John Williamson said:
> On 25/11/2021 20:26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> The thing is that there are places in France they could go, centres
>> in Calais and Dunkirk but instead they attempt to cross one of the busiest
>> sets of shipping lanes in the world to get to the UK. If all they wanted was
>> escape from war zones then they were already safe in France. According to
>> French reports it is human trafficking groups based in London that are
>> organising this madness and charging the victims a lot to get them to the
>> promised good life in the UK.
>>
> Another point is that, as I discovered when I was thinking of moving
> there, if you don't speak French well, you will find it hard to
> integrate and get a job in France. Most of the paperwork, for instance,
> is only available in French, and if you want to stay permanently or
> become a citizen, the interviews are in French with no interpreter
> allowed. (Anecdote. I was wandering round Lille a few years ago, and
> when I got into a conversation, the other person refused to believe I
> actually lived in London, so I could probably fit in after a few months.
> He kept asking me "What part of France are you *really* from? I have
> spent a lot of time in Paris and Normandy, so my accent is a touch
> eccentric. I might get away with it... )
>
> Most of the ones that are trying to get here speak their own language
> and English, but no French. A lot of them also have a family connection
> to the UK.

If I was a muslim woman who wanted to cover myself up, I think I'd have
even stronger opinions about that story from a few years ago about the
french coppers forcing people to undress in public at gunpoint.

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

Adrian said:
> In message <snohfk$jsr$1@dont-email.me>, soup <invalid@invalid.com>
> writes
>>So rather than the French blaming us for not helping the illegals over
>> the channel, why don't they stop the attempts?
>
> I suspect that it is because they don't want them there. Help them on
> their way to the mid point of the channel and it becomes a SEP.

It's an argument over who gets to be the Someone Else with the Problem,
isn't it ?

A sensible-looking suggestion from France in the Gruniada today - if the
UK sent some Authorities over to talk to people in France, they could
sort out the ones who would have been accepted if they'd crossed
legally; and then they could cross legally, with no more risk of
drowning than a roro ferry.

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

Tone said:
> On 25/11/2021 17:34, soup wrote:
>> On 24/11/2021 19:20, Tone wrote:
>>> mainly it would save lives.
>>
>> As would them staying in France or indeed whatever 'safe' country is
>> nearest to the country they fled from.
>>
>>   Where is the nearest 'safe' country to Afghanistan and Iraq?
>>
>> So rather than the French blaming us for not helping the illegals over
>>  the channel, why don't they stop the attempts?
>>
>>   Where are they getting these large(ish) dinghys from?
>>
>>   It can't be beyond the French authorities to find out who is
>> masterminding these attempts.
>>
>
> If they arrested all the people-traffickers overnight, would it stop the
> refugees from attempting the channel crossing?
>
> I doubt it.
>
> Whist I in no way condone people-trafficking, the problem is the
> suffering the refugees are subject to in their own countries.
>
> The solution is to give them safe passage.

I haven't met any such people, I don't know for sure where they all come
from. But the usual list seems to be composed of countries that "we"'ve
bombed in the recent past ...

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

John Williamson said:
> On 25/11/2021 20:16, Tone wrote:
>
>> Whist I in no way condone people-trafficking, the problem is the
>> suffering the refugees are subject to in their own countries.
>>
> True, no suffering, no refugees.
>
>> The solution is to give them safe passage.
>>
> One solution our Gibberment are looking into is allowing them to apply
> for asylum while en route, but the countries where it is most likely to
> happen are playing their sovereignty cards.
>
> To be honest, though, by comparison with most European contries, we are
> getting nowhere near as many as, say, Germany. In 2020, they had
> 1,210,636 new applicants, while we had 132,349 refugees, 77,245 pending
> asylum cases and 4662 stateless persons in the UK. For some reason, the
> media are not picking up on this.

I've heard this pointed out on the R4 news in the last day or 2.

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

Yemen, Iraq or Iran, Afghanistan, and some other African states like Sierra
Leon etc.
There are two types, economic migrants and those running away from
persecution.
A lot of the latter it seems are gay as its illegal in those countries
still, and the rest have some beef with the government or somebody powerful.
The economic ones tend to be willing to work hard as well, which is not to
say the others are not, but they follow the money, not just for their fear.

I can remember back in my youth being told that by the time I grew up there
would be a world Government where everyone was free. somehow nothing much
seems to have changed though does it?
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Richard Robinson" <richardR@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:fNednV_Q4eRYXz38nZ2dnUU78YWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> Tone said:
>> On 25/11/2021 17:34, soup wrote:
>>> On 24/11/2021 19:20, Tone wrote:
>>>> mainly it would save lives.
>>>
>>> As would them staying in France or indeed whatever 'safe' country is
>>> nearest to the country they fled from.
>>>
>>> Where is the nearest 'safe' country to Afghanistan and Iraq?
>>>
>>> So rather than the French blaming us for not helping the illegals over
>>> the channel, why don't they stop the attempts?
>>>
>>> Where are they getting these large(ish) dinghys from?
>>>
>>> It can't be beyond the French authorities to find out who is
>>> masterminding these attempts.
>>>
>>
>> If they arrested all the people-traffickers overnight, would it stop the
>> refugees from attempting the channel crossing?
>>
>> I doubt it.
>>
>> Whist I in no way condone people-trafficking, the problem is the
>> suffering the refugees are subject to in their own countries.
>>
>> The solution is to give them safe passage.
>
> I haven't met any such people, I don't know for sure where they all come
> from. But the usual list seems to be composed of countries that "we"'ve
> bombed in the recent past ...
>
>
> --
> Richard Robinson
> "The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem
>
> My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 11:47:38 -0000
"Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> I can remember back in my youth being told that by the time I grew up
> there would be a world Government where everyone was free.

I think that many thought it was that or we'd all be dead in the
aftermath of all out nuclear war. In 1980 I would not have bet on seeing
2000.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 19:02:28 +0000
Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> wrote:

> I suspect that it is because they don't want them there. Help them on
> their way to the mid point of the channel and it becomes a SEP.

This turns out not to be the case. According to the French. They
have places for them in Calais and Dunkirk but the refugee don't want to
stay in France they want to go to the UK - why this should be I don't know
but part of it seems to be that they paid someone a lot to get them to the
UK and got all sorts of promises about what would be waiting for them in the
UK.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 26/11/2021 12:50, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 11:47:38 -0000
> "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I can remember back in my youth being told that by the time I grew up
>> there would be a world Government where everyone was free.
>
> I think that many thought it was that or we'd all be dead in the
> aftermath of all out nuclear war. In 1980 I would not have bet on seeing
> 2000.
>

The mid 60s didn't look promising either.

Tone

Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 11:47:38 -0000
> "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I can remember back in my youth being told that by the time I grew up
>> there would be a world Government where everyone was free.
>
> I think that many thought it was that or we'd all be dead in the
> aftermath of all out nuclear war. In 1980 I would not have bet on seeing
> 2000.

Perhaps it's like civil nuclear fusion, always 20 years off ?

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

In article <tuydndIO9eI2cz38nZ2dnUU78UOdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Richard
Robinson <richardR@privacy.net> on Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 08:26:51 awoke
Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 11:47:38 -0000
>> "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I can remember back in my youth being told that by the time I grew up
>>> there would be a world Government where everyone was free.
>>
>> I think that many thought it was that or we'd all be dead in the
>> aftermath of all out nuclear war. In 1980 I would not have bet on seeing
>> 2000.
>
>Perhaps it's like civil nuclear fusion, always 20 years off ?
>
And meanwhile effective treatment of nuclear fission waste is millenia
away.
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

On 2021-11-25, Tone <email@address.com> wrote:
> On 25/11/2021 17:34, soup wrote:
>> On 24/11/2021 19:20, Tone wrote:
>>> mainly it would save lives.
>>
>> As would them staying in France or indeed whatever 'safe' country is
>> nearest to the country they fled from.
>>
>>   Where is the nearest 'safe' country to Afghanistan and Iraq?
>>
>> So rather than the French blaming us for not helping the illegals over
>>  the channel, why don't they stop the attempts?
>>
>>   Where are they getting these large(ish) dinghys from?
>>
>>   It can't be beyond the French authorities to find out who is
>> masterminding these attempts.
>>
>
> If they arrested all the people-traffickers overnight, would it stop the
> refugees from attempting the channel crossing?
>
> I doubt it.
>
> Whist I in no way condone people-trafficking, the problem is the
> suffering the refugees are subject to in their own countries.
>
> The solution is to give them safe passage.

For every problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious amd wrong.

H.L. Mencken

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com

On 2021-11-26, Nicholas D. Richards <nicholas@salmiron.com> wrote:
> In article <tuydndIO9eI2cz38nZ2dnUU78UOdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Richard
> Robinson <richardR@privacy.net> on Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 08:26:51 awoke
> Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>>Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
>>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 11:47:38 -0000
>>> "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can remember back in my youth being told that by the time I grew up
>>>> there would be a world Government where everyone was free.
>>>
>>> I think that many thought it was that or we'd all be dead in the
>>> aftermath of all out nuclear war. In 1980 I would not have bet on seeing
>>> 2000.
>>
>>Perhaps it's like civil nuclear fusion, always 20 years off ?
>>
> And meanwhile effective treatment of nuclear fission waste is millenia
> away.

That mostly depends on what you think effective means. Radioisptopes are
either highly radioactive or long-lived. None of them are highly radioactive
/and/ long-lived.

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com

On 26 Nov 2021 17:14:21 GMT
Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:

> That mostly depends on what you think effective means. Radioisptopes are
> either highly radioactive or long-lived. None of them are highly
> radioactive /and/ long-lived.

There was a proposal to use the highly radioactive ones in RTGs[235]
to run cars - I'm doubtful that it would generate enough power, most RTGs
are low power long life supplies but I could well be wrong. The argument was
that they'd be safer where they could be seen and checked in the annual
inspection than buried and forgotten.

[235] Radio Thermal Generators.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 25-Nov-21 20:38, John Williamson wrote:
> On 25/11/2021 20:16, Tone wrote:
>
>> Whist I in no way condone people-trafficking, the problem is the
>> suffering the refugees are subject to in their own countries.
>>
> True, no suffering, no refugees.
>
>> The solution is to give them safe passage.
>>
> One solution our Gibberment are looking into is allowing them to apply
> for asylum while en route, but the countries where it is most likely to
> happen are playing their sovereignty cards.

Arrange space for them at Calais & offer them HGV training (or Care Home
Nursing) whilst they wait.
Joined up thinking.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 26-Nov-21 12:50, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 11:47:38 -0000
> "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I can remember back in my youth being told that by the time I grew up
>> there would be a world Government where everyone was free.
>
> I think that many thought it was that or we'd all be dead in the
> aftermath of all out nuclear war. In 1980 I would not have bet on seeing
> 2000.
>
My thoughts went t'other way.
Alan Bennet's film "A Day Out" with a bicycle club outing in 1911.

There was some mention of the prospects of war.
A socialist said the working men of Europe could never be convinced to
fight each other, and so war was impossible.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 2021-11-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2021 17:14:21 GMT
> Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>
>> That mostly depends on what you think effective means. Radioisptopes are
>> either highly radioactive or long-lived. None of them are highly
>> radioactive /and/ long-lived.
>
> There was a proposal to use the highly radioactive ones in RTGs[235]
> to run cars - I'm doubtful that it would generate enough power, most RTGs
> are low power long life supplies but I could well be wrong. The argument was
> that they'd be safer where they could be seen and checked in the annual
> inspection than buried and forgotten.

Mavbe. It mystifies me why they don't use RTGs to power the cooling systems
in the storage ponds. Part of the problem in Fukushima was they lost power
to the cooling system when their connection to the grid went down.

>
> [235] Radio Thermal Generators.
>

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com

On 2021-11-26, Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> On 2021-11-25, Tone <email@address.com> wrote:
>> On 25/11/2021 17:34, soup wrote:
>>> On 24/11/2021 19:20, Tone wrote:
>>>> mainly it would save lives.
>>>
>>> As would them staying in France or indeed whatever 'safe' country is
>>> nearest to the country they fled from.
>>>
>>>   Where is the nearest 'safe' country to Afghanistan and Iraq?
>>>
>>> So rather than the French blaming us for not helping the illegals over
>>>  the channel, why don't they stop the attempts?
>>>
>>>   Where are they getting these large(ish) dinghys from?
>>>
>>>   It can't be beyond the French authorities to find out who is
>>> masterminding these attempts.
>>>
>>
>> If they arrested all the people-traffickers overnight, would it stop the
>> refugees from attempting the channel crossing?
>>
>> I doubt it.
>>
>> Whist I in no way condone people-trafficking, the problem is the
>> suffering the refugees are subject to in their own countries.
>>
>> The solution is to give them safe passage.
>
> For every problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious amd wrong.
>
> H.L. Mencken
>
>
>
>

For every problem there are many solutions that simple, obvious amd wrong.
Me.

Remember the fifties, when there were many print stories about children
who were accidentally blasted with radioactivity, and gained super
powere?.

I read a book once about the people who were experimenting on powering
planes with nuclear? Most woukld be better kept in Loony Bins.

Or the people who are hoping to power spaceships with nuclear
explosions?

There is a story that the Soviets had a plan to dig a canal to bring
water from North flowing rivers to restore water to the caspian?.. It
sounded crazy, and was crazy, the water flowing through such a can would
be highly radioactive.

Well, Cheer up, there are still people crazy enough to propose that,
i.e, the Israelis, who want to blast a channel from Aquaba to Gaza.

--
greymausg@mail.com
That's not a mousehole!

On 27 Nov 2021 11:22:10 GMT
Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> wrote:

> For every problem there are many solutions that simple, obvious amd
> wrong. Me.
>
> Remember the fifties, when there were many print stories about children
> who were accidentally blasted with radioactivity, and gained super
> powere?.

In the 1930s "radium salts" was marketed as a wonder drug by
Buxton but it wasn't radioactive and it didn't contain any radium it just
took advantage of a popular belief that radiation was good for you - a
belief that still lives in the minds of tanning booth customers.

> I read a book once about the people who were experimenting on powering
> planes with nuclear? Most woukld be better kept in Loony Bins.

Yep there was a widespread assumption in the 50s that nuclear power
was the answer to all our power problems. There are many who argue that the
pebble bed designs or some other design inherently incapable of melting
down or exploding could be. Unfortunately almost all the research money went
on reactors capable of making plutonium for bombs. I am still astonished
that none of the liquid sodium/steam heat exchangers have never blown
themselves to pieces spraying radioactive sodium hydroxide all over the
place.

> Or the people who are hoping to power spaceships with nuclear
> explosions?

The Orion project run by Freeman Dyson (who died last year). There
was a test vehicle lifted with conventional explosions that worked. The
details of the tiny nuclear explosives designed for it are still classified
because nobody wants nuclear shells in big guns.

There were careful calculations showing that they could run several
launches a year with less effect on the background radiation than the above
ground tests that were going on regularly at the time. The test ban is
probably the only reason the first moon landing wasn't done with an Orion
taking a large team with a lot of equipment.

It's probably still the best design we have for a practical
interplanetary transport - just make sure the exhaust points away from any
biosphere. The Nerva designs (reactor heating reaction mass and throwing
it out the back under pressure) are probably the second best, the big
problem with Nerva is launching it on a chemical rocket and risking it
being blown across the landscape in a launch failure. Chemical rockets are
a distant third place design - but they're less scary.

> There is a story that the Soviets had a plan to dig a canal to bring
> water from North flowing rivers to restore water to the caspian?.. It
> sounded crazy, and was crazy, the water flowing through such a can would
> be highly radioactive.

Probably not for long it would dump the radioactive salts from the
bed into the Caspian pretty quickly (swimming there or eating fish from
it might be iffy afterwards), they could also do what they did in Chernobyl
and clear the radioactive rubble with bulldozers once the nukes had done the
heavy lifting - that would be a great job for self driving bulldozers.

> Well, Cheer up, there are still people crazy enough to propose that,
> i.e, the Israelis, who want to blast a channel from Aquaba to Gaza.

Yep, the use of demolition nukes in civil engineering has tempted
many. The only thing is that most of the "clean" demolition designs have
never been tested because that's banned so we don't really know if they're
as clean as the designers think. That's enough to stop most people wanting
to find out.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 2021-11-27, Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> wrote:
>
> I read a book once about the people who were experimenting on powering
> planes with nuclear? Most woukld be better kept in Loony Bins.

There are Russian planes in use as mobile nuclear generating stations.

>
> Or the people who are hoping to power spaceships with nuclear
> explosions?

Project Orion. It's still under development. The latest version plans to
use laser-ignited fusion pellets about the size of a grain of rice. It
requires helium-3 that would have to be mined on the moon.

>
> There is a story that the Soviets had a plan to dig a canal to bring
> water from North flowing rivers to restore water to the caspian?.. It
> sounded crazy, and was crazy, the water flowing through such a can would
> be highly radioactive.

Project Plowshare was the American equivalent. How much radiation there was
would be very dependent on the type of bomb used. Done properly the
radiation leakage would be insignificant.

>
> Well, Cheer up, there are still people crazy enough to propose that,
> i.e, the Israelis, who want to blast a channel from Aquaba to Gaza.

It's viable. The main problem with nuclear power is the fear it induces.

In general fear is inversely proportional to risk.

One of my favourite science books is "Living With Risk" published by the BMA
in 1990. If more people had read it the antivaxx movement wouldn't have
started. The world would be a much saner and happier place.

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com

On 27 Nov 2021 16:02:02 GMT
Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:

> Project Orion. It's still under development. The latest version plans to

That I did not know, I always thought it had been abandoned.

> use laser-ignited fusion pellets about the size of a grain of rice. It
> requires helium-3 that would have to be mined on the moon.

Looking around it seems there are quite a number of variations on
the theme that have or are being looked at. The mini-mag design looks very
interesting - to quote

----
Due to the magnetic compression thrust technology, spacecraft could be
smaller and lighter. The spacecraft itself would only need to carry a
relatively small amount of fissionable material as fuel, and would be able
to reach speeds of approximately 10% of the speed of light.
----

Now that is what I call a good spec for a spaceship drive, they've
even be working out how to go interstellar, the plan seems not much more
difficult than a starwhisp program - not that we could manage one yet.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

Bernard Peek said:
> On 2021-11-26, Nicholas D. Richards <nicholas@salmiron.com> wrote:
>> In article <tuydndIO9eI2cz38nZ2dnUU78UOdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Richard
>> Robinson <richardR@privacy.net> on Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 08:26:51 awoke
>> Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>>>Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
>>>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 11:47:38 -0000
>>>> "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I can remember back in my youth being told that by the time I grew up
>>>>> there would be a world Government where everyone was free.
>>>>
>>>> I think that many thought it was that or we'd all be dead in the
>>>> aftermath of all out nuclear war. In 1980 I would not have bet on seeing
>>>> 2000.
>>>
>>>Perhaps it's like civil nuclear fusion, always 20 years off ?
>>>
>> And meanwhile effective treatment of nuclear fission waste is millenia
>> away.
>
> That mostly depends on what you think effective means. Radioisptopes are
> either highly radioactive or long-lived. None of them are highly radioactive
> /and/ long-lived.

Is plutonium mis-named, then ?

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

Bernard Peek said:
> On 2021-11-25, Tone <email@address.com> wrote:
>> On 25/11/2021 17:34, soup wrote:
>>> On 24/11/2021 19:20, Tone wrote:
>>>> mainly it would save lives.
>>>
>>> As would them staying in France or indeed whatever 'safe' country is
>>> nearest to the country they fled from.
>>>
>>>   Where is the nearest 'safe' country to Afghanistan and Iraq?
>>>
>>> So rather than the French blaming us for not helping the illegals over
>>>  the channel, why don't they stop the attempts?
>>>
>>>   Where are they getting these large(ish) dinghys from?
>>>
>>>   It can't be beyond the French authorities to find out who is
>>> masterminding these attempts.
>>>
>>
>> If they arrested all the people-traffickers overnight, would it stop the
>> refugees from attempting the channel crossing?
>>
>> I doubt it.
>>
>> Whist I in no way condone people-trafficking, the problem is the
>> suffering the refugees are subject to in their own countries.
>>
>> The solution is to give them safe passage.
>
> For every problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious amd wrong.
>
> H.L. Mencken

This doesn't preclude the possibilty of a solution that is simple,
obvious and not necessarily wrong..

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On 2021-11-27, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2021 16:02:02 GMT
> Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>
>> Project Orion. It's still under development. The latest version plans to
>
> That I did not know, I always thought it had been abandoned.

It has been. Several times so far.

>
>> use laser-ignited fusion pellets about the size of a grain of rice. It
>> requires helium-3 that would have to be mined on the moon.
>
> Looking around it seems there are quite a number of variations on
> the theme that have or are being looked at. The mini-mag design looks very
> interesting - to quote
>
> ----
> Due to the magnetic compression thrust technology, spacecraft could be
> smaller and lighter. The spacecraft itself would only need to carry a
> relatively small amount of fissionable material as fuel, and would be able
> to reach speeds of approximately 10% of the speed of light.

Yes. But not with enough oomph left to slow down at the other end. All of
the interstellar plans that I've seen involve taking a lot of pictures in
the two or three seconds that you are close enough to get a look at a
planet.

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com

On 27-Nov-21 11:22, Maus wrote:

> Remember the fifties, when there were many print stories about children
> who were accidentally blasted with radioactivity, and gained super
> powere?.
>
> I read a book once about the people who were experimenting on powering
> planes with nuclear? Most woukld be better kept in Loony Bins.
>
> Or the people who are hoping to power spaceships with nuclear
> explosions?
>
> There is a story that the Soviets had a plan to dig a canal to bring
> water from North flowing rivers to restore water to the caspian?.. It
> sounded crazy, and was crazy, the water flowing through such a can would
> be highly radioactive.
>
> Well, Cheer up, there are still people crazy enough to propose that,
> i.e, the Israelis, who want to blast a channel from Aquaba to Gaza.

Pah! You make it sound as though the nuclear-powered heart pacemaker
was a bad idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacel

--
Sam Plusnet

On 2021-11-27, Richard Robinson <richardR@privacy.net> wrote:
> Bernard Peek said:
>> On 2021-11-26, Nicholas D. Richards <nicholas@salmiron.com> wrote:
>>> In article <tuydndIO9eI2cz38nZ2dnUU78UOdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Richard
>>> Robinson <richardR@privacy.net> on Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 08:26:51 awoke
>>> Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>>>>Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 11:47:38 -0000
>>>>> "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I can remember back in my youth being told that by the time I grew up
>>>>>> there would be a world Government where everyone was free.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that many thought it was that or we'd all be dead in the
>>>>> aftermath of all out nuclear war. In 1980 I would not have bet on seeing
>>>>> 2000.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps it's like civil nuclear fusion, always 20 years off ?
>>>>
>>> And meanwhile effective treatment of nuclear fission waste is millenia
>>> away.
>>
>> That mostly depends on what you think effective means. Radioisptopes are
>> either highly radioactive or long-lived. None of them are highly radioactive
>> /and/ long-lived.
>
> Is plutonium mis-named, then ?

There are several different isotopes pf plutonium. Pu-239 is the one they
use in bombs. Half-life abput 25K years. It's very toxic though so avoid
eating it.

The highly radioactive stuff is waste containing fission-products. There are
lots of different ones. On average the radioactivity of spent fuel-rods from
reactors falls by half every 20 years or so.

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com