MJ

London (Platts)--19Oct2001 Greenpeace confirmed Friday that surface to air missiles have arrived near the nuclear waste reprocessing plant in France's La Hague to defend against possible terrorism attacks. There are 24 rockets stationed at the plant. It is as yet unclear whether the rockets are to be stationed there temporarily or forever. The reprocessing unit, which was commissioned in the 1960s, has less protection against terrorism attacks than a nuclear power plant. Nuclear processing plants like La Hague in France have only been constructed to withstand the impact of collision with a small jet since 1992. However, the collision with a plane such as a Boeing 747 would be about 450 times greater. In addition, a Boeing plane of this size has about 100 times more fuel on board than a small jet. Experts of the WISE group estimate that an attack on La Hague could be 67 times worse than the Chernobyl disaster. "The fact that the French government protects La Hague with rockets just shows how dangerous the plant is and how big the fear amongst the French population is," said Veit Burger, energy expert at Greenpeace. Next to the UK's Sellafield reprocessing unit, La Hague is one of the most dangerous and most environmentally-unfriendly plants in Europe, Greenpeace said. The plant feeds about 1.4-mil liter/day of radioactive sewage into the sea, it said.

Just came across the following material:Speaking of POWER: The tooth fairy is fouling our air From the howls of indignation emitted by environmental groups, left-leaning politicians, and the mainstream media regarding President Bush's energy policy, you'd think this country has an air-quality crisis that cannot tolerate a single more Btu of coal being fired. But as with so many other political issues, the evidence contradicts the emotional rhetoric. If you look at the actual data--something we engineers and scientists eagerly do, but activists and journalists seem to deliberately avoid--you'll see that emissions of most criteria pollutants peaked over 30 years ago--around 1970--while emissions of particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10) peaked 50 years ago--before most of today's journalists were even born! This according to data from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)--no friend of industry--in its "National Air Pollutant Emission Trends" report for 1900-1998. Since that peak in the 1970s, US air quality has improved by 30%, while the population was rising by about 30%, gross domestic product was leaping nearly 100%, and fossil-fuel use was skyrocketing. In particular, coal use by power producers went from 320-million tons in 1970 to nearly 900-million tons today--yet our air got dramatically cleaner! And it's getting cleaner still, in a hurry. According to the EPA's latest atmospheric "Annual Air Quality Trends Report," the following nationwide improvements in average air quality occurred in the last decade, from 1989 to 1998: • SO2 emissions, down 39%. • CO, down 39%. • Particulates, down 25%. • NOx, down 14%. Looking specifically at powerplant emissions of SO2 (Figs 1A, --the main culprit in acid rain--the data show that a peak of 17.6-million tons was reached way back in 1976, and that levels since then have been cut nearly in half to 10-million tons. The EPA's latest Acid Rain Program Compliance Report reveals that not only are utilities in full compliance with strict new SO2 emissions requirements, but their emissions have been substantially below the levels mandated by law every year since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 kicked in. Realize that Phase II of the Amendments, which will further cut SO2 emissions, is just now being implemented, so by 2008, when it becomes fully effective, our skies may be so blue it will hurt to look up. The improvement in US air quality is most astounding in Southern California, according to data from two nonprofit, nonpartisan groups, including the Foundation for Clean Air Progress. Since 1990, Los Angeles--often referred to as "Smell A" instead of LA--enjoyed a 95% reduction in the number of days ozone exceeded standard, from 121 days down to just six. Nearby San Diego and Orange counties saw a 100% drop! That's right, the number of ozone days in these counties went from 30 in 1990 down to zero in 1999. A few years ago, there was an article in the LA Times discussing the turmoil and anxiety within state air-pollution agencies because they had set aside $6-million to study smog, and there were not enough smoggy days to perform the study. Damn the bad luck! Mainstream media rarely mention our cleaner air, but never miss a chance to claim that large, old coal-fired plants have been "grandfathered" so that they don't have to comply with the Clean Air Act. As a former presidential candidate famously said, "If you believe that, you believe in the tooth fairy." Title I of the 1990 Amendments requires reasonably available control technology (RACT) to be installed for all existing major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOx in non-attainment areas, even if the plant does not undergo a major modification. In response, power producers retrofit countless numbers of low-NOx burners, selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems, and other NOx-control technologies. Even more NOx-reduction upgrades are scheduled for the next few years. Similarly, Title V of the 1990 Amendments affects all existing powerplants, requiring them to obtain an air-quality operating permit that is federally mandated and enforceable in order to achieve uniformity in air-permitting requirements across the country. The most hard-hitting of the 1990 Amendments--Title IV, addressing acid rain--not only affected all powerplants, but its most pronounced effect has been on those very same large, old coal-fired plants that supposedly were "grandfathered." Phase I of Title IV specifically identified the 110 largest SO2 emitters, predominantly large coal-fired stations, and required them to cut their SO2 emissions to the amount produced at an emissions rate of 2.5 lb/MBtu at the average "baseline" historical fuel consumption for the years 1985 to 1987 (Fig 2). In response, the large coal-fired plants aggressively reduced their SO2 emissions to well below those mandated by law, largely through switching to low-sulfur fuels and retrofitting flue-gas-desulfurization (FGD) systems. Perhaps the activists, journalists, and politicians are not deliberately ignoring the data regarding our cleaner air. Perhaps they truly intend to help the environment, and simply don't understand the reams of figures, charts, and chemical equations that tell the true story. In their minds, they are on a crusade to save the Earth for future generations. And as we know from the anti-World Trade Organization looters in Seattle, the Earth First tree-spikers, and the Arizona Five nuclear plant saboteurs, some people will do anything to save the planet . . . except take a science class. —Robert Swanekamp, PE, Editor-in-Chief http://www.platts.com/engineering/issues/Power/0107/images/GM-2.JPG 2. Mainstream media like to claim that large, existing coal-fired plants in the US have been "grandfathered" so they don't have to comply with the Clean Air Act. In reality, Title IV of the 1990 Amendments hit the large, existing coal-fired plants the hardest, and the billions of dollars they've spent on SO2 reductions have dramatically cleaned the air. [ October 18, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by THOTH: I believe in the concept of evolution and in the generally accepted "facts" of it regarding humans and other creatures - even though specific evidence (the misnamed) missing link issue etc - is still mostly speculation based on accepted/observed phenomonon extrapolated and applied to us. I see the "evidence" regarding global warmiong as similar. (in each case there are holes in the data - but there is ample supporting evidence/observations for one to come to the "correct" conclusion - IMO) There is at least one fundamental difference: there is no expectation to execute drastic economic and political transformations on the grounds of the evolution theory, but there are such expectations on the grounds of the hypothesis of Global Warming. Have had too good of Cabernet to spoil its impact on such nonsense tonight. Sorry for not expending further.

quote:Originally posted by MosJan: Ba miminon ? Glxavor derum ?? ba Inchu e Armkum Get@ ?? Kolxozi naxagahi varordn er che How about the disgraceful and shameful role he plays as Tashank Khmbabet in a movie made by an Azerbaijanian Studio in the Soviet Days?

Thoth, Well MJ - do you say the same concerning evolution? What about evolution? Evidence seems somewhat circumstantial don't you think? I would like to see at least some evidence regarding Global Warming – circumstantial or not. I certainly am more then a little concerned that the average world temperatures (and more specifically the upper ocean temperatures - our worlds heat sink) over the last decade or so have been at all time highs (for recent times) and can be shown to be rising...and why is that we may ask - I think the answer is obvious. Not to me. Please show it. You have accurately indicated “over the last decade.” I assume that technically you are accurate. But why have you decided to average over the last decade and not over the last 500 years, for example? Perhaps this is my belief - you may call it a religion - and that because of insufficient data collection periods to develop trends (do we really have a few thousand years?) we may be just in some natural cycle (even if so - it is certainly an issue with (potential) meaning for us all - and with the great potential for a real hell that none/few of us will likely be able to escape. I think nobody can deny anyone to believe or not to believe in something, even if it is tooth fairy. I suggest - if you have any sense or concern about the type of world you or your children and their children will live in - that you try to "see the light" on this one. Being wrong has true and perhaps irreversible consequences...and even if the dire predictions do not come to pass - what do we lose? A little more clean air, more trees (which are dying from excess nitrogen and acids from the air - this i have seen with my own eyes) etc...so step up to the druidic alter son and be saved.... I am ardent supporter of clean air and more trees. I don’t see any trees dying in my front or back yard. Nothing that you have said in the paragraph above contradicts to my desires. Now, what was that you where suggesting to do? Another question: In the material that I had referenced above there were few charts describing the temperature patterns of the surface of the earth/ocean throughout thousands of years, as well as a slice-chart on the emission distribution/entrapment throughout variety of media. Unless you assume that these charts are hoaxes, could you interpret them for me, please? P.S. I just had few minutes to compose this material. Sorry if it sounds like "ping-pong." [ October 17, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by Anshnork: If you do not believe in saving the environment, then you should see a psychologist.... For you are suicidal. Dear Anshnork, As much as I understand your desire to live up to your self-described standards indicated by your nickname, I would recommend you to do few things: 1. Go back to a grade school to improve your reading abilities; 2. Work diligently on your thinking abilities - it can be improved (in principal); 3. See an ethicist capable of helping you to become more "shnorkov." As I come up with more recommendations, I would be gracious enough to share them with you.

quote:Originally posted by alpha: MJ, will you please specify what do you mean by "the environmentalism in its current form belongs to the category of Religion". I thought environmentalism is about clean air and preservation of natural habitat. Alpha, I guess my statement was a little bit a broad one. Here is the politically and perhaps factually more accurate one: "The concept of Global Warming in its current shape/status belongs to the category of Religion." To go one step ahead and to provide satisfaction to your next potential request of giving explanation, I would say "because it is based on belief and not evidence or knowledge."

quote:Originally posted by Anshnork: If you have the power to choose, then God's power is limited. But that can not possibly happen, the Christian God is all powerful, right? Not quite so. The power of choice may be voluntarily granted. In the opposite case the entire concept loses its meaning and takes the humanity back to the Garden of Eden of the pre-forbidden fruit era, with the fruit being obsolete.

I read a little bit of the material at http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/climate/index.html, which is quoted below: Why are greenhouse gas concentrations increasing? Scientists generally believe that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide. It immediately reminded me what my teachers have taught me: “Whenever you read something that says ‘ít is well known,’ ‘everybody agrees on,’ ‘ít is easy to show,’ etc, without concrete referrences or evidence, look no further to find lies.” I also find the expression “scientists generally believe” to be somewhat like an oxymoron. However, I find it being supportive of my suspicion that the environmentalism in its current form belongs to the category of Religion. Will try to read the rest of the material hopefully over the weekend.

quote:Originally posted by MJ: Yes, Ali. It is an Armenian word. I am out the door in few minutes, and unfortunately cannot check it 's meaning, though I know precisely what beach "animal" it describes. I also would like to address some of the issues that you have raised on the Armenian downplaying of the Armenian uprising in Ottoman Turkey and the like, but unfortunately have to run now. Hopefully will do it next weekend. OK, Ali. I am at my hotel and have a little time, and can get back to the promised subject. First about "khakhonch." Haven't had obviously a chance to look in the dictionary, but it is something close to a "shell." Not the shell itself, but I think the living organism inside. However, in practice people use it also in the sense of its hard surface. I have also promised to address a couple of issues for quite some time. Will try as best as I can in the current conditions. I haven't had a chance to check the date of the Letter of Nubar ***** vs. the date of the signing of the Severes Treaty. Obviously, Nubar ***** had to present a picture of viability of the proposed Armenian State and make a cased that Armenians "deserve" it and have earned" it by the standards of the time. And if he had to exaggerate a little bit for such purpose - he had to do so. But what I recall the letter saying was that thousands of Armenians had come from all over the world to fight against the Ottomans."" In my view it is just a rhetoric statement what he has said. The question is only how many thousands is "thousands" - two, three, ten or hundred? For example, if there was one Armenian form Iran, one from France, one from America, and five thousand from Caucasus and Eastern Anatolia, I think Nubar *****'s statement would have been quite accurate. Let's also look at the real context of the issues from a wider perspective. In our around 1890 at least two Armenian political parties had been established with the agenda of the liberation of Armenia. This fact on its own makes me only feel proud, and under no pretext I would like to "hide" it for the sake of the questionable political gains. The first one was the Hnchagian party, and then Tasnaks followed them. People at the foundations of these parties had been men who in my view should be put on the pedestal of the Armenian history, though I find many of the actions of their followers wouldn't or shouldn't be seen from that perspective. They, including Michael and Khristopor, established organizations with the purpose of National Liberation, which is the holiest of all holly aspirations in my view - even by the standards of the modern world, as documented by the various resolutions of the UN. I am not feeling a need to put myself in a defensive position and try to justify them claiming that they where frustrated by the refusal of the Sultans to implement the reforms that they had promised in the last 30 years or so. I don't need that they needed such justification - the country and the nation was enslaved for about 700 years, and they were trying to liberate it. One may claim that they have been occasionally committing terrorist acts, and looking at it from the point of view of the morality and rationality of our days, one may claim that it was not morally and otherwise justified. But we have to see it in the context of the era they have lived in. The teroristic actions were a quite common mentality at the time throughout Europe and Russia. Besides, one has to look at it very carefully as to understand the chronology of the events as to figure out whether these where terrorist actions or reactions. The highest profile terrorist action of the time that I can recall without having the literature in my hands is the one committed against the Bank Ottoman. However, the outcome of the straggle for Armenia’s independence by 1905 was total fiasco – the idea of independence was too elitist. The masses in rural/agrarian areas where too assimilated or bitten to the point as not to raise their heads from under the heavy yoke, the wealthy were not supportive of any perturbations which might’ve jeopardized their economic stability, and the talks of independence were just subjects of debates in the Armenian “political clubs” of Istanbul, consistently finding their way to the Armenian Satirical literature of the time. By 1905 the spirit of the liberation was out and the spirit of revolution was in. There was almost nothing left from Mikael or Kristapor (all the way to our days). In one word – it was a total fiasco. It is also interesting to note that the ruling circles of the Ottoman Empire have indeed used this very skillfully. Armenians, to an extent, have raised their voice for liberation. I wish it had been serious or at least well executed. But they have tried to implement European models in the Ottoman Empire. As we have discussed earlier, the best thing that they could do for their own oppression was the terror. They have given much desired pretext to the Sultan to implement unprecedented horror. And interestingly enough, Armenians do a demonstration in Istanbul with slogans of independence, and enormous numbers of totally unaware Armenians get slaughtered in Adana. Obviously, the reaction of the revolutionaries was going to be more hate and more escalation (knowing our loud-mouth revolutionaries) – this is what the Sultan needed – more violence from Armenians easier for him to implement the massacres. The goal of this posting is not to analyze the Armenian revolutionaries, though I feel it needs to be done, finally. I think their responsibility in the Armenian massacres has to be exposed. But it requires systematic studies and I am not in the position of doing it. As far as the period of the WW1 is concerned, of coarse WW1 has awakened the hopes for the liberation of Armenia, though to a very limited extend. It would be naïve to assume that the much oppressed minority would not find at least few thousand sons who would raise for the occasion. My problem is not that they have done it. To the contrary, I am ashamed that they have not done it properly. But, again, as I claimed above, the nation was too assimilated and too bitten up. Basically, even those who were the loud mouth revolutionaries of the time had pledged loyalty to the Empire. Sure there have been few thousand volunteers that have joined the Russian Army to fight against the Ottoman. No Armenian can deny it. To the contrary, these volunteers have become the heroes of the nation and part of its folklore. They are the ones who have inspired at least some pride to the nation in the future to come, so that not too look like an entire nation has been slaughtered without resistance. You also tell as that many Armenians have served as guides for the Russian Army due to their familiarity with the local terrain – quite possible. How many of them? From my perspective, if not to consider that they were most likely being fooled by the Russians with the promises of granting liberty to Armenians after the victory, the entire nation had to rise up. But this was not the perspective of the time. I would have much preferred, perhaps from the safe distance today, that the entire nation – women, children, the elderly had risen, joined with the allies and had given resistance to the Ottoman Army to the latest drop of their nation. And then, if they were slaughtered in the battle, I would’ve felt that they did their best, but they lost. There would’ve been no complain – it would’ve been a fair game. But unfortunately, this was not the reality. Armenian men, primarily, were summoned to the Ottoman Army, and had served faithfully until the point of being slaughtered first. The political parties had committed loyalty – it would have been even stupid not to commit it given that the men where in the Ottoman Army and they had no intention to rise against the Empire – I think there is no such evidence whatsoever. In the past you have mentioned that Armenians dismiss any context for the commitment of the Genocide by the Ottomans. I have to tell you that you were wrong. Those of us who value things like liberty and sovereignty and statehood have always understood that this has been exactly the context for the Ottomans or the Ittehat to commit the Genocide, even though the reality of it has not existed. Many of us have even expressed this idea in different public forums. Only culturally Ottoman Turks like Khodja could think or claim that the Genocide has been committed because of the racial and religious motivations. Because the consciousness of liberty, independence, statehood, sovereignty doesn’t exist in their minds – something hereditary. Therefore, On behalf of those for whom the Armenian Sovereignty has been and remains of the utmost value, let me tell you that you were absolutely right in your assertion. Moreover, I think that the potential Armenian independence was the only compelling motivation of the Ottoman Turks to commit the Genocide. But the thing is the while we can understand such motivations of the oppressors, we don’t feel that it warrants Genocide of such scale, and moreover denying its commitment 85 years later, thus continuing the torture of the Genocide for the survivors and their generations as if inserting needles into the voodoo doll of the Armenian psyche. My understanding is that you were of the same opinion. I just want to reiterate – there would be impossible to find a healthy Armenian who would not proudly accept that Armenians have rebelled in the Ottoman Empire. Only some of them would exaggerate it to feel more proud, others would totally deny it because they may make some “political calculations.” But the real issue is the scale of that rebellion, its geography, its implications for the Ottoman Turkey, and so on. Perhaps this is something more for the professionals. One last comment of mine along these lines would be an assertion that Turkey didn’t have a rational use for the Eastern Anatolian provinces then, and it lacks such use even now. But I know that these things are not defined by “rationality.” As far as the Armenian atrocities are concerned, I think this issue is also frequently misunderstood or misrepresented. Many of us do know that Armenians have committed some atrocities. Even the Armenian historical literature provides such evidence (not too detailed though). And it would be stupid or at least naïve from our sides to think that in the course of the events of the WW1 and the Genocide, no Armenians would’ve committed atrocities. We even know the names of some of the commanders that have led such atrocities. Our relative silence on this issue is not because of our non-recognition of these events. It is because of our understanding and the existing evidence that the Turkish side is taking these atrocities out of their context and scale, and trying to create a picture of quid-pro-quo. When the events of the region and era are properly recognized and properly interpreted, I can assure you that you would find many Armenians who would come forward clear and loudly and denounce those commanders and their subordinates. But for now, indeed we would not go after them, because first things first. Sorry for this hectic material. I have had a long and tiresome trip, and it is getting late. Hopefully will be more systematic at my next chance to speak out.

quote:Originally posted by aurguplu: a query does the word "khakhonch" (written in turkish as hahonç, stress accent on first syllable, the h is the ch in scottish loch) mean anything in armenian, or does it ring any bells to an armenian? regards, Yes, Ali. It is an Armenian word. I am out the door in few minutes, and unfortunetely cannot check it 's meaning, though I know precisely what beach "animal" it describes. I also would like to address some of the issues that you have raised on the Armenian downplaying of the Armenian uprising in Ottoman Turkey and the like, but unfortunately have to run now. Hopefully will do it next weekend.

quote:Originally posted by Thorny Rose: OK, just one last irrelevant post on this thread. /cgi-bin/forum/ultim...28&t=000024&p=2 Thorny, you should read it more attentively.

quote:Originally posted by khodja: In line with your thinking Martin you can begin with Michael Arlen, best selling author of the 1920's who stated "Who would claim to be Armenian if they were not." FYI, this guy was born Dickran Kouyoumjian, but never admitted to being Armenian. Many others like this exist today, some in the highest echelons of Western societies. But I have not claimed that you are not Armenian, right? To the contrary and unfortunately, you are an Armenian and as such you are not unique in your psychosis.

As one of our members said once, the greatest crime that the Ottomans have committed against Armenians is the creation of psychopats like you. You would prefer not to deliberate further on this subject.

quote:Originally posted by gamavor: Actually his work, (I’m not aware of anything else besides “Hell” is rather socio-political-psychological than theological. In the context of Christianity the concept of "Hell" itself is of socio-political-psychological character. According to the scripture, the word "Hell" means nothing else but "grave," implying that those who don't by the Grace of God enter the Eternal Kingdom, remain dead in their graves. Everything else describing "Hell" is the imagination of writers or comes from other religions.

But why would they keep you around if they were sane? For example, what do the Tondraletsi have to do with this conversation other than as another testimony of your foot-and-mouth disease?

quote:Originally posted by khodja: Question authority That has been part of my life since my childhood. But I also add question your sanity, my dear Mustafa. However, the answer is evident - you are very transparent.

quote:Originally posted by gamavor: ...but the thing is that we (I mean Armenian Church) take the Old Testament as a reference and some times as a historical document and explanatory for what were meant to happen (i.e. the arrival of the Only Begotten). I know and agree. I was just referencing what is written in the book. Moreover, the Old Testament is not my favorite book – in this case I totally agree with the Armenian Church.

I gather these psychologists/sociologists also had IQ of more than 180. But, again, if I knew how to help you, I would do it. But the whole nation of England couldn't cope with the foot-and-mouth decease. What can I do?

From what I understand, you parents have brought you to this world at a very late age. I am sure they have brought you up as the "Gift to Humanity." Your pathological deceases are symptomatic for such families. But if I have made an impression that your transfer would give me satisfaction - I am sorry to give you such impression. First, if I knew how, I would've helped you to get proper therapy; second, you are too insignificant of a misfit to make difference for me and for most of the people on this earth.

Mustafa, why don't you commit suicide and liberate yourself from your misery?

But, again, the prohibition of eating something doesn't necessarily imply that man doesn't have total control over some kind of beast. It is rather an issue of "cleanness." And the prohibitions put forward in the Old Testimen are very explicit in not leaving much space for interpretations. Howevr, in a much broader sence, obeying the Word of God is not mandatory - the Creator himself, according to the logic of the scripture, has given men the choice to obey His Word or not. And He has warned on the consequences with each choice.

quote:Originally posted by gamavor: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." 29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." All other prohibitions are from the Satan. Having control doesn't mean eating them, right? Additionally, I do distinctly remember a whole list of animals qualified as "unclean" for consumption purposes in the Old Testament. Now, who has writtent the Old Testament may be a subject of wider discussions.

quote:Originally posted by Thorny Rose: Swallows? Poor little critters, ... My remark meant that it is prohibited by the Old Testiment to eat swallows.

quote:Originally posted by Thorny Rose: No, MJ, I think you've been overtly aggressive of late - especially with Winston. Your accusing him of not contributing anything of value to discussions was totally uncalled for... Thorny, calm down. Could you show me the instance where I have accused Winston "of not contributing anything of value to discussions?" Additionally, does it have anything to do with the environmentalism?