Nuclear power emerges as green option for Asia

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
You are the one who is missing all the hints -- which no doubt is one of the reason Tina Anne has such trouble believing you are really female;)

What does this really mean??

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. The posts document your empty bragging.

You are bragging for nothing.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
They all came from the garbage pit, I know.

Really??

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>What does this really mean??

He's got to be teasing -- tina anne doesn't understand anything very well, particularly herself

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
And neither was a definition. Yet you said that it was. So it is your MO that sucks rocks.

I am still giggling.. oh ha oh my MO rocks!!

Thanks, my darling ;)

Cousin Jethro wrote:

<quoted text>
He's got to be teasing -- tina anne doesn't understand anything very well, particularly herself

I agree. He must be teasing...

Thanks, by the way ;-)

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>I agree. He must be teasing...
Thanks, by the way ;-)

And MO is OM spelled backwards, "Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath," whenever that may be :-)

truthist wrote:

I introduced the US NRC Appendix K Criteria and Temperature at which significant phenomena occur
during core heat-up in:
http://www.topix.net/news/global-warming/2009...

You miss the point. You claimed this defined thermochemical decomposition of water, but it does no such thing.

Even worse, you STILL gave a link only to a Topix page, NOT to the individual post. Nobody else has this trouble. Why do you keep making this same mistake?

And to reply to:
"No, you really are bragging. LHMF can see it, I can see it...
And BTW, you are full of it when you say I cannot, since I have already corrected you concerning thermochemical decomposition of water."
I wrote:'Well, read my post where I posted the US NRC definition. I repeat here.'

in
http://www.topix.net/news/global-warming/2009...
As you can see I was discussing only the TMI accident and the hydrogen problem there. They were stunned when I posted the relevant US NRC regulation and the MIT nuclear engineering lecture notes.

This is a good example of how empty your bragging is, when you brag, "science is my way". There is nothing scientific about claiming anyone was 'stunned'. Nobody was -- except in your vivid and unscientific imagination.

But this wasn't low enough for you: that whole Topix page has NO actual reference to the alleged MIT Lecture notes at all! All it has is your frequent CLAIM to have referred to them.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
You miss the point.

You love to say this, my darling ;)

I keep trying, though.

<quoted text>
You claimed this defined thermochemical decomposition of water,

No, darling, I did NOT say that.

I have been focused on the runaway core/hydrogen explosion that was brought up by you.

<quoted text>
but it does no such thing.

The subject has been your concern over "runaway core/hydrogen explosion at TMI accident.

<quoted text>
Even worse, you STILL gave a link only to a Topix page, NOT to the individual post.

Oh, darling, worse? You can read my posts at the top of the page.

Well, I always do the same technique that I explained a couple of times to you.

<quoted text>
Nobody else has this trouble.

Actually, I seem to see noone else even trying it. I taught even PK to do this.

<quoted text>
Why do you keep making this same mistake?

???

Blame it on Topix as you do regularly ;)

<quoted text>
This is a good example of how empty your bragging is, when you brag, "science is my way". There is nothing scientific about claiming anyone was 'stunned'. Nobody was -- except in your vivid and unscientific imagination.

There is nothing scientific about your claim. Nobody was??-- where is the evidence to dispute anyone or noone was stunned?

Sounds like only in your vivid and unscientific imagination.

Notice I am NOT sharing any personal information. I actually have some fine stories about my scientific imagination.

<quoted text>
But this wasn't low enough for you:

I know, I know you were really trying.

Thanks ;)

<quoted text>
that whole Topix page has NO actual reference to the alleged MIT Lecture notes at all! All it has is your frequent CLAIM to have referred to them.

Yes, it does, my darling. Read again. Post #303 shows this reference:

http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Nuclear-Engin...

where you find pp. 10-11 for what I posted. It is a pdf file. The lecture covers "Loss of Coolant Accidents (LOCA) in PWRs: Deterministic View."

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>You love to say this, my darling ;)

I can't help it if you love giving CAUSE for saying it, and giving such cause SO often:(

<quoted text>Oh, darling, worse? You can read my posts at the top of the page.

And that STILL does not have the reference you claim. See below.

Well, I always do the same technique that I explained a couple of times to you.

And that "same technique" is WRONG. Again: nobody else has the problem.

<quoted text>Actually, I seem to see noone else even trying it. I taught even PK to do this.

Then you are not LOOKING. Quite a few others do it.

<quoted text>Yes, it does, my darling. Read again. Post #303 shows this reference:
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Nuclear-Engin...
where you find pp. 10-11 for what I posted. It is a pdf file. The lecture covers "Loss of Coolant Accidents (LOCA) in PWRs: Deterministic View."

Idiot! When I go to the link you give, the page starts with #304!#303 IS NOT ON THE PAGE.

Therefore, you really did give the wrong link for the evidence you claimed was there.

If you really were telling the truth when you say, "science is my way", you would not do such things.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't help it if you love giving CAUSE for saying it, and giving such cause SO often:(

It is a lovefest alright :(

<quoted text>
And that STILL does not have the reference you claim. See below.

See below.

<quoted text>
And that "same technique" is WRONG. Again: nobody else has the problem.

Does "nobody" include you, my darling?

Because in:
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/global-warmin...
you posted just in the hour this:
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/global-warmin...
where you don't get the post but the page. You did that. Whereas my link above shows the post number. This shows that I am not to be blamed. You are in your view.

I think it is a TOPIX problem. Are you with me??

<quoted text>
Then you are not LOOKING. Quite a few others do it.

Right. Read above to see how you did it wrongly.

<quoted text>
Idiot!

Yes, you must be because I never call you that.

<quoted text>
When I go to the link you give, the page starts with #304!#303 IS NOT ON THE PAGE.

I just checked again. This shows #303 at the top:
http://www.topix.net/news/global-warming/2009...

It looks like your pages are different. How do you explain it?

And are you so unscientific to locate #303? How can I help you?
[QUOTE[<quoted text>
Therefore,[/QUOTE]NO. Read above.

<quoted text>
you really did give the wrong link for the evidence you claimed was there.

NOT true. Read above.

By the way have you looked at pp. 10-11 of the MIT nuclear engineering lecture notes?

<quoted text>
If you really were telling the truth when you say, "science is my way", you would not do such things.

Read above, my darling. You must be a trained interrogator to be so free to use inappropriate words. Unscientific ;(

<warning><bragging > And I do fun things..

Improved:

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't help it if you love giving CAUSE for saying it, and giving such cause SO often:(

It is a lovefest alright :(

<quoted text>
And that STILL does not have the reference you claim. See below.

See below.

<quoted text>
And that "same technique" is WRONG. Again: nobody else has the problem.

Does "nobody" include you, my darling?

Because in:
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/global-warmin...
you posted just in the hour this:
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/global-warmin...
where you don't get the post but the page. You did that. Whereas my link above shows the post number. This shows that I am not to be blamed. You are in your view.

I think it is a TOPIX problem. Are you with me??

<quoted text>
Then you are not LOOKING. Quite a few others do it.

Right. Read above to see how you did it wrongly.

<quoted text>
Idiot!

Yes, you must be because I never call you that.

<quoted text>
When I go to the link you give, the page starts with #304!#303 IS NOT ON THE PAGE.

I just checked again. This shows #303 at the top:
http://www.topix.net/news/global-warming/2009...

It looks like your pages are different. How do you explain it?

And are you so unscientific to locate #303? How can I help you?

<quoted text>
Therefore,

NO. Read above.

<quoted text>
you really did give the wrong link for the evidence you claimed was there.

NOT true. Read above.

By the way have you looked at pp. 10-11 of the MIT nuclear engineering lecture notes?

<quoted text>
If you really were telling the truth when you say, "science is my way", you would not do such things.

Read above, my darling. You must be a trained interrogator to be so free to use inappropriate words. Unscientific ;(

<warning><bragging > And I do fun things

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>I just checked again. This shows #303 at the top:
http://www.topix.net/news/global-warming/2009...

Well, I just checked again, and no, it does NOT show #303 at the top. The first post actually included is #304.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, I just checked again, and no, it does NOT show #303 at the top. The first post actually included is #304.

Topix messed up the format but you should see #303 as the first post in the copy/paste in #357.

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>Topix messed up the format but you should see #303 as the first post in the copy/paste in #357.

Topix is certainly a large part of the problem. I can't get #303 itself to show up either in p16 (you knew this) or in p15!

As for #357, I don't see that here at all: the thread skips from #356 to #358!

Did you violate Topix TOS in #357??

But it is hard to see how the material you reference could support you: for it mentions "some fission gases release" at a mere 800ºC, and "hydrogen formed" at 1450ºC, and even "zircalloy steam reaction may become autocatalytic" at 1550ºC.

That supports LHMF's fears, not your position.

And yet again, p11 of the same doc, does NOT define "thermochemical decomposition of water": all it does is give an NRC criterion for the maximum ALLOWABLE amount of hydrogen formation from reaction with the cladding.

But this is not the same thing at all, nor does it support you in any way.

BTW: this is why it was so unscientific of you to claim people were 'stunned' by your reference.

Why, if anyone was stunned at anything, it was at the gall it must have taken you to think that these references actually support your position!

Well Topix is warning me when I try to cop/paste #357.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Topix is certainly a large part of the problem. I can't get #303 itself to show up either in p16 (you knew this) or in p15!

I did not know that you don't get #303.

<quoted text>
As for #357, I don't see that here at all: the thread skips from #356 to #358!

Well, it won't let me re-post #357 which has #303 embedded in it. It give me the warning for private information.

<quoted text>
Did you violate Topix TOS in #357??

No, NOT at all.

I don't have a clue ;(

Well Topix is warning me when I try to copy/paste #357.

Well, it won't let me re-post #357 which has #303 embedded in it. It gives me the warning for private information.

(corrections to #360 an #361.)

I am taking a break. Obviously, weird stuff is happening.

MattJ -- you go back and read the posts serially. You are playing a dishonest game.

You have to live with yourself. You are re-constructing history. Unscientific of you.

You also claim you don't see posts #303 and #357.

I can NOT help you.

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>I did not know that you don't get #303.

You are the one playing a dishonest game here. How could you not know? I already TOLD you that in the post you replied (#358) to before writing these words!

Or did you simply fail to put 2 and 2 together, forgetting that the link YOU gave for it was to p16?

Well, it won't let me re-post #357 which has #303 embedded in it. It give me the warning for private information.

I have seen Topix get their warning code wrong before, but for a different alleged violation. And then they stopped getting it wrong. So this could very well be a similar Topix bug.