhmm directs to not speak in riddles and to simply step up is all good after all!

 So are you saying that the company that had the issues is going to have to pay for it and fix the problem?  So it will affect earnings? Who's patent? GE's? I remember at one time you were talking about GE and nuclear.  Are you trying to guilt people because they own stocks in these companies?  And what about that link you provided that proves there is tons of gold in the USA and it's some of the purest gold in the world, you know the one that you are know claiming is like believing in Santa Clause?  Sorry for all the questions just a little confused as to the point.

 I believe, in any technological pursuit, there are things that aren't clear in the beginning.  They later become more clear, sometimes for the good of all, and sometimes not so much.  Yet, without striving, we go nowhere; so, strive, we do.

Well said mmhmm, I couldn't agree more!  If only we had 20/20 forward vision, like we have 20/20 looking back.    I know it's a off topic for here, but that's my answer for the "God Test".  We plan, try to control, and act like we know exactly what is going to happen, yet everyday things happen that are out of our control and not what we planed on; and "someone" or "something" is making that happen. 

[sunrnr]

A, to believe GE is somehow responsible for the cleanup because they just happen to be the current managing contractor is seriously flawed. The problem falls directly on the Government's (meaning us taxpayers) head, not any of the contractors that have managed the site since the early 60's.
Mitigation has been done for many years since T-106 was discovered to have leaked hundreds of thousands of gallons into the underlying sediments and ground water.

In the early days, little was understood about the radionuclides being generated in the original uranium enrichment and plutonium development processes. Even less was understood about the millions of gallons of nuclear liquid and solid wastes generated from the decommissioning and decontamination efforts from the 50's on. Inadequate documentation was maintained in the early days as to where wastes went, how they got there or what they were. Since then, much effort has been put into determining what was where, how it got there and how much is left. I know because I was personally involved in some of those efforts.

What's being posted now is simply another example of MSM et-all hysterical journalism. Obviously, it's a huge problem and one that will not be adequately mitigated in any of our life times.

What all this has to do with markets? I haven't a clue.

Carry on, dude!

[texasredneck]

Sunrnr I believe you answerwd your on question.

In the short run will not cause the market to go up or go down.

In the long run taxpayer clean up of nuclear waste, oil spills, of decaying infastructure. of social security. of medicare, of medicade, etc. means the tax payer after taxes can not even buy beans. No money for investment means market goes down.

[frankq]

means the tax payer after taxes can not even buy beans. No money for investment means market goes down.

Well, anyone that has been betting on that scenario has ended up on the short end of the stick. The world has been set up to do business. The world is a Capitalist entity. Rumors of the death of the markets has been greatly exaggerated....

[texasredneck]

Best I remember we had capitalism in 1929.

But as far as its your money were talking about "who cares".

[frankq]

Yeah, and people who got super rich were buyers in 1929. Everyone has an investing strategy. Good luck with yours.

But as far as its your money were talking about "who cares".

You lost me on this one ...

[texasredneck]

The people who got super rich during the depresson were already rich. Those buying in 1929 did not see the bottom until 1935 if they held on that long.

Frankq I just ment that you could invest your money as you see fit. Good luck with that.

[frankq]

Good luck to us all..

[sunrnr]

Ok, after that little flurry of posts, the term non sequitur comes to mind ..... 

[sunrnr]

Feb 24, 2013 11:29:14 GMT -5 texasredneck said:

Sunrnr I believe you answerwd your on question.

In the short run will not cause the market to go up or go down.

In the long run taxpayer clean up of nuclear waste, oil spills, of decaying infastructure. of social security. of medicare, of medicade, etc. means the tax payer after taxes can not even buy beans. No money for investment means market goes down.

That would be true if the average taxpayer was the driving force of investment in the markets. They aren't. The investments come from entities far removed from those that would be burdened with any of the above list. I still don't see any direct connection to the markets with any of the above, sorry.

[mmhmm]

Just want to interject how much I LOVE you guys! 

[sunrnr]

Feb 25, 2013 10:48:14 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Just want to interject how much I LOVE you guys! 

Ahhhh, shucks! Same to you.

Only I must admit you are second in line to Moon, my favorite. 

Thanks to you both for the courageous attempt at herding cats ...

[mmhmm]

LOL, sunrnr.  Moon's one of my favorite folks, so I'm honored to be in the same ballpark!  As to herding cats, we're both mothers.  Need I say more? 

[sunrnr]

Oh, by the way, BELATED HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

[mmhmm]

Thanks, sweetie!  We had a quiet day.  I rather like uneventful! 

[frankq]

Happy Birthday mm.....

[mmhmm]

Thanks, frankq!  It was a nice, quiet day ... just the way I like 'em these days! 

[frankq]

Oh they are recovering alright. That would be whoever is pushing the ridiculous such NEWS. Recoverying from last nights hangover perhaps. Pretty neat how the spin alleviates away from the FACTS at hand.

Could you be more specific? Thanks.

Any chance that you can address the questions asked of you previously in this thread? Maybe if you could clear that stuff up we could understand more clearly the point you are trying to make. Thanks.