Yes but increased the price of Pepsi Max buy 80c for a 2L..
..... Funny, same week Woolies price went up the same 80c... But wait Aldi has it for $2.20 but only for 2 weeks.
.. Its now $2.99....LW....
Whinge of the day thread...
- Thread starter johnb
- Start date
Help Support Prospecting Australia:
..... Funny, same week Woolies price went up the same 80c... But wait Aldi has it for $2.20 but only for 2 weeks... Its now $2.99....LW....
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2018
- Messages
- 1,776
- Reaction score
- 3,921
A phone conversation with a technician at work today.
Me: Can you send me the barcode report for that site please?
Tech: I didn't know it was a barcoded site - the girls in the office didn't tell me that.
Me: Do you have the job sheet for it there?
Tech: Yeah
Me: What does it say in the job notes?
Tech: Barcoded site.
Me: .............................................................
Me: Can you send me the barcode report for that site please?
Tech: I didn't know it was a barcoded site - the girls in the office didn't tell me that.
Me: Do you have the job sheet for it there?
Tech: Yeah
Me: What does it say in the job notes?
Tech: Barcoded site.
Me: .............................................................
All else fails, read the instructions.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2018
- Messages
- 1,776
- Reaction score
- 3,921
The thing is - they don't know what they're meant to be doing at the site - until they read the job notes!
I am pro-nuclear if done well. Lack of it here is the sole reason that Australians have higher per capita emissions than nearly all other OECD countries except USA. We praised England recently when they announced that they had gone a year without burning any coal, while ignoring that they are ramping up to 30% of their electricity production being nuclear. We praised Germany when they said they would build no more reactors when the reason was actually that they had contracted to buy French nuclear-generated electricity (a 70% nuclear nation). Of course Germany have now turned on some mothballed reactors again because of the Ukraine war impact on gas supplies. We praised South Africa when they used Fukishima as an excuse to abandon their plans for a very safe pebble-bed nuclear reactor, ignoring that they went back to burning very dirty Botswanan coal and have to ration which parts of Johannesburg will receive any electricity at all at any time (e.g. you cannot even have Zoom sessions with South Africa because at any time most delegates at the South African end will have no power to turn on their computers).
Waste, meltdowns and nuclear weapons have been the objections to nuclear and modern designs preclude meltdowns - if we can get thorium reactors to run efficiently, meltdowns will not be possible (already the case with pebble-bed uranium reactors), the waste will be less dangerous and less appropriate for weapons production. Waste is an issue but for us would not be a problem - the volumes are small so transport to remote areas is quite economically feasible. For countries like Switzerland it can be an issue - but that is there problem not ours.
However, I think it is important that we balance things openly and honestly when making decisions. Nuclear waste comes as high-level and low-level, and if that photo of 45 years waste is even true, it would only be high-level waste - as this article below states their total nuclear waste is of the order of 100,000 tonnes. But probably more to the point, Switzerland has lots of hydro power (58%) and only 8.6 million people, so only runs 3 nuclear power stations which can provide 36% of their electricity. France has 56 reactors. What noone mentions is that "nuclear waste" usually refers to spent fuel - when one ultimately closes down a nuclear reactor permanently there is a huge amount of nuclear waste to dispose of, consisting of the irradiated plant itself (with some nasty isotopes not part of the normal fuel cycle). It would cost $1 trillion US to close all the world's nuclear reactors and the tonnage of resulting nuclear waste would be enormous. Wind turbine blades will produce a lot of waste to bury but it is benign waste. All these factors need to be considered, including their economics (reactors are very expensive to build and fairly expensive electricity once built). If we really have all-electric cars we will triple our electricity needs over only a decade or so (well- if you believe we will achieve that) and consumption will mostly be nocturnal recharging when renewables have little input, so I don't think we have a lot of choice but to go nuclear to some degree. But we do need honest discussion and to avoid misleading propaganda by green and pro-nuclear lobbies.
https://lenews.ch/2017/12/13/swiss-... this waste came from nuclear power stations.
Waste, meltdowns and nuclear weapons have been the objections to nuclear and modern designs preclude meltdowns - if we can get thorium reactors to run efficiently, meltdowns will not be possible (already the case with pebble-bed uranium reactors), the waste will be less dangerous and less appropriate for weapons production. Waste is an issue but for us would not be a problem - the volumes are small so transport to remote areas is quite economically feasible. For countries like Switzerland it can be an issue - but that is there problem not ours.
However, I think it is important that we balance things openly and honestly when making decisions. Nuclear waste comes as high-level and low-level, and if that photo of 45 years waste is even true, it would only be high-level waste - as this article below states their total nuclear waste is of the order of 100,000 tonnes. But probably more to the point, Switzerland has lots of hydro power (58%) and only 8.6 million people, so only runs 3 nuclear power stations which can provide 36% of their electricity. France has 56 reactors. What noone mentions is that "nuclear waste" usually refers to spent fuel - when one ultimately closes down a nuclear reactor permanently there is a huge amount of nuclear waste to dispose of, consisting of the irradiated plant itself (with some nasty isotopes not part of the normal fuel cycle). It would cost $1 trillion US to close all the world's nuclear reactors and the tonnage of resulting nuclear waste would be enormous. Wind turbine blades will produce a lot of waste to bury but it is benign waste. All these factors need to be considered, including their economics (reactors are very expensive to build and fairly expensive electricity once built). If we really have all-electric cars we will triple our electricity needs over only a decade or so (well- if you believe we will achieve that) and consumption will mostly be nocturnal recharging when renewables have little input, so I don't think we have a lot of choice but to go nuclear to some degree. But we do need honest discussion and to avoid misleading propaganda by green and pro-nuclear lobbies.
https://lenews.ch/2017/12/13/swiss-... this waste came from nuclear power stations.
Point taken Goldielocks. I will look into it further. No one especially me likes to have there premise challenged but thats how we learn new things isnt it and it certainly is more stimulating than an echo chamber. I am learning alot at the moment about nuclear waste that is harmful to humans and things that are just radioactive which is not the same otherwise look out for Brazil nuts and Bannanas. I am also learning the difference between alpha and beta radiation emitters. Beta looks like the really bad guy so far. I wont be commenting on such a devisive issue in future. Also no one should follow my investment opinions. I have made some good choices but also some real stinkers too.
Last edited:
All radiation adds to your annual dose, but you would have to eat an awful lot of bananas for it to affect you (you could not eat that many). It is not simply a function of alpha, beta and gamma radiation but neutron flux, energy levels (which determines how deeply particles can penetrate your body) and half-life. While care needs to be taken with radioactive substances, the public (and green) perception tends to be unrealistic because of media misunderstanding or sensationalism or outright fabrication. For example, uranium oxide (yellowcake) is only mildly radioactive (I have sat on 50 gallon drums of it), mineral specimens perhaps just a little more so (because they contain isotopes other than just uranium that get separated out and left behind in yellowcake production. Ditto with uranium metal. The radiation level one metre from a drum of freshly-processed uranium oxide is about half the radiation experienced from cosmic (solar) rays on a commercial jet flight. Even a pair of disposable latex gloves gives almost complete protection when handling it. Keeping a 1-inch square piece of uranium metal in continuous contact with bare skin “increases the risk of skin cancer by 0.1 to 0.5 percent per year”. Smoking cigarettes is far worse.
Where dangers exist is in underground mining or mill processing of uranium ores to make the yellowcake, because radioactive radon gas is released from the ore and you can inhale it - it occurs in places like mineral springs baths as well (e.g. in central Victoria), so they must be kept ventilated - the spring water that you drink also contains radioactive radium (what killed Madame Curie) but at non-dangerous levels..
The real dangers of radiation are when uranium is refined to jseparate the uranium isotope U235 from the much more abundant U238. U235 is a stronger neutron emitter than U238. In a bomb or nuclear reactor, heat or an explosion is produced by getting a large mass of it (or artificially-produced plutonium) together in one place (eg one lump. or a number of fuel rods next to each other). Early bombs used to fire pellets of uranium to fuse as one lump in the centre, so the bomb only became dangerous then (exploded) and could be safely handled before. Here the radiation you are dealing with is neutron flux, and too much can cook you or kill you short or long term (in the case of a bomb so much energy is released in this form it can vaporize you). The uranium fuel in a reactor converts to other isotopes, some dangerous, as it emits neutrons, and the neutrons convert materials they hit into other new and often dangerous materials. This spent fuel is what is normally referred to as high-level waste. So the neutron flux creates new and dangerous isotopes from the enclosing reactor material (e.g. iron) and this is an issue when decommissioning a reactor (both low and high-level waste).
Half-life is the time it takes for half of any type of radioactive isotope to decay, and fortunately some nasty isotopes like iodine and caesium decay within days or months - but plutonium, common in high-level waste, takes 22,000 years. A lot of this goes into the air during a reactor meltdown like Chernobyl, but if you give non-radioactive iodine tablets to people immediately, they cannot take up radioactive iodine in the air, and that soon decays. Russia did not want to admit to a meltdown, so did not distribute tablets, and it had many cases of thyroid cancer (fortunately 92% treatable). With radioactive caesium in the days of atmospheric nuclear tests in the 1950s they used to get us kids not to drink milk for a while until radioactive caesium in the atmosphere had mostly decayed (it behaves chemically like calcium in milk - and gets laid down in growing bones).
So what is most dangerous? Reactor meltdowns, spent fuel (high-level waste) and components that have been irradiated in a nuclear reactor for years (high and low-level waste), working in a badly-ventillated underground mine or mill (crushing and grinding plant) - and having a bomb dropped on you.
My whinge today. Rain and more rain. I think the whole GT must be a soggy bog like our place at Daisy hill. In the middle of a garden reno and went in for a load of topsoil - none available for two weeks because it is too wet to process. That made me depressed.
Oh well a bit of shopping in Maryborough but then an absolute tragedy NO CRUMPETS at Coles, Woolies or IGA.
Now I am deeply depressed.
Oh well a bit of shopping in Maryborough but then an absolute tragedy NO CRUMPETS at Coles, Woolies or IGA.
Now I am deeply depressed.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2014
- Messages
- 2,126
- Reaction score
- 5,882
I’m coming over in 7 days time, so here’s hoping for some 
soon.
soon.
Ma the 'la Nina' is here.....
......
https://theconversation.com/la-nina...ary-australians-can-expect-this-summer-190542
LW...
......https://theconversation.com/la-nina...ary-australians-can-expect-this-summer-190542
LW...
"Typically, La Nina events occur every 3 to 5 years or so, but on occasion can occur over successive years".
"In general, El Niño events tend to only last for a single cycle (i.e. one year from autumn to autumn), but it is not uncommon for multi-year La Niña events to occur. For example, the 1998–2001 La Niña affected three consecutive years from autumn 1998 to autumn 2001".
"It’s the third La Niña event in a row. This is rare, but not unheard of. Triple La Niñas have also occurred in, for example, 1973–1976 and 1998–2001".
"In general, El Niño events tend to only last for a single cycle (i.e. one year from autumn to autumn), but it is not uncommon for multi-year La Niña events to occur. For example, the 1998–2001 La Niña affected three consecutive years from autumn 1998 to autumn 2001".
"It’s the third La Niña event in a row. This is rare, but not unheard of. Triple La Niñas have also occurred in, for example, 1973–1976 and 1998–2001".
user 22230
Gavin of Garfield
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2021
- Messages
- 998
- Reaction score
- 2,679
Head North lad not much chance of rain today me thinksI’m coming over in 7 days time, so here’s hoping for some
NO
crumpets! Ho man, I feel for you! How can you go on and live without crumpets!
Barely a week since the queen passed away and already British civilization in decline here, No Crumpets indeed.NO
Where have you been?
WalnLiz
Wal nLiz
Helping a mate put his brand new 50 foot house boat into the Clyde river tomorrow and then splicing mooring ropes.....That's not the whinge though. The whinge is there is no internet reception there and I can't access PA forum for a whole week. Hope the crane doesn't drop the boat.
Hope the crane doesn't drop the boat.
Beautiful river the Clyde and not bad for a fish either. Best Wishes Wal and Stay Clear of the crane. Mackka
WalnLiz
Wal nLiz
Great fishing spot Mackka for sure. I have a 55 foot game fishing catamaran moored down there and use it as my main accommodation when down the coast. Nothing better than catching Jewies off the back of the boat at night, and checking the pots for mud crabs in the morning.
user 22230
Gavin of Garfield
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2021
- Messages
- 998
- Reaction score
- 2,679
I had a boat, it was a fibreglass hole into which I threw money 
As for crabs I'd prefer not to catch them personally 
As for crabs I'd prefer not to catch them personally 
