So still not even a majority ie over 50% clearly want to disestablish the C of E. I would also point out in January 2023 last year a poll for the Times by Yougov found a rather different result with 41% for keeping the C of E as the established church and just 29% for disestablishment. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
On the further details in the poll most MPs have already voted to keep Bishops in the Lords and given they rejected the LD amendment for an elected upper house we should continue to keep faith representatives in the fully appointed upper house. The C of E of course receives next to no state funding and arguably should receive more given it has a large percentage of the most historic grade listed buildings in the nation maintained by it. The French government for example gives the RC church funds to maintain its historic churches and cathedrals in France.
Less than half support moving governance of C of E schools to the state either, no wonder given C of E schools tend to get better results than the national average.
Very interesting more voters support the King remaining head of the C of E than not which rather defeats the earlier support for disestablishment anyway given the original reason the C of E was created was so the national church was headed by the King not the Pope at the Reformation.
Note too when the practical consequences of C of E marriages no longer being valid in law are considered by a vast 29% margin voters oppose that too. So again they wish to uphold one of the key principles of having an established church.
So the data largely refutes the headline once you delve into it
You make a set of really quite feeble arguments.
The only (and quite compelling) argument is that it is what it is, does no-one harm, and may do some good, so leave it alone.
No I make perfectly sensible arguments. Our national church being established ensures the Pope does not head our national church again, it provides marriages and funerals by right to Parishioners and in rural areas especially that is very important.
Ideological left liberals like you may disagree but so what
I'm not an ideologist, nor am I of the left. I'm not sure the Pope is any great threat. Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas?
And as to disagreeing you're right - so what. My views are of no matter. It's only of many others share those views that one should take notice. The CoE needs to work out how it wants to respond to that notice being taken.
'Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas? 'Yet further evidence of the urban left liberal elite's dismissal of our rural communities and farmers will take that message to London next week. Churches are often the biggest community buildings in rural afters, followed by church or village halls, a clear focus of life and community event.
As I posted out before even most respondants to that yougov poll want to keep the C of E providing legal marriages
Maybe for god botherers like yourself.
In the rural communities I'm familiar with pubs are more lively focuses of community life than churches.
You are an urban resident of Warrington, round my way most of the hamlets including our own and even some of the villages have no pub anymore but they all still have churches. The old pub here is now a private house but we still have a church used for worship and concerts
If you have a church it's a village, not a hamlet.
Cities have cathedrals. Towns have markets. Villages have churches. Hamlets have SFA.
It's amazing just how many jobs where people have said "Trump wouldn't really give them the job" have been answered with "oh yes he would!"
America is screwed.
There is a psychological aspect of this that I find fascinating. For those of a naturally conservative bent, at what point do they stop deluding themselves that Trump's regime will probably be, on balance, a good thing?
In some ways being a lefty is easier...I think all American presidents since forever have been loons, and Trump is just a stage further on the wtf scale.
But there must be plenty of sane conservatives out there who are having to have a serious sit down talk with themselves right now: "How much longer can I keep up the pretence that Trump is the answer to the problems we face?"
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
The best way to stop coal mines being closed in the future is to stop any from being opened. Miliband has played a blinder, guaranteed no more pit closures!
I don't think he's managed to close Ffos-y-fran quite yet:
I'm pretty sure that most people don't understand the implications of disestablishment. The right to marriage, for example, or rather the obligation in law for the Church to marry heterosexual couples, would end.
Is probably not what the lumpen proletariat wants.
Are heterosexual couples in Scotland, Wales or NI unable to get married? Why are gay couples in England excluded?
They are not unable to get married (gay couples can't marry in the Church of Wales). But they have a legal right to be married. That would disappear. Does it matter? Don't ask me. But it seems to have been important.
The state doesn't tie itself to those other homophobic churches, though. The fact that the state church in England continues to discriminate on the basis of sexuality should surely be an argument for disestablishment, not against it.
Does the state need to marry adulterers too? Even the King and Queen only had a service of blessing in a C of E chapel similar to what same sex couples can get, they were married in Windsor Guildhall
And God impregnated a woman to whom he wasn't married.
That is a mistranslation.
Is it? What should it have said?
Instead of "born of a virgin" it should be "born of a young woman".
I'm pretty sure that most people don't understand the implications of disestablishment. The right to marriage, for example, or rather the obligation in law for the Church to marry heterosexual couples, would end.
Is probably not what the lumpen proletariat wants.
Are heterosexual couples in Scotland, Wales or NI unable to get married? Why are gay couples in England excluded?
They are not unable to get married (gay couples can't marry in the Church of Wales). But they have a legal right to be married. That would disappear. Does it matter? Don't ask me. But it seems to have been important.
The state doesn't tie itself to those other homophobic churches, though. The fact that the state church in England continues to discriminate on the basis of sexuality should surely be an argument for disestablishment, not against it.
Does the state need to marry adulterers too? Even the King and Queen only had a service of blessing in a C of E chapel similar to what same sex couples can get, they were married in Windsor Guildhall
And God impregnated a woman to whom he wasn't married.
That is a mistranslation.
Is it? What should it have said?
Instead of "born of a virgin" it should be "born of a young woman".
How does that change the claim that God impregnated a woman to whom he wasn't married?
Because there would have been no need to come up with such a piece of nonsense just to fulfill a prophesy..
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I'd support that. I often feel unsafe around dogs, particularly after COVID. Our local mini-park is basically unusable for reading in peace or giving children somewhere safe to run about. That's a disaster in an area dominated by tenements and a lack of green space.
These are just normal people voicing concerns that many white people are probably too scared to bring up. Dog owners are noisy opponents.
In national nature reserves they should be banned simply because of the effect they have on ground-nesting birds, seals etc
I feel unsafe around cyclists more than dogs can they be banned to please?
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
Blast furnaces, cement kilns and, most importantly, steam trains.
I’ve occasionally wondered, while sitting in a heritage railway chuffing slowly through the countryside, if they could run on charcoal. Granted the smell would be different but the whole smoky thing would still be there. And you could cook some brisket or pulled pork at the same time.
North Yorks Moors Railway have a major project this winter to convert two of their steam trains to burning oil. They have a specialist team coming in from the US to carry out the conversion. She will still look and sound like a steam train afterwards but will no longer be burning coal. It is just getting too difficult to get the coal they need.
That's...pretty much the end of days. He's going to get people killed.
More or fewer than how many Tulsi Gabbard will get killed?
Maybe there will be a league table with a prize for the winner each week.
But By Jimminy. This is bad. The bizarro thing being that it's exactly what you would expect, given Trump's election campaign taken at face value, but somehow it's still a shock.
I'm pretty sure that most people don't understand the implications of disestablishment. The right to marriage, for example, or rather the obligation in law for the Church to marry heterosexual couples, would end.
Is probably not what the lumpen proletariat wants.
Are heterosexual couples in Scotland, Wales or NI unable to get married? Why are gay couples in England excluded?
They are not unable to get married (gay couples can't marry in the Church of Wales). But they have a legal right to be married. That would disappear. Does it matter? Don't ask me. But it seems to have been important.
The state doesn't tie itself to those other homophobic churches, though. The fact that the state church in England continues to discriminate on the basis of sexuality should surely be an argument for disestablishment, not against it.
Does the state need to marry adulterers too? Even the King and Queen only had a service of blessing in a C of E chapel similar to what same sex couples can get, they were married in Windsor Guildhall
And God impregnated a woman to whom he wasn't married.
That is a mistranslation.
Is it? What should it have said?
Instead of "born of a virgin" it should be "born of a young woman".
I'm pretty sure that most people don't understand the implications of disestablishment. The right to marriage, for example, or rather the obligation in law for the Church to marry heterosexual couples, would end.
Is probably not what the lumpen proletariat wants.
Are heterosexual couples in Scotland, Wales or NI unable to get married? Why are gay couples in England excluded?
They are not unable to get married (gay couples can't marry in the Church of Wales). But they have a legal right to be married. That would disappear. Does it matter? Don't ask me. But it seems to have been important.
The state doesn't tie itself to those other homophobic churches, though. The fact that the state church in England continues to discriminate on the basis of sexuality should surely be an argument for disestablishment, not against it.
Does the state need to marry adulterers too? Even the King and Queen only had a service of blessing in a C of E chapel similar to what same sex couples can get, they were married in Windsor Guildhall
And God impregnated a woman to whom he wasn't married.
That is a mistranslation.
Is it? What should it have said?
Instead of "born of a virgin" it should be "born of a young woman".
How does that change the claim that God impregnated a woman to whom he wasn't married?
Because there would have been no need to come up with such a piece of nonsense just to fulfill a prophesy..
But God is single, He doesn't believe in marriage.
There is a psychological aspect of this that I find fascinating. For those of a naturally conservative bent, at what point do they stop deluding themselves that Trump's regime will probably be, on balance, a good thing?
For all the macho postering of the GOP they are a party of cowards. They have had ample opportunity to bury Trump and yet have done nothing to stop him. I don't expect them to act now. They deserve to go down with the ship.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
Blast furnaces, cement kilns and, most importantly, steam trains.
I’ve occasionally wondered, while sitting in a heritage railway chuffing slowly through the countryside, if they could run on charcoal. Granted the smell would be different but the whole smoky thing would still be there. And you could cook some brisket or pulled pork at the same time.
North Yorks Moors Railway have a major project this winter to convert two of their steam trains to burning oil. They have a specialist team coming in from the US to carry out the conversion. She will still look and sound like a steam train afterwards but will no longer be burning coal. It is just getting too difficult to get the coal they need.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
Blast furnaces, cement kilns and, most importantly, steam trains.
I’ve occasionally wondered, while sitting in a heritage railway chuffing slowly through the countryside, if they could run on charcoal. Granted the smell would be different but the whole smoky thing would still be there. And you could cook some brisket or pulled pork at the same time.
There have been a number of trials with various formulations of coal substitute. As far as I know, none quite as good as coal.
Steam trains cause pollution.
As do diesel trains. And cars, and buses, and lorries, and ships, and aircraft, and industry, and wood burners in middle class living rooms.
That's...pretty much the end of days. He's going to get people killed.
More or fewer than how many Tulsi Gabbard will get killed?
Maybe there will be a league table with a prize for the winner each week.
But By Jimminy. This is bad. The bizarro thing being that it's exactly what you would expect, given Trump's election campaign taken at face value, but somehow it's still a shock.
If they ban all vaccines, we're into tens of thousands dying in Trump's first term. Maybe more.
So still not even a majority ie over 50% clearly want to disestablish the C of E. I would also point out in January 2023 last year a poll for the Times by Yougov found a rather different result with 41% for keeping the C of E as the established church and just 29% for disestablishment. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
On the further details in the poll most MPs have already voted to keep Bishops in the Lords and given they rejected the LD amendment for an elected upper house we should continue to keep faith representatives in the fully appointed upper house. The C of E of course receives next to no state funding and arguably should receive more given it has a large percentage of the most historic grade listed buildings in the nation maintained by it. The French government for example gives the RC church funds to maintain its historic churches and cathedrals in France.
Less than half support moving governance of C of E schools to the state either, no wonder given C of E schools tend to get better results than the national average.
Very interesting more voters support the King remaining head of the C of E than not which rather defeats the earlier support for disestablishment anyway given the original reason the C of E was created was so the national church was headed by the King not the Pope at the Reformation.
Note too when the practical consequences of C of E marriages no longer being valid in law are considered by a vast 29% margin voters oppose that too. So again they wish to uphold one of the key principles of having an established church.
So the data largely refutes the headline once you delve into it
You make a set of really quite feeble arguments.
The only (and quite compelling) argument is that it is what it is, does no-one harm, and may do some good, so leave it alone.
No I make perfectly sensible arguments. Our national church being established ensures the Pope does not head our national church again, it provides marriages and funerals by right to Parishioners and in rural areas especially that is very important.
Ideological left liberals like you may disagree but so what
I'm not an ideologist, nor am I of the left. I'm not sure the Pope is any great threat. Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas?
And as to disagreeing you're right - so what. My views are of no matter. It's only of many others share those views that one should take notice. The CoE needs to work out how it wants to respond to that notice being taken.
'Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas? 'Yet further evidence of the urban left liberal elite's dismissal of our rural communities and farmers will take that message to London next week. Churches are often the biggest community buildings in rural afters, followed by church or village halls, a clear focus of life and community event.
As I posted out before even most respondants to that yougov poll want to keep the C of E providing legal marriages
Maybe for god botherers like yourself.
In the rural communities I'm familiar with pubs are more lively focuses of community life than churches.
You are an urban resident of Warrington, round my way most of the hamlets including our own and even some of the villages have no pub anymore but they all still have churches. The old pub here is now a private house but we still have a church used for worship and concerts
If you have a church it's a village, not a hamlet.
Cities have cathedrals. Towns have markets. Villages have churches. Hamlets have SFA.
RE: the Trump appointments. For Trump winning this election was about avoiding the rest of his life in prison.
So, Trump cannot afford to have anyone who will not drink outside the fountain in his inner circle. To be in a Trump job you have to be an ultra, and also cranky. If you were half way normal you couldn't be a loyalist.
Trump is fishing in a very small pool of notrights to fill his posts...
It's very similar to Corbyn winning and his team including Burgeon and Pidcock...there were simply no others around who made the mark....
So still not even a majority ie over 50% clearly want to disestablish the C of E. I would also point out in January 2023 last year a poll for the Times by Yougov found a rather different result with 41% for keeping the C of E as the established church and just 29% for disestablishment. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
On the further details in the poll most MPs have already voted to keep Bishops in the Lords and given they rejected the LD amendment for an elected upper house we should continue to keep faith representatives in the fully appointed upper house. The C of E of course receives next to no state funding and arguably should receive more given it has a large percentage of the most historic grade listed buildings in the nation maintained by it. The French government for example gives the RC church funds to maintain its historic churches and cathedrals in France.
Less than half support moving governance of C of E schools to the state either, no wonder given C of E schools tend to get better results than the national average.
Very interesting more voters support the King remaining head of the C of E than not which rather defeats the earlier support for disestablishment anyway given the original reason the C of E was created was so the national church was headed by the King not the Pope at the Reformation.
Note too when the practical consequences of C of E marriages no longer being valid in law are considered by a vast 29% margin voters oppose that too. So again they wish to uphold one of the key principles of having an established church.
So the data largely refutes the headline once you delve into it
You make a set of really quite feeble arguments.
The only (and quite compelling) argument is that it is what it is, does no-one harm, and may do some good, so leave it alone.
No I make perfectly sensible arguments. Our national church being established ensures the Pope does not head our national church again, it provides marriages and funerals by right to Parishioners and in rural areas especially that is very important.
Ideological left liberals like you may disagree but so what
I'm not an ideologist, nor am I of the left. I'm not sure the Pope is any great threat. Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas?
And as to disagreeing you're right - so what. My views are of no matter. It's only of many others share those views that one should take notice. The CoE needs to work out how it wants to respond to that notice being taken.
'Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas? 'Yet further evidence of the urban left liberal elite's dismissal of our rural communities and farmers will take that message to London next week. Churches are often the biggest community buildings in rural afters, followed by church or village halls, a clear focus of life and community event.
As I posted out before even most respondants to that yougov poll want to keep the C of E providing legal marriages
Maybe for god botherers like yourself.
In the rural communities I'm familiar with pubs are more lively focuses of community life than churches.
You are an urban resident of Warrington, round my way most of the hamlets including our own and even some of the villages have no pub anymore but they all still have churches. The old pub here is now a private house but we still have a church used for worship and concerts
If you have a church it's a village, not a hamlet.
Cities have cathedrals. Towns have markets. Villages have churches. Hamlets have SFA.
It's amazing just how many jobs where people have said "Trump wouldn't really give them the job" have been answered with "oh yes he would!"
America is screwed.
There is a psychological aspect of this that I find fascinating. For those of a naturally conservative bent, at what point do they stop deluding themselves that Trump's regime will probably be, on balance, a good thing?
In some ways being a lefty is easier...I think all American presidents since forever have been loons, and Trump is just a stage further on the wtf scale.
But there must be plenty of sane conservatives out there who are having to have a serious sit down talk with themselves right now: "How much longer can I keep up the pretence that Trump is the answer to the problems we face?"
This is the human condition. There are lots of different problems out there and lots of monosyllabic solutions. Anyone who can create a fleeting consensus in the course of a year-long election campaign gets to make a fool of themselves in government. You anticipate the inevitable decay and disillusion of Trump's second chance but something similar would have happened under Harris, too.
So still not even a majority ie over 50% clearly want to disestablish the C of E. I would also point out in January 2023 last year a poll for the Times by Yougov found a rather different result with 41% for keeping the C of E as the established church and just 29% for disestablishment. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
On the further details in the poll most MPs have already voted to keep Bishops in the Lords and given they rejected the LD amendment for an elected upper house we should continue to keep faith representatives in the fully appointed upper house. The C of E of course receives next to no state funding and arguably should receive more given it has a large percentage of the most historic grade listed buildings in the nation maintained by it. The French government for example gives the RC church funds to maintain its historic churches and cathedrals in France.
Less than half support moving governance of C of E schools to the state either, no wonder given C of E schools tend to get better results than the national average.
Very interesting more voters support the King remaining head of the C of E than not which rather defeats the earlier support for disestablishment anyway given the original reason the C of E was created was so the national church was headed by the King not the Pope at the Reformation.
Note too when the practical consequences of C of E marriages no longer being valid in law are considered by a vast 29% margin voters oppose that too. So again they wish to uphold one of the key principles of having an established church.
So the data largely refutes the headline once you delve into it
You make a set of really quite feeble arguments.
The only (and quite compelling) argument is that it is what it is, does no-one harm, and may do some good, so leave it alone.
No I make perfectly sensible arguments. Our national church being established ensures the Pope does not head our national church again, it provides marriages and funerals by right to Parishioners and in rural areas especially that is very important.
Ideological left liberals like you may disagree but so what
I'm not an ideologist, nor am I of the left. I'm not sure the Pope is any great threat. Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas?
And as to disagreeing you're right - so what. My views are of no matter. It's only of many others share those views that one should take notice. The CoE needs to work out how it wants to respond to that notice being taken.
'Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas? 'Yet further evidence of the urban left liberal elite's dismissal of our rural communities and farmers will take that message to London next week. Churches are often the biggest community buildings in rural afters, followed by church or village halls, a clear focus of life and community event.
As I posted out before even most respondants to that yougov poll want to keep the C of E providing legal marriages
Maybe for god botherers like yourself.
In the rural communities I'm familiar with pubs are more lively focuses of community life than churches.
Pub and Church (and pubs are under tremendous pressure) , are often all that there is, in places like rural Devon. The shops are gone, and the schools amalgamated.
Yes if you live in a large village and are lucky you will still have a village shop and post office, primary school, pub and church.
For most villages and hamlets though there is no shop now and many no longer have a primary school either so it is just a pub and church. For some though, especially hamlets, there is no pub either now but more often than not still a church
The Counties I know best, outside the Home Counties, are Devon, Durham, and North Yorkshire. And, the rural districts are incredibly difficult to get around, or to get things delivered to your home. People can't bowl alone there. People need focal points, and the local church is an important one.
Even if only 3-4% of people live like that, it's still 2 to 2.5m people.
So still not even a majority ie over 50% clearly want to disestablish the C of E. I would also point out in January 2023 last year a poll for the Times by Yougov found a rather different result with 41% for keeping the C of E as the established church and just 29% for disestablishment. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
On the further details in the poll most MPs have already voted to keep Bishops in the Lords and given they rejected the LD amendment for an elected upper house we should continue to keep faith representatives in the fully appointed upper house. The C of E of course receives next to no state funding and arguably should receive more given it has a large percentage of the most historic grade listed buildings in the nation maintained by it. The French government for example gives the RC church funds to maintain its historic churches and cathedrals in France.
Less than half support moving governance of C of E schools to the state either, no wonder given C of E schools tend to get better results than the national average.
Very interesting more voters support the King remaining head of the C of E than not which rather defeats the earlier support for disestablishment anyway given the original reason the C of E was created was so the national church was headed by the King not the Pope at the Reformation.
Note too when the practical consequences of C of E marriages no longer being valid in law are considered by a vast 29% margin voters oppose that too. So again they wish to uphold one of the key principles of having an established church.
So the data largely refutes the headline once you delve into it
You make a set of really quite feeble arguments.
The only (and quite compelling) argument is that it is what it is, does no-one harm, and may do some good, so leave it alone.
No I make perfectly sensible arguments. Our national church being established ensures the Pope does not head our national church again, it provides marriages and funerals by right to Parishioners and in rural areas especially that is very important.
Ideological left liberals like you may disagree but so what
I'm not an ideologist, nor am I of the left. I'm not sure the Pope is any great threat. Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas?
And as to disagreeing you're right - so what. My views are of no matter. It's only of many others share those views that one should take notice. The CoE needs to work out how it wants to respond to that notice being taken.
'Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas? 'Yet further evidence of the urban left liberal elite's dismissal of our rural communities and farmers will take that message to London next week. Churches are often the biggest community buildings in rural afters, followed by church or village halls, a clear focus of life and community event.
As I posted out before even most respondants to that yougov poll want to keep the C of E providing legal marriages
Maybe for god botherers like yourself.
In the rural communities I'm familiar with pubs are more lively focuses of community life than churches.
You are an urban resident of Warrington, round my way most of the hamlets including our own and even some of the villages have no pub anymore but they all still have churches. The old pub here is now a private house but we still have a church used for worship and concerts
If you have a church it's a village, not a hamlet.
Cities have cathedrals. Towns have markets. Villages have churches. Hamlets have SFA.
Maybe there will be a league table with a prize for the winner each week.
But By Jimminy. This is bad. The bizarro thing being that it's exactly what you would expect, given Trump's election campaign taken at face value, but somehow it's still a shock.
In 2016 Trump ran a MAGA campaign but mostly picked normal people for cabinet positions. So that the government wasn't vastly different from previous Republican administrations, and a lot of terrible ideas were nipped in the bud.
In 2024 Trump is nominating die-hard MAGA clowns. I wonder if Trump has in effect himself been indoctrinated by his own campaigning. He's now not just the cult leader, but also now a cult member, and true believer.
If nothing else he seems to be intent on doing all the crazy things that the press have been sanewashing away over the last year or so.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
Blast furnaces, cement kilns and, most importantly, steam trains.
I’ve occasionally wondered, while sitting in a heritage railway chuffing slowly through the countryside, if they could run on charcoal. Granted the smell would be different but the whole smoky thing would still be there. And you could cook some brisket or pulled pork at the same time.
There have been a number of trials with various formulations of coal substitute. As far as I know, none quite as good as coal.
Steam trains cause pollution.
As do diesel trains. And cars, and buses, and lorries, and ships, and aircraft, and industry, and wood burners in middle class living rooms.
But not as much as steam trains. Plenty of vintage electric trains were built in the 1930s, or even earlier.
In 2024 Trump is nominating die-hard MAGA clowns. I wonder if Trump has in effect himself been indoctrinated by his own campaigning. He's now not just the cult leader, but also now a cult member, and true believer.
If nothing else he seems to be intent on doing all the crazy things that the press have been sanewashing away over the last year or so.
Maybe there will be a league table with a prize for the winner each week.
But By Jimminy. This is bad. The bizarro thing being that it's exactly what you would expect, given Trump's election campaign taken at face value, but somehow it's still a shock.
In 2016 Trump ran a MAGA campaign but mostly picked normal people for cabinet positions. So that the government wasn't vastly different from previous Republican administrations, and a lot of terrible ideas were nipped in the bud.
In 2024 Trump is nominating die-hard MAGA clowns. I wonder if Trump has in effect himself been indoctrinated by his own campaigning. He's now not just the cult leader, but also now a cult member, and true believer.
If nothing else he seems to be intent on doing all the crazy things that the press have been sanewashing away over the last year or so.
When you lie consistently, you start to believe the lies yourself.
If they ban all vaccines, we're into tens of thousands dying in Trump's first term. Maybe more.
They don't have to ban a thing, merely having the administration being unduly skeptical and entertaining the wilder claims of anti-vaxers will in itself drive down vaccination rates even if the official policy remained the same. It will kill Americans.
So still not even a majority ie over 50% clearly want to disestablish the C of E. I would also point out in January 2023 last year a poll for the Times by Yougov found a rather different result with 41% for keeping the C of E as the established church and just 29% for disestablishment. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
On the further details in the poll most MPs have already voted to keep Bishops in the Lords and given they rejected the LD amendment for an elected upper house we should continue to keep faith representatives in the fully appointed upper house. The C of E of course receives next to no state funding and arguably should receive more given it has a large percentage of the most historic grade listed buildings in the nation maintained by it. The French government for example gives the RC church funds to maintain its historic churches and cathedrals in France.
Less than half support moving governance of C of E schools to the state either, no wonder given C of E schools tend to get better results than the national average.
Very interesting more voters support the King remaining head of the C of E than not which rather defeats the earlier support for disestablishment anyway given the original reason the C of E was created was so the national church was headed by the King not the Pope at the Reformation.
Note too when the practical consequences of C of E marriages no longer being valid in law are considered by a vast 29% margin voters oppose that too. So again they wish to uphold one of the key principles of having an established church.
So the data largely refutes the headline once you delve into it
You make a set of really quite feeble arguments.
The only (and quite compelling) argument is that it is what it is, does no-one harm, and may do some good, so leave it alone.
No I make perfectly sensible arguments. Our national church being established ensures the Pope does not head our national church again, it provides marriages and funerals by right to Parishioners and in rural areas especially that is very important.
Ideological left liberals like you may disagree but so what
I'm not an ideologist, nor am I of the left. I'm not sure the Pope is any great threat. Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas?
And as to disagreeing you're right - so what. My views are of no matter. It's only of many others share those views that one should take notice. The CoE needs to work out how it wants to respond to that notice being taken.
'Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas? 'Yet further evidence of the urban left liberal elite's dismissal of our rural communities and farmers will take that message to London next week. Churches are often the biggest community buildings in rural afters, followed by church or village halls, a clear focus of life and community event.
As I posted out before even most respondants to that yougov poll want to keep the C of E providing legal marriages
Maybe for god botherers like yourself.
In the rural communities I'm familiar with pubs are more lively focuses of community life than churches.
You are an urban resident of Warrington, round my way most of the hamlets including our own and even some of the villages have no pub anymore but they all still have churches. The old pub here is now a private house but we still have a church used for worship and concerts
If you have a church it's a village, not a hamlet.
Cities have cathedrals. Towns have markets. Villages have churches. Hamlets have SFA.
Hamlets have churches and churchyards according to Gray's Elegy.
Beneath those rugged elms, that yew-tree's shade, Where heaves the turf in many a mould'ring heap, Each in his narrow cell for ever laid, The rude forefathers of the hamlet sleep.
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I'd support that. I often feel unsafe around dogs, particularly after COVID. Our local mini-park is basically unusable for reading in peace or giving children somewhere safe to run about. That's a disaster in an area dominated by tenements and a lack of green space.
These are just normal people voicing concerns that many white people are probably too scared to bring up. Dog owners are noisy opponents.
In national nature reserves they should be banned simply because of the effect they have on ground-nesting birds, seals etc
I feel unsafe around cyclists more than dogs can they be banned to please?
Dogs currently kills 4x as many people as pedestrians involved in collisions with cyclists, so once we've put that problem down a bit we can talk about cyclists (again)
In 2024 Trump is nominating die-hard MAGA clowns. I wonder if Trump has in effect himself been indoctrinated by his own campaigning. He's now not just the cult leader, but also now a cult member, and true believer.
If nothing else he seems to be intent on doing all the crazy things that the press have been sanewashing away over the last year or so.
In 2024 Trump is nominating die-hard MAGA clowns. I wonder if Trump has in effect himself been indoctrinated by his own campaigning. He's now not just the cult leader, but also now a cult member, and true believer.
If nothing else he seems to be intent on doing all the crazy things that the press have been sanewashing away over the last year or so.
Distablishing the Church of England seems to me a bit like abolishing the Monarchy. A waste of government time and effort to get rid of something that a minority prize and a majority ignore. Both are so bound into the fabric of the nation that we might as well leave them alone.
"the nation"
Triouble is, it's unfair to the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish as a matter of principle. Edit: never mind the non-Anglicans in England. Not exactly where you'd begin today, as opposed to a psychopathic and sex-mad king 500 years or so ago.
The church near my house had an Anglican bishop processing sunwise around it with the new vicar a few years ago, and very nice it looked. But it's a disestablished church up here in Scotland ... and there's not even an established Presbyterian Kirk here, not for a century or so.
What has it got to do with Scots? Your calvinist national Church doesn't even have any Bishops albeit the King takes an oath to protect the Church of Scotland
Because we don't get represented whereas you get extra representation. Simple as that.
It's like bringing back University Seats but not allowing Oxford or Cambridge or Aber any seats as opposed to St Andrews and Teesside. You'd grasp the point instantly then, as opposed to your obtuseness now.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
Blast furnaces, cement kilns and, most importantly, steam trains.
I’ve occasionally wondered, while sitting in a heritage railway chuffing slowly through the countryside, if they could run on charcoal. Granted the smell would be different but the whole smoky thing would still be there. And you could cook some brisket or pulled pork at the same time.
North Yorks Moors Railway have a major project this winter to convert two of their steam trains to burning oil. They have a specialist team coming in from the US to carry out the conversion. She will still look and sound like a steam train afterwards but will no longer be burning coal. It is just getting too difficult to get the coal they need.
A heritage railway in Ireland has started using a solid fuel made out of olive stones, that has similar enough properties to coal to use in their old steam engines.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
Am I correct in thinking that with the closure of Port Talbot , to convert to electric arc, coking coal is no longer going to be used to produce steel in Britain?
Not sure. Apparently the coking plants at Scunthorpe and Teeside are going the same way with new electric arc furnaces. But the UK still produced over half a million tons of coke last year so not sure if that is all going.
Scunny have shut down their coke ovens and now import coke.
No blast furnaces on Teesside any more.
Thank heaven the foul philosophies that lead to those things are going into retreat globally.
Come back to this point in a decade and you may be disappointed by the global stats.
When we're both posting in 10 years, I shall be far too polite to mention the sensitive souls who were gripped by the global warming panic.
If your standard is "still alive in 10 years" then yes, I suppose it is a panic.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
Blast furnaces, cement kilns and, most importantly, steam trains.
I’ve occasionally wondered, while sitting in a heritage railway chuffing slowly through the countryside, if they could run on charcoal. Granted the smell would be different but the whole smoky thing would still be there. And you could cook some brisket or pulled pork at the same time.
There have been a number of trials with various formulations of coal substitute. As far as I know, none quite as good as coal.
Steam trains cause pollution.
As do diesel trains. And cars, and buses, and lorries, and ships, and aircraft, and industry, and wood burners in middle class living rooms.
But not as much as steam trains. Plenty of vintage electric trains were built in the 1930s, or even earlier.
A large cargo ship burning high sulphur crud churns out a hell of a lot more shite than a chuffing Black 5.
So still not even a majority ie over 50% clearly want to disestablish the C of E. I would also point out in January 2023 last year a poll for the Times by Yougov found a rather different result with 41% for keeping the C of E as the established church and just 29% for disestablishment. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
On the further details in the poll most MPs have already voted to keep Bishops in the Lords and given they rejected the LD amendment for an elected upper house we should continue to keep faith representatives in the fully appointed upper house. The C of E of course receives next to no state funding and arguably should receive more given it has a large percentage of the most historic grade listed buildings in the nation maintained by it. The French government for example gives the RC church funds to maintain its historic churches and cathedrals in France.
Less than half support moving governance of C of E schools to the state either, no wonder given C of E schools tend to get better results than the national average.
Very interesting more voters support the King remaining head of the C of E than not which rather defeats the earlier support for disestablishment anyway given the original reason the C of E was created was so the national church was headed by the King not the Pope at the Reformation.
Note too when the practical consequences of C of E marriages no longer being valid in law are considered by a vast 29% margin voters oppose that too. So again they wish to uphold one of the key principles of having an established church.
So the data largely refutes the headline once you delve into it
You make a set of really quite feeble arguments.
The only (and quite compelling) argument is that it is what it is, does no-one harm, and may do some good, so leave it alone.
No I make perfectly sensible arguments. Our national church being established ensures the Pope does not head our national church again, it provides marriages and funerals by right to Parishioners and in rural areas especially that is very important.
Ideological left liberals like you may disagree but so what
I'm not an ideologist, nor am I of the left. I'm not sure the Pope is any great threat. Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas?
And as to disagreeing you're right - so what. My views are of no matter. It's only of many others share those views that one should take notice. The CoE needs to work out how it wants to respond to that notice being taken.
'Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas? 'Yet further evidence of the urban left liberal elite's dismissal of our rural communities and farmers will take that message to London next week. Churches are often the biggest community buildings in rural afters, followed by church or village halls, a clear focus of life and community event.
As I posted out before even most respondants to that yougov poll want to keep the C of E providing legal marriages
Maybe for god botherers like yourself.
In the rural communities I'm familiar with pubs are more lively focuses of community life than churches.
You are an urban resident of Warrington, round my way most of the hamlets including our own and even some of the villages have no pub anymore but they all still have churches. The old pub here is now a private house but we still have a church used for worship and concerts
If you have a church it's a village, not a hamlet.
Cities have cathedrals. Towns have markets. Villages have churches. Hamlets have SFA.
Hamlets have churches and churchyards according to Gray's Elegy.
Beneath those rugged elms, that yew-tree's shade, Where heaves the turf in many a mould'ring heap, Each in his narrow cell for ever laid, The rude forefathers of the hamlet sleep.
Touché
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
'Ukraine could develop a rudimentary nuclear bomb within months if Donald Trump withdraws US military assistance, according to a briefing paper prepared for the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence.
The country would quickly be able to build a basic device from plutonium with a similar technology to the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945, the report states. “Creating a simple atomic bomb, as the United States did within the framework of the Manhattan Project, would not be a difficult task 80 years later,” the document reads.' https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
It would likely take a bit longer than that. But it’s certainly possible - and (publicly available) techniques have improved considerably since 1945. Reactor grade plutonium has problems for making efficient warheads (and wouldn’t have worked with the wartime designs), but it’s usable. Ask @Malmesbury for details..
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
Blast furnaces, cement kilns and, most importantly, steam trains.
I’ve occasionally wondered, while sitting in a heritage railway chuffing slowly through the countryside, if they could run on charcoal. Granted the smell would be different but the whole smoky thing would still be there. And you could cook some brisket or pulled pork at the same time.
There have been a number of trials with various formulations of coal substitute. As far as I know, none quite as good as coal.
Steam trains cause pollution.
As do diesel trains. And cars, and buses, and lorries, and ships, and aircraft, and industry, and wood burners in middle class living rooms.
But not as much as steam trains. Plenty of vintage electric trains were built in the 1930s, or even earlier.
A large cargo ship burning high sulphur crud churns out a hell of a lot more shite than a chuffing Black 5.
It also transports a lot more a lot further. Hence the crisis in 1939-40 when coastal trade such as coal had to be replaced by land transport to some extent.
Maybe there will be a league table with a prize for the winner each week.
But By Jimminy. This is bad. The bizarro thing being that it's exactly what you would expect, given Trump's election campaign taken at face value, but somehow it's still a shock.
In 2016 Trump ran a MAGA campaign but mostly picked normal people for cabinet positions. So that the government wasn't vastly different from previous Republican administrations, and a lot of terrible ideas were nipped in the bud.
In 2024 Trump is nominating die-hard MAGA clowns. I wonder if Trump has in effect himself been indoctrinated by his own campaigning. He's now not just the cult leader, but also now a cult member, and true believer.
If nothing else he seems to be intent on doing all the crazy things that the press have been sanewashing away over the last year or so.
When you lie consistently, you start to believe the lies yourself.
Also, the pool of people worth asking gets smaller as time passes. Why would even a right wing non-MAGAer sign up for Trump's cabinet, even if asked?
See the decline in quality of Corbyn's shadow cabinet, or Johnson's cabinet.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
Blast furnaces, cement kilns and, most importantly, steam trains.
I’ve occasionally wondered, while sitting in a heritage railway chuffing slowly through the countryside, if they could run on charcoal. Granted the smell would be different but the whole smoky thing would still be there. And you could cook some brisket or pulled pork at the same time.
There have been a number of trials with various formulations of coal substitute. As far as I know, none quite as good as coal.
Steam trains cause pollution.
As do diesel trains. And cars, and buses, and lorries, and ships, and aircraft, and industry, and wood burners in middle class living rooms.
But not as much as steam trains. Plenty of vintage electric trains were built in the 1930s, or even earlier.
It's amazing just how many jobs where people have said "Trump wouldn't really give them the job" have been answered with "oh yes he would!"
America is screwed.
There is a psychological aspect of this that I find fascinating. For those of a naturally conservative bent, at what point do they stop deluding themselves that Trump's regime will probably be, on balance, a good thing?
In some ways being a lefty is easier...I think all American presidents since forever have been loons, and Trump is just a stage further on the wtf scale.
But there must be plenty of sane conservatives out there who are having to have a serious sit down talk with themselves right now: "How much longer can I keep up the pretence that Trump is the answer to the problems we face?"
This is the human condition. There are lots of different problems out there and lots of monosyllabic solutions. Anyone who can create a fleeting consensus in the course of a year-long election campaign gets to make a fool of themselves in government. You anticipate the inevitable decay and disillusion of Trump's second chance but something similar would have happened under Harris, too.
I think you've got some strong false equivalence going on there.
There's something terrifyingly unserious about Trump's nominees so far. As though you can put the government of the most powerful country in the world in the hands of assorted conspiracy theorists, brain-dead provocateurs and hateful extremists and expect that everything will somehow still turn out okay. Things will definitely not be okay.
The British dog population has been growing a lot faster than the British human population.
One of the reasons I would never win an election is that I'd like to reduce the British pet population quite drastically. I would require all pets to be licensed, and then once all the licences had been issued in year 1, I would issue no more pet licences. Anyone wanting a pet would have to wait until an existing pet had died, and then buy the licence for the deceased pet. Except that I would randomly choose 9 out of 10 pet licences from deceased pets and destroy them, progressively reducing the pet population over the average lifetime of pets by 90%.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
Am I correct in thinking that with the closure of Port Talbot , to convert to electric arc, coking coal is no longer going to be used to produce steel in Britain?
Not sure. Apparently the coking plants at Scunthorpe and Teeside are going the same way with new electric arc furnaces. But the UK still produced over half a million tons of coke last year so not sure if that is all going.
Scunny have shut down their coke ovens and now import coke.
No blast furnaces on Teesside any more.
Thank heaven the foul philosophies that lead to those things are going into retreat globally.
Come back to this point in a decade and you may be disappointed by the global stats.
When we're both posting in 10 years, I shall be far too polite to mention the sensitive souls who were gripped by the global warming panic.
If your standard is "still alive in 10 years" then yes, I suppose it is a panic.
I hope for another 60.
What on earth are you chuntering on about you loon? Tim mentioned the timeline of a decade, it had nothingto do with me.
It's amazing just how many jobs where people have said "Trump wouldn't really give them the job" have been answered with "oh yes he would!"
America is screwed.
There is a psychological aspect of this that I find fascinating. For those of a naturally conservative bent, at what point do they stop deluding themselves that Trump's regime will probably be, on balance, a good thing?
In some ways being a lefty is easier...I think all American presidents since forever have been loons, and Trump is just a stage further on the wtf scale.
But there must be plenty of sane conservatives out there who are having to have a serious sit down talk with themselves right now: "How much longer can I keep up the pretence that Trump is the answer to the problems we face?"
The populist right is the answer to the problems we face by a process of elimination - there is no other answer and no other viable option. The 'liberal establishment' has made mistake after mistake. It goes in to military conflicts with no strategic plan. It supports unlimited illegal immigration 'we can do this!' and then cannot integrate the immigrants in question. Everything has failed for the last 20 years, and no one has any plan, other than to just keep things running, keep the plates spinning, kick the can down the road. Every time you listen to a member of the liberal elite, they set out an excellent analysis of the problems, but then come to a conclusion like 'we have to face up to difficult questions' , or 'we all have to try harder'. In 2020 the liberal elite went completely insane and lost all its credibility, like when it supported superspreader events (mass protests) in the covid pandemic on the grounds that they have 'public health benefits', also supporting riots on grounds of stopping racism, etc. Against the backdrop of all this Trump appears sane and coherant.
In the end it doesn't really matter. We don't know what the counterfactual scenario is (where Harris won) but the likelihood is that it would have been a disaster which has now been avoided, although Trump could well turn out to be a disaster too.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
Am I correct in thinking that with the closure of Port Talbot , to convert to electric arc, coking coal is no longer going to be used to produce steel in Britain?
Not sure. Apparently the coking plants at Scunthorpe and Teeside are going the same way with new electric arc furnaces. But the UK still produced over half a million tons of coke last year so not sure if that is all going.
Scunny have shut down their coke ovens and now import coke.
No blast furnaces on Teesside any more.
Thank heaven the foul philosophies that lead to those things are going into retreat globally.
Come back to this point in a decade and you may be disappointed by the global stats.
When we're both posting in 10 years, I shall be far too polite to mention the sensitive souls who were gripped by the global warming panic.
If your standard is "still alive in 10 years" then yes, I suppose it is a panic.
I hope for another 60.
The thing is, my original post was referring to global stats on coal fired power and steelmaking, and how much of the old heritage fuels the world would still be burning vs renewables.
I didn’t expect the answer that came, which read like something out of WUWT circa 2007. But there we go. That’s what ideology does to you.
There's something terrifyingly unserious about Trump's nominees so far. As though you can put the government of the most powerful country in the world in the hands of assorted conspiracy theorists, brain-dead provocateurs and hateful extremists and expect that everything will somehow still turn out okay. Things will definitely not be okay.
Yes. And no.
This is another reminder that whether things are okay or not in this context is not really a binary condition. Things will be unnecessarily worse, and I guess you can call that not okay, but also a lot of things will simply still happen regardless, and people will adjust, and find ways to cope, and sorta be okay.
Obviously in Britain we learnt with Truss that you cannot be in charge of a country and simply do whatever the hell you like without consequences, and if you do something really stupid, then those consequences can be quite severe. One of the weaknesses of a Presidential system like the US, is that it's really difficult to get rid of a President if they start doing really stupid things that start to have severe consequences.
We don't know yet whether any of the stupid things Trump and his administration will do will end up crossing a threshold beyond which the consequences are catastrophic, but the chances do look higher now than a few days ago.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
Am I correct in thinking that with the closure of Port Talbot , to convert to electric arc, coking coal is no longer going to be used to produce steel in Britain?
Not sure. Apparently the coking plants at Scunthorpe and Teeside are going the same way with new electric arc furnaces. But the UK still produced over half a million tons of coke last year so not sure if that is all going.
Scunny have shut down their coke ovens and now import coke.
No blast furnaces on Teesside any more.
Thank heaven the foul philosophies that lead to those things are going into retreat globally.
Come back to this point in a decade and you may be disappointed by the global stats.
When we're both posting in 10 years, I shall be far too polite to mention the sensitive souls who were gripped by the global warming panic.
If your standard is "still alive in 10 years" then yes, I suppose it is a panic.
I hope for another 60.
What on earth are you chuntering on about you loon? Tim mentioned the timeline of a decade, it had nothingto do with me.
You decided to turn it into a statement about climate rather than the discussion up to that point about how our blast furnaces would be powered. You seem to think that with the glorious retreat of woke across the world we’re all going to start reopening the mines, knocking down the wind turbines and rebuilding coal fired power stations.
If they ban all vaccines, we're into tens of thousands dying in Trump's first term. Maybe more.
They don't have to ban a thing, merely having the administration being unduly skeptical and entertaining the wilder claims of anti-vaxers will in itself drive down vaccination rates even if the official policy remained the same. It will kill Americans.
Preferentially, MAGA loons, which may not help the GOP’s chances in 2028.
There's something terrifyingly unserious about Trump's nominees so far. As though you can put the government of the most powerful country in the world in the hands of assorted conspiracy theorists, brain-dead provocateurs and hateful extremists and expect that everything will somehow still turn out okay. Things will definitely not be okay.
Maybe it won't make any difference because nothing significant will happen over the next few years.
There's something terrifyingly unserious about Trump's nominees so far. As though you can put the government of the most powerful country in the world in the hands of assorted conspiracy theorists, brain-dead provocateurs and hateful extremists and expect that everything will somehow still turn out okay. Things will definitely not be okay.
There's a lot of ruin in a nation. There are a lot of talented people working in the US govt, and the realities of power often temper people who think there are easy solutions to everything. That's the hope anyway. But yes - I think we are looking at a grim 4 years for America....
'Ukraine could develop a rudimentary nuclear bomb within months if Donald Trump withdraws US military assistance, according to a briefing paper prepared for the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence.
The country would quickly be able to build a basic device from plutonium with a similar technology to the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945, the report states. “Creating a simple atomic bomb, as the United States did within the framework of the Manhattan Project, would not be a difficult task 80 years later,” the document reads.' https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
It would likely take a bit longer than that. But it’s certainly possible - and (publicly available) techniques have improved considerably since 1945. Reactor grade plutonium has problems for making efficient warheads (and wouldn’t have worked with the wartime designs), but it’s usable. Ask @Malmesbury for details..
To start with, you wouldn’t use the Fat Man design. Which is completely published, by the way. Down to the rivets…
Because you have better computers. And forming explosions is now a science they teach at university as a branch of engineering.
Plus the testing of the implosion is much, much easier. So 2 point implosions, probably combined with flying plate. Suspended core (conical springs), which will help with the heat output from reactor grade plutonium.
How long? Depends how much hey have every. No law against testing implosion. No treaty either. Providing you are compressing a chunk of steel. You watch what happens on a high speed X-ray camera - so you know that you design works. A few months work, slowly. In a rush, with lots of clever people? You could do multiple shots per day. Multiple sites…. Days? A week or 2.
Next, you need your plutonium. It’s mixed in a fuel rod. You dissolve in acid, precipitate the plutonium. Reduce to metal. Basic chemistry.
How long? Depends how much you value the workforce. The Americans invented remote manipulation - chemistry through a yard of concrete and lead. Th e Russians expended political prisoners….
I’d do it in small batches, in existing labs. Weeks.
Casting the core is trivial - induction furnaces with inert atmosphere are an off the shelf item. The crucibles for the Nagasaki bomb were hand made in a guys garage…
If they have done nothing, all this might be a month or 2. Depends what crazy level of resources they throw at it.
If they’ve done the implosion design, and already separated the plutonium, a day to cast a core.
Size - Fat Man was a 2 foot thick shell of explosive, round an 8 inch thick tamper, with an orange sized ball of plutonium in the middle. A 5 foot diameter sphere. Weighed tons.
This will be smaller and oval lid - 12 inches on the small axis, maybe. A hundred kilos, maybe.
It's amazing just how many jobs where people have said "Trump wouldn't really give them the job" have been answered with "oh yes he would!"
America is screwed.
There is a psychological aspect of this that I find fascinating. For those of a naturally conservative bent, at what point do they stop deluding themselves that Trump's regime will probably be, on balance, a good thing?
In some ways being a lefty is easier...I think all American presidents since forever have been loons, and Trump is just a stage further on the wtf scale.
But there must be plenty of sane conservatives out there who are having to have a serious sit down talk with themselves right now: "How much longer can I keep up the pretence that Trump is the answer to the problems we face?"
The go to position is that Trump is awful, but it's really the fault of the left that he got elected. And also some of what he says isn't too bad.
@Malmesbury - So, if they wanted to, the Ukrainians could be in a position where, if Donald Trump tells them on January 21st that he is cutting off all US assistance, unless they do an immediate deal with the Russians, then the Ukrainians could already be in a position to have a nuclear bomb ready on the 23rd.
'Ukraine could develop a rudimentary nuclear bomb within months if Donald Trump withdraws US military assistance, according to a briefing paper prepared for the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence.
The country would quickly be able to build a basic device from plutonium with a similar technology to the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945, the report states. “Creating a simple atomic bomb, as the United States did within the framework of the Manhattan Project, would not be a difficult task 80 years later,” the document reads.' https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
It would likely take a bit longer than that. But it’s certainly possible - and (publicly available) techniques have improved considerably since 1945. Reactor grade plutonium has problems for making efficient warheads (and wouldn’t have worked with the wartime designs), but it’s usable. Ask @Malmesbury for details..
To start with, you wouldn’t use the Fat Man design. Which is completely published, by the way. Down to the rivets…
Because you have better computers. And forming explosions is now a science they teach at university as a branch of engineering.
Plus the testing of the implosion is much, much easier. So 2 point implosions, probably combined with flying plate. Suspended core (conical springs), which will help with the heat output from reactor grade plutonium.
How long? Depends how much hey have every. No law against testing implosion. No treaty either. Providing you are compressing a chunk of steel. You watch what happens on a high speed X-ray camera - so you know that you design works. A few months work, slowly. In a rush, with lots of clever people? You could do multiple shots per day. Multiple sites…. Days? A week or 2.
Next, you need your plutonium. It’s mixed in a fuel rod. You dissolve in acid, precipitate the plutonium. Reduce to metal. Basic chemistry.
How long? Depends how much you value the workforce. The Americans invented remote manipulation - chemistry through a yard of concrete and lead. Th e Russians expended political prisoners….
I’d do it in small batches, in existing labs. Weeks.
Casting the core is trivial - induction furnaces with inert atmosphere are an off the shelf item. The crucibles for the Nagasaki bomb were hand made in a guys garage…
If they have done nothing, all this might be a month or 2. Depends what crazy level of resources they throw at it.
If they’ve done the implosion design, and already separated the plutonium, a day to cast a core.
Size - Fat Man was a 2 foot thick shell of explosive, round an 8 inch thick tamper, with an orange sized ball of plutonium in the middle. A 5 foot diameter sphere. Weighed tons.
This will be smaller and oval lid - 12 inches on the small axis, maybe. A hundred kilos, maybe.
Any weapon or plane can carry it.
Fascinating. Is this your job, or just a morbid hobby?
With RFKs appointment as Health Secretary there'll hopefully be a rolling back of the idea that only "Big Pharma" has solutions to health..for most people a walk, some Vitamin D and healthy eating would be much more beneficial for their general health..🧐
There's something terrifyingly unserious about Trump's nominees so far. As though you can put the government of the most powerful country in the world in the hands of assorted conspiracy theorists, brain-dead provocateurs and hateful extremists and expect that everything will somehow still turn out okay. Things will definitely not be okay.
There's a lot of ruin in a nation. There are a lot of talented people working in the US govt, and the realities of power often temper people who think there are easy solutions to everything. That's the hope anyway. But yes - I think we are looking at a grim 4 years for America....
You have to seriously question whether some of these nominees will be confirmed. Assuming the Reps win PA, then it only needs 4 dissenters + a unified Dem block for a nominee to fail. Musk is threatening people with a primary fight but the senate class that have just been re-elected won't be again up for another 6 years, when who knows what will have happened. Then there must also be a few senators who are planning to stand down soon. Grassley is in his 90s, while McConnell is in his 80s. You also have Susan Collins of Maine - sure you can try and primary her but no other Rep would likely win what is a blue state.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
Am I correct in thinking that with the closure of Port Talbot , to convert to electric arc, coking coal is no longer going to be used to produce steel in Britain?
Not sure. Apparently the coking plants at Scunthorpe and Teeside are going the same way with new electric arc furnaces. But the UK still produced over half a million tons of coke last year so not sure if that is all going.
Scunny have shut down their coke ovens and now import coke.
No blast furnaces on Teesside any more.
Thank heaven the foul philosophies that lead to those things are going into retreat globally.
Come back to this point in a decade and you may be disappointed by the global stats.
When we're both posting in 10 years, I shall be far too polite to mention the sensitive souls who were gripped by the global warming panic.
If your standard is "still alive in 10 years" then yes, I suppose it is a panic.
I hope for another 60.
The thing is, my original post was referring to global stats on coal fired power and steelmaking, and how much of the old heritage fuels the world would still be burning vs renewables.
I didn’t expect the answer that came, which read like something out of WUWT circa 2007. But there we go. That’s what ideology does to you.
Just to balance the sad news about some heritage railways (and it is, genuinely, rather sad) - Scotland currently has 15GW of renewable energy capacity, is already a net exporter of renewable energy, and has 5GW under construction, another 18GW approved and 28GW in planning - a total of 64GW.
The wind doesn't always blow, so it's even more exciting that about 25GW of that is battery and pumped hydro. Total UK consumption averages around 30GW, with peaks up to 50GW.
The British dog population has been growing a lot faster than the British human population.
One of the reasons I would never win an election is that I'd like to reduce the British pet population quite drastically. I would require all pets to be licensed, and then once all the licences had been issued in year 1, I would issue no more pet licences. Anyone wanting a pet would have to wait until an existing pet had died, and then buy the licence for the deceased pet. Except that I would randomly choose 9 out of 10 pet licences from deceased pets and destroy them, progressively reducing the pet population over the average lifetime of pets by 90%.
Well, it is cruel to the pets, cruel to the owners, and a violation of their property rights. So as plans go it's probably not good, tbh. 😃
Interesting to see that Wes Streeting is opposing the assisted dying bill.
I accidentally ended up in a conservative session discussing the future of the NHS at the LGA conference. Some speculation that Streeting would be able to do the stuff they had been wanting to do. And likely to do it.
I didn’t hang about, it seemed rude. Nevertheless, it led me to reconsider Streeting.
Interesting to see that Wes Streeting is opposing the assisted dying bill.
Wes would make a good PM, I think, except that he's too "overly emotional" so I expect he'll walk from the Cabinet and probably politics within this Parliament.
'Ukraine could develop a rudimentary nuclear bomb within months if Donald Trump withdraws US military assistance, according to a briefing paper prepared for the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence.
The country would quickly be able to build a basic device from plutonium with a similar technology to the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945, the report states. “Creating a simple atomic bomb, as the United States did within the framework of the Manhattan Project, would not be a difficult task 80 years later,” the document reads.' https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
It would likely take a bit longer than that. But it’s certainly possible - and (publicly available) techniques have improved considerably since 1945. Reactor grade plutonium has problems for making efficient warheads (and wouldn’t have worked with the wartime designs), but it’s usable. Ask @Malmesbury for details..
To start with, you wouldn’t use the Fat Man design. Which is completely published, by the way. Down to the rivets…
Because you have better computers. And forming explosions is now a science they teach at university as a branch of engineering.
Plus the testing of the implosion is much, much easier. So 2 point implosions, probably combined with flying plate. Suspended core (conical springs), which will help with the heat output from reactor grade plutonium.
How long? Depends how much hey have every. No law against testing implosion. No treaty either. Providing you are compressing a chunk of steel. You watch what happens on a high speed X-ray camera - so you know that you design works. A few months work, slowly. In a rush, with lots of clever people? You could do multiple shots per day. Multiple sites…. Days? A week or 2.
Next, you need your plutonium. It’s mixed in a fuel rod. You dissolve in acid, precipitate the plutonium. Reduce to metal. Basic chemistry.
How long? Depends how much you value the workforce. The Americans invented remote manipulation - chemistry through a yard of concrete and lead. The Russians expended political prisoners….
I’d do it in small batches, in existing labs. Weeks.
Casting the core is trivial - induction furnaces with inert atmosphere are an off the shelf item. The crucibles for the Nagasaki bomb were hand made in a guys garage…
If they have done nothing, all this might be a month or 2. Depends what crazy level of resources they throw at it.
If they’ve done the implosion design, and already separated the plutonium, a day to cast a core.
Size - Fat Man was a 2 foot thick shell of explosive, round an 8 inch thick tamper, with an orange sized ball of plutonium in the middle. A 5 foot diameter sphere. Weighed tons.
This will be smaller and oval lid - 12 inches on the small axis, maybe. A hundred kilos, maybe.
Any weapon or plane can carry it.
You’d need to process something like a couple of tonnes of fuel to produce enough plutonium for a bomb. Could you do that in existing labs ? Messy process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUREX
Any idea what the 239/240/241 isotope proportions are in Ukraine’s PWRs ? I don’t think they’re much more than about 55% 239. That’s not great for warhead production. (Though I think the US tested on to see if it could be done ?)
I don’t think this is as easy as you suggest ? They might just make something that fizzles in the sub kiloton range.
@Malmesbury - So, if they wanted to, the Ukrainians could be in a position where, if Donald Trump tells them on January 21st that he is cutting off all US assistance, unless they do an immediate deal with the Russians, then the Ukrainians could already be in a position to have a nuclear bomb ready on the 23rd.
The thing is, then what?
Depends how much prep work they’ve done.
And a level of ruthlessness - how many people are you ok expending in your plutonium processing? The Russians are said to have used German prisoners of war…
The next step would be a test. Middle of the Black Sea. I’d go for just after sunset. Put the Funeral March of Seigfreid on the Bluetooth speaker, open a bottle of good red, press some buttons.
With RFKs appointment as Health Secretary there'll hopefully be a rolling back of the idea that only "Big Pharma" has solutions to health..for most people a walk, some Vitamin D and healthy eating would be much more beneficial for their general health..🧐
Also: HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and vaccines are bad for you, right?
Nobody thinks Big Pharma has the only solutions for health. But vaccines are one of the great success stories of preventative medicine of the last century and that is the bit of "big pharma" that the nasty lying fraud RFK Jr spends most of his time attacking - and also where he makes a lot of money spreading lies. He tells lies that kill people, for money. He's despicable.
Anyway, surely even Trump doesn't think Kennedy has a chance of being confirmed by the senate.
The British dog population has been growing a lot faster than the British human population.
One of the reasons I would never win an election is that I'd like to reduce the British pet population quite drastically. I would require all pets to be licensed, and then once all the licences had been issued in year 1, I would issue no more pet licences. Anyone wanting a pet would have to wait until an existing pet had died, and then buy the licence for the deceased pet. Except that I would randomly choose 9 out of 10 pet licences from deceased pets and destroy them, progressively reducing the pet population over the average lifetime of pets by 90%.
Well, it is cruel to the pets, cruel to the owners, and a violation of their property rights. So as plans go it's probably not good, tbh. 😃
No pets are harmed, why did you get that impression?
'Ukraine could develop a rudimentary nuclear bomb within months if Donald Trump withdraws US military assistance, according to a briefing paper prepared for the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence.
The country would quickly be able to build a basic device from plutonium with a similar technology to the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945, the report states. “Creating a simple atomic bomb, as the United States did within the framework of the Manhattan Project, would not be a difficult task 80 years later,” the document reads.' https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
It would likely take a bit longer than that. But it’s certainly possible - and (publicly available) techniques have improved considerably since 1945. Reactor grade plutonium has problems for making efficient warheads (and wouldn’t have worked with the wartime designs), but it’s usable. Ask @Malmesbury for details..
To start with, you wouldn’t use the Fat Man design. Which is completely published, by the way. Down to the rivets…
Because you have better computers. And forming explosions is now a science they teach at university as a branch of engineering.
Plus the testing of the implosion is much, much easier. So 2 point implosions, probably combined with flying plate. Suspended core (conical springs), which will help with the heat output from reactor grade plutonium.
How long? Depends how much hey have every. No law against testing implosion. No treaty either. Providing you are compressing a chunk of steel. You watch what happens on a high speed X-ray camera - so you know that you design works. A few months work, slowly. In a rush, with lots of clever people? You could do multiple shots per day. Multiple sites…. Days? A week or 2.
Next, you need your plutonium. It’s mixed in a fuel rod. You dissolve in acid, precipitate the plutonium. Reduce to metal. Basic chemistry.
How long? Depends how much you value the workforce. The Americans invented remote manipulation - chemistry through a yard of concrete and lead. Th e Russians expended political prisoners….
I’d do it in small batches, in existing labs. Weeks.
Casting the core is trivial - induction furnaces with inert atmosphere are an off the shelf item. The crucibles for the Nagasaki bomb were hand made in a guys garage…
If they have done nothing, all this might be a month or 2. Depends what crazy level of resources they throw at it.
If they’ve done the implosion design, and already separated the plutonium, a day to cast a core.
Size - Fat Man was a 2 foot thick shell of explosive, round an 8 inch thick tamper, with an orange sized ball of plutonium in the middle. A 5 foot diameter sphere. Weighed tons.
This will be smaller and oval lid - 12 inches on the small axis, maybe. A hundred kilos, maybe.
Any weapon or plane can carry it.
Fascinating. Is this your job, or just a morbid hobby?
Nuclear weapons are truth. A conglomeration of science and symmetry. In their heart they produce energies that are more intense than anything in the universe. Hotter than a supernova (for the multistagers) - nothing like this has been since the Big Bang. They are the doorway to edge of reality. The Tsar Bomba sent a message to the stars, for those with the wit to read it - an intelligence made this…
They know nothing of politicians lies or the other petty bullshit of the world. Just truth, fiercer than any sun.
Interesting to see that Wes Streeting is opposing the assisted dying bill.
Wes would make a good PM, I think, except that he's too "overly emotional" so I expect he'll walk from the Cabinet and probably politics within this Parliament.
Shame.
I've heard a few interviews with him and he comes across to me as the somewhat smug part of Blair, but without the intellectual/philosophical heft to carry it off.
'Ukraine could develop a rudimentary nuclear bomb within months if Donald Trump withdraws US military assistance, according to a briefing paper prepared for the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence.
The country would quickly be able to build a basic device from plutonium with a similar technology to the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945, the report states. “Creating a simple atomic bomb, as the United States did within the framework of the Manhattan Project, would not be a difficult task 80 years later,” the document reads.' https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
It would likely take a bit longer than that. But it’s certainly possible - and (publicly available) techniques have improved considerably since 1945. Reactor grade plutonium has problems for making efficient warheads (and wouldn’t have worked with the wartime designs), but it’s usable. Ask @Malmesbury for details..
To start with, you wouldn’t use the Fat Man design. Which is completely published, by the way. Down to the rivets…
Because you have better computers. And forming explosions is now a science they teach at university as a branch of engineering.
Plus the testing of the implosion is much, much easier. So 2 point implosions, probably combined with flying plate. Suspended core (conical springs), which will help with the heat output from reactor grade plutonium.
How long? Depends how much hey have every. No law against testing implosion. No treaty either. Providing you are compressing a chunk of steel. You watch what happens on a high speed X-ray camera - so you know that you design works. A few months work, slowly. In a rush, with lots of clever people? You could do multiple shots per day. Multiple sites…. Days? A week or 2.
Next, you need your plutonium. It’s mixed in a fuel rod. You dissolve in acid, precipitate the plutonium. Reduce to metal. Basic chemistry.
How long? Depends how much you value the workforce. The Americans invented remote manipulation - chemistry through a yard of concrete and lead. Th e Russians expended political prisoners….
I’d do it in small batches, in existing labs. Weeks.
Casting the core is trivial - induction furnaces with inert atmosphere are an off the shelf item. The crucibles for the Nagasaki bomb were hand made in a guys garage…
If they have done nothing, all this might be a month or 2. Depends what crazy level of resources they throw at it.
If they’ve done the implosion design, and already separated the plutonium, a day to cast a core.
Size - Fat Man was a 2 foot thick shell of explosive, round an 8 inch thick tamper, with an orange sized ball of plutonium in the middle. A 5 foot diameter sphere. Weighed tons.
This will be smaller and oval lid - 12 inches on the small axis, maybe. A hundred kilos, maybe.
Any weapon or plane can carry it.
Fascinating. Is this your job, or just a morbid hobby?
Nuclear weapons are truth. A conglomeration of science and symmetry. In their heart they produce energies that are more intense than anything in the universe. Hotter than a supernova (for the multistagers) - nothing like this has been since the Big Bang. They are the doorway to edge of reality. The Tsar Bomba sent a message to the stars, for those with the wit to read it - an intelligence made this…
They know nothing of politicians lies or the other petty bullshit of the world. Just truth, fiercer than any sun.
Nice. But is it your job? I’m intrigued by where your knowledge and enthusiasm comes from.
I can remember when people were taught to be sceptical about everything, and not automatically believe what they were told by other people, and the funny thing is that it was mostly left-leaning people/teachers who were most likely to be in favour of that approach to life. Conservatives tended to be more in favour of "believe whatever you're told by important people". Interesting how things change over time.
'Ukraine could develop a rudimentary nuclear bomb within months if Donald Trump withdraws US military assistance, according to a briefing paper prepared for the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence.
The country would quickly be able to build a basic device from plutonium with a similar technology to the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945, the report states. “Creating a simple atomic bomb, as the United States did within the framework of the Manhattan Project, would not be a difficult task 80 years later,” the document reads.' https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
It would likely take a bit longer than that. But it’s certainly possible - and (publicly available) techniques have improved considerably since 1945. Reactor grade plutonium has problems for making efficient warheads (and wouldn’t have worked with the wartime designs), but it’s usable. Ask @Malmesbury for details..
To start with, you wouldn’t use the Fat Man design. Which is completely published, by the way. Down to the rivets…
Because you have better computers. And forming explosions is now a science they teach at university as a branch of engineering.
Plus the testing of the implosion is much, much easier. So 2 point implosions, probably combined with flying plate. Suspended core (conical springs), which will help with the heat output from reactor grade plutonium.
How long? Depends how much hey have every. No law against testing implosion. No treaty either. Providing you are compressing a chunk of steel. You watch what happens on a high speed X-ray camera - so you know that you design works. A few months work, slowly. In a rush, with lots of clever people? You could do multiple shots per day. Multiple sites…. Days? A week or 2.
Next, you need your plutonium. It’s mixed in a fuel rod. You dissolve in acid, precipitate the plutonium. Reduce to metal. Basic chemistry.
How long? Depends how much you value the workforce. The Americans invented remote manipulation - chemistry through a yard of concrete and lead. The Russians expended political prisoners….
I’d do it in small batches, in existing labs. Weeks.
Casting the core is trivial - induction furnaces with inert atmosphere are an off the shelf item. The crucibles for the Nagasaki bomb were hand made in a guys garage…
If they have done nothing, all this might be a month or 2. Depends what crazy level of resources they throw at it.
If they’ve done the implosion design, and already separated the plutonium, a day to cast a core.
Size - Fat Man was a 2 foot thick shell of explosive, round an 8 inch thick tamper, with an orange sized ball of plutonium in the middle. A 5 foot diameter sphere. Weighed tons.
This will be smaller and oval lid - 12 inches on the small axis, maybe. A hundred kilos, maybe.
Any weapon or plane can carry it.
You’d need to process something like a couple of tonnes of fuel to produce enough plutonium for a bomb. Could you do that in existing labs ? Messy process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUREX
Any idea what the 239/240/241 isotope proportions are in Ukraine’s PWRs ? I don’t think they’re much more than about 55% 239. That’s not great for warhead production. (Though I think the US tested on to see if it could be done ?)
I don’t think this is as easy as you suggest ? They might just make something that fizzles in the sub kiloton range.
Tons of fuel sounds like a lot. Batches and remember the density. A hundred kilos of fuel rod would fit in a bucket.
The burn up depends on the reactor. 55% 239 would be extraordinarily high burn up - the Americans had to ask the U.K. for some 75%, because they didn’t have anything that, for the test you mention.
Remember that the reactors in Ukraine were Soviet and dual purpose - plutonium production was a design task.some of the fuel rods in the ponds date before the Soviet Union fell. Quite apart from the regular batches - they were known to run fuel batches at lower burn up for “super plutonium” for things like torpedo warheads. Back then, they were part of the Soviet Union and plutonium production was a national target.
So it is quite possible they have some 99% 239 rods in the ponds. Even if they don’t, the reactors were designed for low burn up - so they’ll have 80%, for sure.
The British dog population has been growing a lot faster than the British human population.
One of the reasons I would never win an election is that I'd like to reduce the British pet population quite drastically. I would require all pets to be licensed, and then once all the licences had been issued in year 1, I would issue no more pet licences. Anyone wanting a pet would have to wait until an existing pet had died, and then buy the licence for the deceased pet. Except that I would randomly choose 9 out of 10 pet licences from deceased pets and destroy them, progressively reducing the pet population over the average lifetime of pets by 90%.
Well, it is cruel to the pets, cruel to the owners, and a violation of their property rights. So as plans go it's probably not good, tbh. 😃
Can Mr Chump lend us his new Homeland Security Secretary?
I can remember when people were taught to be sceptical about everything, and not automatically believe what they were told by other people, and the funny thing is that it was mostly left-leaning people/teachers who were most likely to be in favour of that approach to life. Conservatives tended to be more in favour of "believe whatever you're told by important people". Interesting how things change over time.
I'm left-leaning, and I'm in favour of being sceptical, but there's a lot of things going on in the world and you have to be selective about what you are sceptical about, and so it helps to be able to come to a judgement about things and no longer be sceptical about them unless there is compelling new evidence.
So, for example, the evidence on the efficacy of vaccines is pretty overwhelming, for a wide range of diseases and vaccine types. That means I can be pretty confident I don't need to expend much effort in being sceptical about any particular vaccine, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. It makes no sense to waste time on supposed scepticism about vaccines. On the contrary, that would be to exhibit extreme credulousness about the claims made by vaccine sceptics.
A lot of people who claim to be sceptical about things - vaccines, climate science, the germ theory of disease, moon landings, etc - are not sceptics at all. They are either outright lying frauds, or they are extremely credulous people unable to critically evaluate evidence, and so have ended up believing any old tosh that they should have been more sceptical about.
Interesting to see that Wes Streeting is opposing the assisted dying bill.
I accidentally ended up in a conservative session discussing the future of the NHS at the LGA conference. Some speculation that Streeting would be able to do the stuff they had been wanting to do. And likely to do it.
I didn’t hang about, it seemed rude. Nevertheless, it led me to reconsider Streeting.
That's a point I've been trying to make for some time.
There is such a huge amount of necessary stuff that the Blues sat on their butt and refused to do, that they could probably have done, in the last several years, that if the new Govt get just some of it done nd noticed, it will be very hard for the Cons to find a route back.
The British dog population has been growing a lot faster than the British human population.
One of the reasons I would never win an election is that I'd like to reduce the British pet population quite drastically. I would require all pets to be licensed, and then once all the licences had been issued in year 1, I would issue no more pet licences. Anyone wanting a pet would have to wait until an existing pet had died, and then buy the licence for the deceased pet. Except that I would randomly choose 9 out of 10 pet licences from deceased pets and destroy them, progressively reducing the pet population over the average lifetime of pets by 90%.
Well, it is cruel to the pets, cruel to the owners, and a violation of their property rights. So as plans go it's probably not good, tbh. 😃
Can Mr Chump lend us his new Homeland Security Secretary?
'Tis the Puppy-Killer, Tulsi Gabbard.
The proposed Homeland Security Secretary is Kristi Noem.
@Malmesbury - So, if they wanted to, the Ukrainians could be in a position where, if Donald Trump tells them on January 21st that he is cutting off all US assistance, unless they do an immediate deal with the Russians, then the Ukrainians could already be in a position to have a nuclear bomb ready on the 23rd.
The thing is, then what?
Depends how much prep work they’ve done.
And a level of ruthlessness - how many people are you ok expending in your plutonium processing? The Russians are said to have used German prisoners of war…
The next step would be a test. Middle of the Black Sea. I’d go for just after sunset. Put the Funeral March of Seigfreid on the Bluetooth speaker, open a bottle of good red, press some buttons.
A Plan B could be some dirty bombs, dropped on air bases to make a big chunk of the Russian Air Force radioactive.
'Ukraine could develop a rudimentary nuclear bomb within months if Donald Trump withdraws US military assistance, according to a briefing paper prepared for the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence.
The country would quickly be able to build a basic device from plutonium with a similar technology to the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945, the report states. “Creating a simple atomic bomb, as the United States did within the framework of the Manhattan Project, would not be a difficult task 80 years later,” the document reads.' https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
It would likely take a bit longer than that. But it’s certainly possible - and (publicly available) techniques have improved considerably since 1945. Reactor grade plutonium has problems for making efficient warheads (and wouldn’t have worked with the wartime designs), but it’s usable. Ask @Malmesbury for details..
To start with, you wouldn’t use the Fat Man design. Which is completely published, by the way. Down to the rivets…
Because you have better computers. And forming explosions is now a science they teach at university as a branch of engineering.
Plus the testing of the implosion is much, much easier. So 2 point implosions, probably combined with flying plate. Suspended core (conical springs), which will help with the heat output from reactor grade plutonium.
How long? Depends how much hey have every. No law against testing implosion. No treaty either. Providing you are compressing a chunk of steel. You watch what happens on a high speed X-ray camera - so you know that you design works. A few months work, slowly. In a rush, with lots of clever people? You could do multiple shots per day. Multiple sites…. Days? A week or 2.
Next, you need your plutonium. It’s mixed in a fuel rod. You dissolve in acid, precipitate the plutonium. Reduce to metal. Basic chemistry.
How long? Depends how much you value the workforce. The Americans invented remote manipulation - chemistry through a yard of concrete and lead. Th e Russians expended political prisoners….
I’d do it in small batches, in existing labs. Weeks.
Casting the core is trivial - induction furnaces with inert atmosphere are an off the shelf item. The crucibles for the Nagasaki bomb were hand made in a guys garage…
If they have done nothing, all this might be a month or 2. Depends what crazy level of resources they throw at it.
If they’ve done the implosion design, and already separated the plutonium, a day to cast a core.
Size - Fat Man was a 2 foot thick shell of explosive, round an 8 inch thick tamper, with an orange sized ball of plutonium in the middle. A 5 foot diameter sphere. Weighed tons.
This will be smaller and oval lid - 12 inches on the small axis, maybe. A hundred kilos, maybe.
Any weapon or plane can carry it.
Fascinating. Is this your job, or just a morbid hobby?
Nuclear weapons are truth. A conglomeration of science and symmetry. In their heart they produce energies that are more intense than anything in the universe. Hotter than a supernova (for the multistagers) - nothing like this has been since the Big Bang. They are the doorway to edge of reality. The Tsar Bomba sent a message to the stars, for those with the wit to read it - an intelligence made this…
They know nothing of politicians lies or the other petty bullshit of the world. Just truth, fiercer than any sun.
That last line reminds me of one of my favourite Poliakoff TV plays "Stronger Than The Sun" :
"Kate works in the nuclear industry. She is concerned about the way things are being run. So she smuggles out some Plutonium to prove how easy it is. She tries to pass it on to protest groups, but nobody is interested as they have their own agendas."
'Ukraine could develop a rudimentary nuclear bomb within months if Donald Trump withdraws US military assistance, according to a briefing paper prepared for the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence.
The country would quickly be able to build a basic device from plutonium with a similar technology to the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945, the report states. “Creating a simple atomic bomb, as the United States did within the framework of the Manhattan Project, would not be a difficult task 80 years later,” the document reads.' https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
It would likely take a bit longer than that. But it’s certainly possible - and (publicly available) techniques have improved considerably since 1945. Reactor grade plutonium has problems for making efficient warheads (and wouldn’t have worked with the wartime designs), but it’s usable. Ask @Malmesbury for details..
To start with, you wouldn’t use the Fat Man design. Which is completely published, by the way. Down to the rivets…
Because you have better computers. And forming explosions is now a science they teach at university as a branch of engineering.
Plus the testing of the implosion is much, much easier. So 2 point implosions, probably combined with flying plate. Suspended core (conical springs), which will help with the heat output from reactor grade plutonium.
How long? Depends how much hey have every. No law against testing implosion. No treaty either. Providing you are compressing a chunk of steel. You watch what happens on a high speed X-ray camera - so you know that you design works. A few months work, slowly. In a rush, with lots of clever people? You could do multiple shots per day. Multiple sites…. Days? A week or 2.
Next, you need your plutonium. It’s mixed in a fuel rod. You dissolve in acid, precipitate the plutonium. Reduce to metal. Basic chemistry.
How long? Depends how much you value the workforce. The Americans invented remote manipulation - chemistry through a yard of concrete and lead. Th e Russians expended political prisoners….
I’d do it in small batches, in existing labs. Weeks.
Casting the core is trivial - induction furnaces with inert atmosphere are an off the shelf item. The crucibles for the Nagasaki bomb were hand made in a guys garage…
If they have done nothing, all this might be a month or 2. Depends what crazy level of resources they throw at it.
If they’ve done the implosion design, and already separated the plutonium, a day to cast a core.
Size - Fat Man was a 2 foot thick shell of explosive, round an 8 inch thick tamper, with an orange sized ball of plutonium in the middle. A 5 foot diameter sphere. Weighed tons.
This will be smaller and oval lid - 12 inches on the small axis, maybe. A hundred kilos, maybe.
Any weapon or plane can carry it.
Fascinating. Is this your job, or just a morbid hobby?
Nuclear weapons are truth. A conglomeration of science and symmetry. In their heart they produce energies that are more intense than anything in the universe. Hotter than a supernova (for the multistagers) - nothing like this has been since the Big Bang. They are the doorway to edge of reality. The Tsar Bomba sent a message to the stars, for those with the wit to read it - an intelligence made this…
They know nothing of politicians lies or the other petty bullshit of the world. Just truth, fiercer than any sun.
Nice. But is it your job? I’m intrigued by where your knowledge and enthusiasm comes from.
@Malmesbury - So, if they wanted to, the Ukrainians could be in a position where, if Donald Trump tells them on January 21st that he is cutting off all US assistance, unless they do an immediate deal with the Russians, then the Ukrainians could already be in a position to have a nuclear bomb ready on the 23rd.
The thing is, then what?
Depends how much prep work they’ve done.
And a level of ruthlessness - how many people are you ok expending in your plutonium processing? The Russians are said to have used German prisoners of war…
The next step would be a test. Middle of the Black Sea. I’d go for just after sunset. Put the Funeral March of Seigfreid on the Bluetooth speaker, open a bottle of good red, press some buttons.
A Plan B could be some dirty bombs, dropped on air bases to make a big chunk of the Russian Air Force radioactive.
I vote for Plan C, where everyone is nice and gets along and no-one dies.
I know it's a lot to hope for. Even as someone who is intrinsically quite fond of 'hope'.
I can remember when people were taught to be sceptical about everything, and not automatically believe what they were told by other people, and the funny thing is that it was mostly left-leaning people/teachers who were most likely to be in favour of that approach to life. Conservatives tended to be more in favour of "believe whatever you're told by important people". Interesting how things change over time.
I'm left-leaning, and I'm in favour of being sceptical, but there's a lot of things going on in the world and you have to be selective about what you are sceptical about, and so it helps to be able to come to a judgement about things and no longer be sceptical about them unless there is compelling new evidence.
So, for example, the evidence on the efficacy of vaccines is pretty overwhelming, for a wide range of diseases and vaccine types. That means I can be pretty confident I don't need to expend much effort in being sceptical about any particular vaccine, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. It makes no sense to waste time on supposed scepticism about vaccines. On the contrary, that would be to exhibit extreme credulousness about the claims made by vaccine sceptics.
A lot of people who claim to be sceptical about things - vaccines, climate science, the germ theory of disease, moon landings, etc - are not sceptics at all. They are either outright lying frauds, or they are extremely credulous people unable to critically evaluate evidence, and so have ended up believing any old tosh that they should have been more sceptical about.
Agree with this. The clowns that dress conspiracy up as scepticism or as “just asking questions” really piss me off. As you say people shouldn’t just take what some fella says as gospel. But they should also respect expertise and vocations. You don’t get a plumber round to fix a leak and tell them they don’t know what they are doing at every turn.
@Malmesbury - So, if they wanted to, the Ukrainians could be in a position where, if Donald Trump tells them on January 21st that he is cutting off all US assistance, unless they do an immediate deal with the Russians, then the Ukrainians could already be in a position to have a nuclear bomb ready on the 23rd.
The thing is, then what?
Depends how much prep work they’ve done.
And a level of ruthlessness - how many people are you ok expending in your plutonium processing? The Russians are said to have used German prisoners of war…
The next step would be a test. Middle of the Black Sea. I’d go for just after sunset. Put the Funeral March of Seigfreid on the Bluetooth speaker, open a bottle of good red, press some buttons.
A Plan B could be some dirty bombs, dropped on air bases to make a big chunk of the Russian Air Force radioactive.
I vote for Plan C, where everyone is nice and gets along and no-one dies.
I know it's a lot to hope for. Even as someone who is intrinsically quite fond of 'hope'.
Plan A is just an extra sun rise. Some fish killed, maybe.
Then phone Putin. “That old Mercedes parked across the road, the cherry red one, with the Minsk plates?…”
Congratulations to those who voted for the clown show and enjoy your status as the richest third world country .
Looks like some of the old favourites will make a return , measles , polio and TB .
More likely the MAGA morons will take their lead from JFK jnr and fail to vaccinate their children so at least the gene pool will see a dip in brainwashed off spring !
Where are the Trump apologists this evening . I’m waiting on the spin that this appointment is a marvelous idea !
"Mr Kennedy is more concerned that excessive fluoride consumption could lower IQ. As far-fetched as that sounds, it is something scientists are investigating. A report by the National Toxicology Programme within HHS found that high levels of fluoride exposure, at twice the legal limit, were associated with lower IQ in children. Other researchers found that even fluoride levels within the legal range were associated with that risk. And one study of American mothers found that pregnant women who drank fluoridated water were more likely to give birth to children with lower IQs."
Comments
Cities have cathedrals.
Towns have markets.
Villages have churches.
Hamlets have SFA.
In some ways being a lefty is easier...I think all American presidents since forever have been loons, and Trump is just a stage further on the wtf scale.
But there must be plenty of sane conservatives out there who are having to have a serious sit down talk with themselves right now: "How much longer can I keep up the pretence that Trump is the answer to the problems we face?"
https://senedd.wales/senedd-now/news/ffos-y-fran-mine-mistakes-must-never-happen-again/
But By Jimminy. This is bad. The bizarro thing being that it's exactly what you would expect, given Trump's election campaign taken at face value, but somehow it's still a shock.
Not in the old-fashioned sense of attempting to convince by a logically connected chain of reasoning.
Human activity, in other words.
He is a bastard child of Borat and Steve McGarrett, of the original Hawaii Five-0.
All other countries are run by little girls!
So, Trump cannot afford to have anyone who will not drink outside the fountain in his inner circle. To be in a Trump job you have to be an ultra, and also cranky. If you were half way normal you couldn't be a loyalist.
Trump is fishing in a very small pool of notrights to fill his posts...
It's very similar to Corbyn winning and his team including Burgeon and Pidcock...there were simply no others around who made the mark....
Even if only 3-4% of people live like that, it's still 2 to 2.5m people.
In 2024 Trump is nominating die-hard MAGA clowns. I wonder if Trump has in effect himself been indoctrinated by his own campaigning. He's now not just the cult leader, but also now a cult member, and true believer.
If nothing else he seems to be intent on doing all the crazy things that the press have been sanewashing away over the last year or so.
Beneath those rugged elms, that yew-tree's shade,
Where heaves the turf in many a mould'ring heap,
Each in his narrow cell for ever laid,
The rude forefathers of the hamlet sleep.
Either way, Melania is probably relieved.
It's like bringing back University Seats but not allowing Oxford or Cambridge or Aber any seats as opposed to St Andrews and Teesside. You'd grasp the point instantly then, as opposed to your obtuseness now.
People are endlessly inventive.
I hope for another 60.
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
Story of my life.
But it’s certainly possible - and (publicly available) techniques have improved considerably since 1945. Reactor grade plutonium has problems for making efficient warheads (and wouldn’t have worked with the wartime designs), but it’s usable.
Ask @Malmesbury for details..
See the decline in quality of Corbyn's shadow cabinet, or Johnson's cabinet.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ced9w12dx8do
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/steam-trains-return-to-the-london-underground-after-a-50-year-absence-8098/
One of the reasons I would never win an election is that I'd like to reduce the British pet population quite drastically. I would require all pets to be licensed, and then once all the licences had been issued in year 1, I would issue no more pet licences. Anyone wanting a pet would have to wait until an existing pet had died, and then buy the licence for the deceased pet. Except that I would randomly choose 9 out of 10 pet licences from deceased pets and destroy them, progressively reducing the pet population over the average lifetime of pets by 90%.
In the end it doesn't really matter. We don't know what the counterfactual scenario is (where Harris won) but the likelihood is that it would have been a disaster which has now been avoided, although Trump could well turn out to be a disaster too.
I didn’t expect the answer that came, which read like something out of WUWT circa 2007. But there we go. That’s what ideology does to you.
This is another reminder that whether things are okay or not in this context is not really a binary condition. Things will be unnecessarily worse, and I guess you can call that not okay, but also a lot of things will simply still happen regardless, and people will adjust, and find ways to cope, and sorta be okay.
Obviously in Britain we learnt with Truss that you cannot be in charge of a country and simply do whatever the hell you like without consequences, and if you do something really stupid, then those consequences can be quite severe. One of the weaknesses of a Presidential system like the US, is that it's really difficult to get rid of a President if they start doing really stupid things that start to have severe consequences.
We don't know yet whether any of the stupid things Trump and his administration will do will end up crossing a threshold beyond which the consequences are catastrophic, but the chances do look higher now than a few days ago.
Because you have better computers. And forming explosions is now a science they teach at university as a branch of engineering.
Plus the testing of the implosion is much, much easier. So 2 point implosions, probably combined with flying plate. Suspended core (conical springs), which will help with the heat output from reactor grade plutonium.
How long? Depends how much hey have every. No law against testing implosion. No treaty either. Providing you are compressing a chunk of steel. You watch what happens on a high speed X-ray camera - so you know that you design works. A few months work, slowly. In a rush, with lots of clever people? You could do multiple shots per day. Multiple sites…. Days? A week or 2.
Next, you need your plutonium. It’s mixed in a fuel rod. You dissolve in acid, precipitate the plutonium. Reduce to metal. Basic chemistry.
How long? Depends how much you value the workforce. The Americans invented remote manipulation - chemistry through a yard of concrete and lead. Th e Russians expended political prisoners….
I’d do it in small batches, in existing labs. Weeks.
Casting the core is trivial - induction furnaces with inert atmosphere are an off the shelf item. The crucibles for the Nagasaki bomb were hand made in a guys garage…
If they have done nothing, all this might be a month or 2. Depends what crazy level of resources they throw at it.
If they’ve done the implosion design, and already separated the plutonium, a day to cast a core.
Size - Fat Man was a 2 foot thick shell of explosive, round an 8 inch thick tamper, with an orange sized ball of plutonium in the middle. A 5 foot diameter sphere. Weighed tons.
This will be smaller and oval lid - 12 inches on the small axis, maybe. A hundred kilos, maybe.
Any weapon or plane can carry it.
BlackBeltBarrister"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6It8S90CgwM
https://ballotbox.scot/result-central-buchan/
The thing is, then what?
The wind doesn't always blow, so it's even more exciting that about 25GW of that is battery and pumped hydro. Total UK consumption averages around 30GW, with peaks up to 50GW.
I accidentally ended up in a conservative session discussing the future of the NHS at the LGA conference. Some speculation that Streeting would be able to do the stuff they had been wanting to do. And likely to do it.
I didn’t hang about, it seemed rude. Nevertheless, it led me to reconsider Streeting.
Shame.
Messy process:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUREX
Any idea what the 239/240/241 isotope proportions are in Ukraine’s PWRs ?
I don’t think they’re much more than about 55% 239. That’s not great for warhead production. (Though I think the US tested on to see if it could be done ?)
I don’t think this is as easy as you suggest ?
They might just make something that fizzles in the sub kiloton range.
And a level of ruthlessness - how many people are you ok expending in your plutonium processing? The Russians are said to have used German prisoners of war…
The next step would be a test. Middle of the Black Sea. I’d go for just after sunset. Put the Funeral March of Seigfreid on the Bluetooth speaker, open a bottle of good red, press some buttons.
Nobody thinks Big Pharma has the only solutions for health. But vaccines are one of the great success stories of preventative medicine of the last century and that is the bit of "big pharma" that the nasty lying fraud RFK Jr spends most of his time attacking - and also where he makes a lot of money spreading lies. He tells lies that kill people, for money. He's despicable.
Anyway, surely even Trump doesn't think Kennedy has a chance of being confirmed by the senate.
They know nothing of politicians lies or the other petty bullshit of the world. Just truth, fiercer than any sun.
The burn up depends on the reactor. 55% 239 would be extraordinarily high burn up - the Americans had to ask the U.K. for some 75%, because they didn’t have anything that, for the test you mention.
Remember that the reactors in Ukraine were Soviet and dual purpose - plutonium production was a design task.some of the fuel rods in the ponds date before the Soviet Union fell. Quite apart from the regular batches - they were known to run fuel batches at lower burn up for “super plutonium” for things like torpedo warheads. Back then, they were part of the Soviet Union and plutonium production was a national target.
So it is quite possible they have some 99% 239 rods in the ponds. Even if they don’t, the reactors were designed for low burn up - so they’ll have 80%, for sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab7NyKw0VYQ&t=39s
"Young Frankenstein Putting On The Ritz"
'Tis the Puppy-Killer, Tulsi Gabbard.
So, for example, the evidence on the efficacy of vaccines is pretty overwhelming, for a wide range of diseases and vaccine types. That means I can be pretty confident I don't need to expend much effort in being sceptical about any particular vaccine, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. It makes no sense to waste time on supposed scepticism about vaccines. On the contrary, that would be to exhibit extreme credulousness about the claims made by vaccine sceptics.
A lot of people who claim to be sceptical about things - vaccines, climate science, the germ theory of disease, moon landings, etc - are not sceptics at all. They are either outright lying frauds, or they are extremely credulous people unable to critically evaluate evidence, and so have ended up believing any old tosh that they should have been more sceptical about.
There is such a huge amount of necessary stuff that the Blues sat on their butt and refused to do, that they could probably have done, in the last several years, that if the new Govt get just some of it done nd noticed, it will be very hard for the Cons to find a route back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDpFxD6FRuA
"Kate works in the nuclear industry. She is concerned about the way things are being run. So she smuggles out some Plutonium to prove how easy it is. She tries to pass it on to protest groups, but nobody is interested as they have their own agendas."
They can reject some of Trump's appointments if they want to. I don't think Trump would even care if Kennedy was rejected.
I know it's a lot to hope for. Even as someone who is intrinsically quite fond of 'hope'.
Then phone Putin. “That old Mercedes parked across the road, the cherry red one, with the Minsk plates?…”
Congratulations to those who voted for the clown show and enjoy your status as the richest third world country .
Looks like some of the old favourites will make a return , measles , polio and TB .
More likely the MAGA morons will take their lead from JFK jnr and fail to vaccinate their children so at least the gene pool will see a dip in brainwashed off spring !
Where are the Trump apologists this evening . I’m waiting on the spin that this appointment is a marvelous idea !
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2024/11/14/should-america-ban-fluoride-in-its-drinking-water