On 27/01/2022 12:14, Max Demian wrote:
Even if you aren't interested in BBC3 (restarting programmes next
Tuesday), it's still worth retuning for various LCN changes.
BBC1 HD regional, as of yesterday.
Max Demian wrote:
Even if you aren't interested in BBC3 (restarting programmes next
Tuesday), it's still worth retuning for various LCN changes.
Just remember to add one to all channels above 23 ...
"lew" <lew@none.org> wrote in message news:ssu2gd$ao8$1@dont-email.me...
On 27/01/2022 12:14, Max Demian wrote:
Even if you aren't interested in BBC3 (restarting programmes next
Tuesday), it's still worth retuning for various LCN changes.
BBC1 HD regional, as of yesterday.
Really? That was kept very quiet. I'll set the BBC local news to record
this evening on HD terrestrial and see if it really is or whether you
still get the supremely unhelpful "Please change to BBC1 SD" caption. Not that I doubt you, but I'm surprised there was no advance trumpeting of
this information.
Even if you aren't interested in BBC3 (restarting programmes next
Tuesday), it's still worth retuning for various LCN changes.
Even if you aren't interested in BBC3 (restarting programmes next Tuesday), it's
still worth retuning for various LCN changes.
On 27/01/2022 12:14, Max Demian wrote:
Even if you aren't interested in BBC3 (restarting programmes next
Tuesday), it's still worth retuning for various LCN changes.
BBC1 HD regional, as of yesterday.
Even if you aren't interested in BBC3 (restarting programmes next
Tuesday), it's still worth retuning for various LCN changes.
I've got an SD PVR. AFAICS BBC3 is HD in which case I guess I won't
have to retune that?
On 27/01/2022 12:14, Max Demian wrote:
Even if you aren't interested in BBC3 (restarting programmes next
Tuesday), it's still worth retuning for various LCN changes.
BBC1 HD regional, as of yesterday.
does anyone have any up to date info on whats happening with the
interim mux, Mu 7?
On 27/01/2022 12:17, lew wrote:
On 27/01/2022 12:14, Max Demian wrote:
Even if you aren't interested in BBC3 (restarting programmes next
Tuesday), it's still worth retuning for various LCN changes.
BBC1 HD regional, as of yesterday.
does anyone have any up to date info on whats happening with the interim
mux, Mu 7?
S.
On 27/01/2022 12:17, lew wrote:
On 27/01/2022 12:14, Max Demian wrote:Only on Virgin cable. DTT and Sat this autumn
Even if you aren't interested in BBC3 (restarting programmes next
Tuesday), it's still worth retuning for various LCN changes.
BBC1 HD regional, as of yesterday.
On 27/01/2022 12:24, SH wrote:
All we know is currently the licence for using UHF Ch55 (and 56) for >broadcasting expires on June 30th this year, so COM 7 is likely to go
does anyone have any up to date info on whats happening with the
interim mux, Mu 7?
on or before that date.
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
What about BBC News Channel though?
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 13:36:14 +0000, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 27/01/2022 12:24, SH wrote:
All we know is currently the licence for using UHF Ch55 (and 56) for
does anyone have any up to date info on whats happening with the
interim mux, Mu 7?
broadcasting expires on June 30th this year, so COM 7 is likely to go
on or before that date.
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
Also, what about BBC Three, is it broadcast in HD in England? It does
not appear here, possibly because of the BBC Scotland channel, which apparently almost no-one watches.
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 13:36:14 +0000, Mark CarverYes, and NI, but not Scotland because of BBC Scotland HD, and not in
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 27/01/2022 12:24, SH wrote:Also, what about BBC Three, is it broadcast in HD in England?
does anyone have any up to date info on whats happening with theAll we know is currently the licence for using UHF Ch55 (and 56) for
interim mux, Mu 7?
broadcasting expires on June 30th this year, so COM 7 is likely to go
on or before that date.
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:j5fl5qFea8dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 27/01/2022 12:17, lew wrote:
On 27/01/2022 12:14, Max Demian wrote:Only on Virgin cable. DTT and Sat this autumn
Even if you aren't interested in BBC3 (restarting programmes next
Tuesday), it's still worth retuning for various LCN changes.
BBC1 HD regional, as of yesterday.
Ah, fine. That agrees with what I'd read previously. I would have been surprised if DTT and DSat dates had suddenly changed from "this
autumn" to "as of yesterday".
How many spare multiplexes does DSat have so it can accommodate all
the regional variations of BBC 1, in the same way that ITV needs
several muxes for its variations? Is DSat on Astra 28.x in danger of
running out of spare muxes?
On 27/01/2022 12:24, SH wrote:
All we know is currently the licence for using UHF Ch55 (and 56) for >broadcasting expires on June 30th this year, so COM 7 is likely to go
does anyone have any up to date info on whats happening with the
interim mux, Mu 7?
on or before that date.
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
On 27/01/2022 13:36, Mark Carver wrote:
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
They would be better closing BBC Three, we keep being told that
youngsters do not watch live TV channels.
On 27/01/2022 12:24, SH wrote:
All we know is currently the licence for using UHF Ch55 (and 56) for >broadcasting expires on June 30th this year, so COM 7 is likely to go
does anyone have any up to date info on whats happening with the
interim mux, Mu 7?
on or before that date.
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
In message <j5flefFec8qU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
On 27/01/2022 12:24, SH wrote:
All we know is currently the licence for using UHF Ch55 (and 56) for
does anyone have any up to date info on whats happening with the
interim mux, Mu 7?
broadcasting expires on June 30th this year, so COM 7 is likely to go
on or before that date.
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
It would be typical if the channel that they close should be the one
with (IMO) the largest amount worthwhile content. No doubt they will
find a way to put a positive spin on it, though. Like Sky did when they
reduced their arts channels from two to one about five years ago, and in
trailers said "now you can find all your favourite arts programmes in
one place".
I could accept BBC 4 going if BBC2 went back to how it was in its first >couple of decades. Im not sure if its me getting old or the world is
really going to pot. BBC1 has become BBC drivel, apart from the news I find >almost nothing worth watching. BBC2 is basically BBC1 of old. So I think
Id support going back to two channels if the dross could be cut.
In message <j5flefFec8qU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
On 27/01/2022 12:24, SH wrote:
All we know is currently the licence for using UHF Ch55 (and 56) for
does anyone have any up to date info on whats happening with the
interim mux, Mu 7?
broadcasting expires on June 30th this year, so COM 7 is likely to go
on or before that date.
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
It would be typical if the channel that they close should be the one
with (IMO) the largest amount worthwhile content. No doubt they will
find a way to put a positive spin on it, though. Like Sky did when they reduced their arts channels from two to one about five years ago, and in trailers said "now you can find all your favourite arts programmes in
one place".
I could accept BBC 4 going if BBC2 went back to how it was in its first couple of decades. I’m not sure if it’s me getting old or the world is really going to pot. BBC1 has become BBC drivel, apart from the news I find almost nothing worth watching. BBC2 is basically BBC1 of old. So I think I’d support going back to two channels if the dross could be cut.
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 18:00:11 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
In message <j5flefFec8qU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
On 27/01/2022 12:24, SH wrote:
All we know is currently the licence for using UHF Ch55 (and 56) for
does anyone have any up to date info on whats happening with the
interim mux, Mu 7?
broadcasting expires on June 30th this year, so COM 7 is likely to
go on or before that date.
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
It would be typical if the channel that they close should be the one
with (IMO) the largest amount worthwhile content. No doubt they will
find a way to put a positive spin on it, though. Like Sky did when
they reduced their arts channels from two to one about five years
ago, and in trailers said "now you can find all your favourite arts
programmes in one place".
I could accept BBC 4 going if BBC2 went back to how it was in its first >couple of decades. Im not sure if its me getting old or the world is >really going to pot. BBC1 has become BBC drivel, apart from the news I
find almost nothing worth watching. BBC2 is basically BBC1 of old. So I >think Id support going back to two channels if the dross could be cut.
I think there are far too many channels (television and radio) and the
BBC should return to its original remit - which is not to replicate what
can be found on the commercial channels.
I'm surprised there isn't a BBC Asian Channel on the telly. It sometimes seems that the BBC has a policy policy of marginalising all us
indigenous people, so such a channel is on the cards I should think.
I think there are far too many channels (television and radio) and the
BBC should return to its original remit - which is not to replicate
what can be found on the commercial channels.
In article <tpn5vgd1ktrkq6kdcr8al6ntv7pkdqatci@4ax.com>, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 18:00:11 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
In message <j5flefFec8qU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
On 27/01/2022 12:24, SH wrote:
All we know is currently the licence for using UHF Ch55 (and 56) for >>>>> broadcasting expires on June 30th this year, so COM 7 is likely to
does anyone have any up to date info on whats happening with the
interim mux, Mu 7?
go on or before that date.
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
It would be typical if the channel that they close should be the one
with (IMO) the largest amount worthwhile content. No doubt they will
find a way to put a positive spin on it, though. Like Sky did when
they reduced their arts channels from two to one about five years
ago, and in trailers said "now you can find all your favourite arts
programmes in one place".
I could accept BBC 4 going if BBC2 went back to how it was in its first
couple of decades. Im not sure if its me getting old or the world is >>> really going to pot. BBC1 has become BBC drivel, apart from the news I
find almost nothing worth watching. BBC2 is basically BBC1 of old. So I
think Id support going back to two channels if the dross could be cut.
I think there are far too many channels (television and radio) and the
BBC should return to its original remit - which is not to replicate what
can be found on the commercial channels.
That was never in the BBC's remit. ITV's remit, on the other hand, was to compete with the BBC and also make money for its shareholders. Roy Thompson called it 'a licence to print money'
I could accept BBC4 going if BBC1 and BBC3 closed as well, leaving us with BBC2 and BBC News, provided BBC2 returned to the remit it had some years back. The other stuff is done at least as well by the commercial stations.
On 27/01/2022 18:19, Clive Page wrote:
I could accept BBC4 going if BBC1 and BBC3 closed as well, leaving us
with BBC2 and BBC News, provided BBC2 returned to the remit it had some
years back. The other stuff is done at least as well by the commercial stations.
What do commercial stations do better?
Except some more trashy ones might appeal to some people and of course Channel specialises in soft porn.
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:01:44 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 27/01/2022 13:36, Mark Carver wrote:
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
They would be better closing BBC Three, we keep being told that
youngsters do not watch live TV channels.
They did close it as a TV channel and now they are reopening it !!!
On 27/01/2022 18:07, Scott wrote:
I think there are far too many channels (television and radio) and the
BBC should return to its original remit - which is not to replicate
what can be found on the commercial channels.
What does that mean?
Not allowed to have anything similar to something on ITV even when the
BBC do it better?
On 27/01/2022 18:19, Clive Page wrote:
I could accept BBC4 going if BBC1 and BBC3 closed as well, leaving us
with BBC2 and BBC News, provided BBC2 returned to the remit it had
some years back. The other stuff is done at least as well by the
commercial stations.
What do commercial stations do better?
why does mainstream TV have to try to make everything
they touch into a dog's dinner? How many people does it really need to
make a dashcam video?
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <tpn5vgd1ktrkq6kdcr8al6ntv7pkdqatci@4ax.com>, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 18:00:11 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
In message <j5flefFec8qU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
On 27/01/2022 12:24, SH wrote:It would be typical if the channel that they close should be the one >>>> with (IMO) the largest amount worthwhile content. No doubt they will >>>> find a way to put a positive spin on it, though. Like Sky did when
All we know is currently the licence for using UHF Ch55 (and 56)
does anyone have any up to date info on whats happening with the >>>>>> interim mux, Mu 7?
for broadcasting expires on June 30th this year, so COM 7 is
likely to go on or before that date.
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed >>>>
they reduced their arts channels from two to one about five years
ago, and in trailers said "now you can find all your favourite arts
programmes in one place".
I could accept BBC 4 going if BBC2 went back to how it was in its
first couple of decades. I<m not sure if it<s me getting old or the
world is really going to pot. BBC1 has become BBC drivel, apart from
the news I find almost nothing worth watching. BBC2 is basically BBC1
of old. So I think I<d support going back to two channels if the
dross could be cut.
I think there are far too many channels (television and radio) and the
BBC should return to its original remit - which is not to replicate
what can be found on the commercial channels.
That was never in the BBC's remit. ITV's remit, on the other hand, was
to compete with the BBC and also make money for its shareholders. Roy Thompson called it 'a licence to print money'
Inform, educate, entertain is I believe the original remit.
There is no BBC equivalent to LBC, or Times Radio,
In article <ssuqrl$fia$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <tpn5vgd1ktrkq6kdcr8al6ntv7pkdqatci@4ax.com>, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 18:00:11 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
In message <j5flefFec8qU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
On 27/01/2022 12:24, SH wrote:It would be typical if the channel that they close should be the one >>>>>> with (IMO) the largest amount worthwhile content. No doubt they will >>>>>> find a way to put a positive spin on it, though. Like Sky did when >>>>>> they reduced their arts channels from two to one about five years
All we know is currently the licence for using UHF Ch55 (and 56) >>>>>>> for broadcasting expires on June 30th this year, so COM 7 is
does anyone have any up to date info on whats happening with the >>>>>>>> interim mux, Mu 7?
likely to go on or before that date.
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed >>>>>>
ago, and in trailers said "now you can find all your favourite arts >>>>>> programmes in one place".
I could accept BBC 4 going if BBC2 went back to how it was in its
first couple of decades. I<m not sure if it<s me getting old or the
world is really going to pot. BBC1 has become BBC drivel, apart from >>>>> the news I find almost nothing worth watching. BBC2 is basically BBC1 >>>>> of old. So I think I<d support going back to two channels if the
dross could be cut.
I think there are far too many channels (television and radio) and the >>>> BBC should return to its original remit - which is not to replicate
what can be found on the commercial channels.
That was never in the BBC's remit. ITV's remit, on the other hand, was
to compete with the BBC and also make money for its shareholders. Roy
Thompson called it 'a licence to print money'
Inform, educate, entertain is I believe the original remit.
That was never a remit - possibly an "aim". Anyway "Entertain" covers a very wide range.
On 27/01/2022 19:39, Mark Carver wrote:
There is no BBC equivalent to LBC, or Times Radio,
Thank f**k for that!
On 27/01/2022 19:39, Mark Carver wrote:
There is no BBC equivalent to LBC, or Times Radio,
Thank f**k for that!
Is it a bit racy in Guernsey and Jersey then? Didn’t notice last time I was there….
On 27/01/2022 19:13, MB wrote:
On 27/01/2022 18:19, Clive Page wrote:
I could accept BBC4 going if BBC1 and BBC3 closed as well, leaving us
with BBC2 and BBC News, provided BBC2 returned to the remit it had
some years back. The other stuff is done at least as well by the
commercial stations.
What do commercial stations do better?
News, some might argue. On the radio, the commercial sector have some specialist stations for musical genres that the Beeb more or less ignore
now.
Jazz (R2 and 3 have given up), Rock (R1 gave up a long time ago), Light Classical (given up long ago by R2), Theatre and film score Music (
given up long ago by R2)
Popular news and unrestrained comment (There is no BBC equivalent to
LBC, or Times Radio, 5Live is sports obsessed)
I’m not
going to join the stupid arguments about BBC bias,
On 27/01/2022 19:39, Mark Carver wrote:
On 27/01/2022 19:13, MB wrote:
On 27/01/2022 18:19, Clive Page wrote:
I could accept BBC4 going if BBC1 and BBC3 closed as well, leaving
us with BBC2 and BBC News, provided BBC2 returned to the remit it
had some years back. The other stuff is done at least as well by
the commercial stations.
What do commercial stations do better?
News, some might argue. On the radio, the commercial sector have some
specialist stations for musical genres that the Beeb more or less
ignore now.
Jazz (R2 and 3 have given up), Rock (R1 gave up a long time ago),
Light Classical (given up long ago by R2), Theatre and film score
Music ( given up long ago by R2)
Popular news and unrestrained comment (There is no BBC equivalent to
LBC, or Times Radio, 5Live is sports obsessed)
Thank God for GB News. Discussions that are allowed to go beyond the
very narrow bounds set by the BBC for their own programmes. It's so refreshing.
BBC bias is a very important topic. It's likely that the public
perception of it is going to result in the BBC getting its wings clipped severely.
Bill
They have always been accused of bias, from both (or all) sides.
They
have been rather silly in recent years to get too close to the Remoaners
and similarly uncritical of the claims of climate change. Though of
course they of bias by all sides.
It became a joke with week after week as Question Time having three or
four Remoaners and if they lucky one supporter of Brexit.
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:50:17 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 27/01/2022 19:39, Mark Carver wrote:
There is no BBC equivalent to LBC, or Times Radio,
Thank f**k for that!
You're like my friend, who prefers to hear from people she agrees
with. I, on the other hand, like to hear opposing arguments and to
make my own mind up.
On 27/01/2022 21:33, williamwright wrote:
BBC bias is a very important topic. It's likely that the public
perception of it is going to result in the BBC getting its wings clipped
severely.
Bill
They have always been accused of bias, from both (or all) sides. They
have been rather silly in recent years to get too close to the Remoaners
and similarly uncritical of the claims of climate change. Though of
course they of bias by all sides.
It became a joke with week after week as Question Time having three or
four Remoaners and if they lucky one supporter of Brexit.
Thank God for GB News. Discussions that are allowed to go beyond the
very narrow bounds set by the BBC for their own programmes. It's so refreshing.
On 27/01/2022 20:01, Scott wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:50:17 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 27/01/2022 19:39, Mark Carver wrote:
There is no BBC equivalent to LBC, or Times Radio,
Thank f**k for that!
You're like my friend, who prefers to hear from people she agrees
with. I, on the other hand, like to hear opposing arguments and to
make my own mind up.
Then why are you listening to the echo chambers above? Every link to either that has been posted in this ng has been shit.
They have been rather silly in recent years to get too close to the
Remoaners and similarly uncritical of the claims of climate change.
On 27/01/2022 20:01, Scott wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:50:17 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 27/01/2022 19:39, Mark Carver wrote:
There is no BBC equivalent to LBC, or Times Radio,
Thank f**k for that!
You're like my friend, who prefers to hear from people she agrees
with. I, on the other hand, like to hear opposing arguments and to
make my own mind up.
Then why are you listening to the echo chambers above? Every link to
either that has been posted in this ng has been shit.
On 27/01/2022 20:01, Scott wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:50:17 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 27/01/2022 19:39, Mark Carver wrote:
There is no BBC equivalent to LBC, or Times Radio,
Thank f**k for that!
You're like my friend, who prefers to hear from people she agrees
with. I, on the other hand, like to hear opposing arguments and to
make my own mind up.
Then why are you listening to the echo chambers above? Every link to
either that has been posted in this ng has been shit.
On 27/01/2022 21:37, williamwright wrote:
Thank God for GB News. Discussions that are allowed to go beyond the
very narrow bounds set by the BBC for their own programmes. It's so
refreshing.
IMV, they ought to be renamed to "BigotsOnline" - again, every link to their material that has been posted here has been a link to bigoted shit.
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:01:44 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 27/01/2022 13:36, Mark Carver wrote:
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
They would be better closing BBC Three, we keep being told that
youngsters do not watch live TV channels.
They did close it as a TV channel and now they are reopening it !!!
On 27/01/2022 19:17, Tweed wrote:
Is it a bit racy in Guernsey and Jersey then? Didn’t notice last time I
was
there….
The "4" got lost somewhere.
"Scott" <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message news:ndh5vglq7jt2795162ogabnlta5s0h4v7i@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:01:44 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 27/01/2022 13:36, Mark Carver wrote:
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
They would be better closing BBC Three, we keep being told that
youngsters do not watch live TV channels.
They did close it as a TV channel and now they are reopening it !!!
I've not understood the logic of reopening it. If younger people (whom the channel is aimed at) tend to watch on catchup rather than as a live broadcast, then I can see the sense in stopping broadcasting it a few years ago if it reduces running costs a bit. But what has prompted them to start broadcasting it again now? Have the viewing habits changed - or did they discover that "younger people tend to watch on catchup" was not entirely
true and that there are some viewers after all who want it as a broadcast channel?
On 27/01/2022 17:13, williamwright wrote:
I'm surprised there isn't a BBC Asian Channel on the telly. It sometimes
seems that the BBC has a policy policy of marginalising all us
indigenous people, so such a channel is on the cards I should think.
Like DAB where the Asian channel has full national coverage so probably listeners that can counted on one hand in many areas.
It always seems discriminatory that only one ethnic group has its own station. I suppose it compensates for the massive bias towards black
people on TV, it is often mentioned that almost any family in a TV advert will be black or mixed race yet Asians are very under-represented
"Scott"<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message news:ndh5vglq7jt2795162ogabnlta5s0h4v7i@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:01:44 +0000, MB<MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 27/01/2022 13:36, Mark Carver wrote:
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
They would be better closing BBC Three, we keep being told that
youngsters do not watch live TV channels.
They did close it as a TV channel and now they are reopening it !!!
I've not understood the logic of reopening it. If younger people (whom the channel is aimed at) tend to watch on catchup rather than as a live broadcast, then I can see the sense in stopping broadcasting it a few years ago if it reduces running costs a bit. But what has prompted them to start broadcasting it again now? Have the viewing habits changed - or did they discover that "younger people tend to watch on catchup" was not entirely
true and that there are some viewers after all who want it as a broadcast channel?
On 27/01/2022 19:23, Roderick Stewart wrote:
why does mainstream TV have to try to make everything
they touch into a dog's dinner? How many people does it really need to
make a dashcam video?
+1 ... particularly with science programming, which is an insult to the >intelligence of its audience ...
Recently, some months after it was broadcast, I've got around to
watching Brian Cox's "Universe", and jeez, what an interminable
over-produced funereal invocation of boredom - music so loud you can't
hear his mumbling, presumably into a mask; what he had to say spun out
over such long time-filling intervals that you forget the beginning of
the sentence by the time he reaches the end; far too many locations >pointlessly visited; little or SFA new information imparted.
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:01:44 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 27/01/2022 13:36, Mark Carver wrote:
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
They would be better closing BBC Three, we keep being told that >>>youngsters do not watch live TV channels.
They did close it as a TV channel and now they are reopening it !!!
I've not understood the logic of reopening it. If younger people (whom
the channel is aimed at) tend to watch on catchup rather than as a live >broadcast, then I can see the sense in stopping broadcasting it a few
years ago if it reduces running costs a bit. But what has prompted them
to start broadcasting it again now? Have the viewing habits changed -
or did they discover that "younger people tend to watch on catchup" was
not entirely true and that there are some viewers after all who want it
as a broadcast channel?
"Scott" <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message >news:ndh5vglq7jt2795162ogabnlta5s0h4v7i@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:01:44 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 27/01/2022 13:36, Mark Carver wrote:
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
They would be better closing BBC Three, we keep being told that >>>youngsters do not watch live TV channels.
They did close it as a TV channel and now they are reopening it !!!
I've not understood the logic of reopening it. If younger people (whom the >channel is aimed at) tend to watch on catchup rather than as a live >broadcast, then I can see the sense in stopping broadcasting it a few years >ago if it reduces running costs a bit. But what has prompted them to start >broadcasting it again now? Have the viewing habits changed - or did they >discover that "younger people tend to watch on catchup" was not entirely
true and that there are some viewers after all who want it as a broadcast >channel?
I imagine it's all part of their apparent strategy of spending more money
on programmes for the young - who don't watch much TV any more - and less
and less on programmes for the elderly - who still do. In their
desperation to attract a new audience, they're in danger of losing the one they've already got.
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:39:02 +0000, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
What do commercial stations do better?
News, some might argue. On the radio, the commercial sector have some >>specialist stations for musical genres that the Beeb more or less ignore >>now.
There's an even wider choice on internet radio. If you want a
particular genre of music, there are literally thousands of stations
to choose from.
Currently this may be difficult in a car, but it's only a matter of
time before somebody finds a way.
There's an even wider choice on internet radio. If you want a
particular genre of music, there are literally thousands of stations
to choose from.
Currently this may be difficult in a car, but it's only a matter of
time before somebody finds a way.
On 27/01/2022 17:13, williamwright wrote:
I'm surprised there isn't a BBC Asian Channel on the telly. It sometimes
seems that the BBC has a policy policy of marginalising all us
indigenous people, so such a channel is on the cards I should think.
Like DAB where the Asian channel has full national coverage so probably >listeners that can counted on one hand in many areas.
It always seems discriminatory that only one ethnic group has its own >station. I suppose it compensates for the massive bias towards black
people on TV, it is often mentioned that almost any family in a TV
advert will be black or mixed race yet Asians are very under-represented
A couple of years ago when one of my granddaughters started
university, I offered to get a TV set for her, but she said no thanks
she would use her laptop. A bit later her boyfriend did get her a
small TV set (but with a bigger screen than the laptop) and as there
was no aerial feed in the room I offered to get an indoor aerial to
see if it would pick up anything. Again she said no thanks, as the
smart features in the TV would enable her to watch Netflix etc.
Evidently the hall of residence wi-fi provided everything they needed.
This really does seem to be the way alot of young people like to watch
TV. In a typical household there will only be one proper aerial feed
to the living room, so any bedroom TV (perhaps an older living room TV
that has been relegated) will get fuzzy grainy pictures at best, so
it's little wonder they prefer not just the freedom of choice but the superior steady picture quality of internet HD on a laptop or a
tablet, with no faffing about with aerials. They're just not
interested in oldfashioned broadcast TV.
What do commercial stations do better?
News, some might argue. On the radio, the commercial sector have some >specialist stations for musical genres that the Beeb more or less ignore
now.
In article <st0ibm$rmn$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HQwLhACcY88hFwem@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
I imagine it's all part of their apparent strategy of spending more
money on programmes for the young - who don't watch much TV any more -
and less and less on programmes for the elderly - who still do. In
their desperation to attract a new audience, they're in danger of
losing the one they've already got.
The rot set in when they announced (last year?) that BBC Four would show
repeats of archive programmes but that no new programmes would be made
for BBC Four.
and the "Yes, Minister" series was/is well worth watching
"John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message news:HQwLhACcY88hFwem@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
I imagine it's all part of their apparent strategy of spending more
money on programmes for the young - who don't watch much TV any more -
and less and less on programmes for the elderly - who still do. In
their desperation to attract a new audience, they're in danger of
losing the one they've already got.
The rot set in when they announced (last year?) that BBC Four would show repeats of archive programmes but that no new programmes would be made
for BBC Four.
On 28/01/2022 09:34, NY wrote:
"Scott"<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in messageWhen BBC3 was on Freeview before, amongst the puerile rubbish they also transmitted pilots of new programmes (a bit like BBC2 used to do) and
news:ndh5vglq7jt2795162ogabnlta5s0h4v7i@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:01:44 +0000, MB<MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 27/01/2022 13:36, Mark Carver wrote:
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
They would be better closing BBC Three, we keep being told that
youngsters do not watch live TV channels.
They did close it as a TV channel and now they are reopening it !!!
I've not understood the logic of reopening it. If younger people (whom
the
channel is aimed at) tend to watch on catchup rather than as a live
broadcast, then I can see the sense in stopping broadcasting it a few
years
ago if it reduces running costs a bit. But what has prompted them to
start
broadcasting it again now? Have the viewing habits changed - or did they
discover that "younger people tend to watch on catchup" was not entirely
true and that there are some viewers after all who want it as a broadcast
channel?
some of those were quite watchable.
When they went online only, I CBA to look and see what was on BBC3 - if
it isn't in the EPG I can't be bothered to hunt for the schedule on a computer. At least by putting it back in the EPG I can see what they
have scheduled, even if none of it is of any interest to me.
I will have to do a retune in the next few days.
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message >news:p7j7vghg58vja2mou83v20vaaepuais9da@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:39:02 +0000, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
What do commercial stations do better?
News, some might argue. On the radio, the commercial sector have some >>>specialist stations for musical genres that the Beeb more or less ignore >>>now.
There's an even wider choice on internet radio. If you want a
particular genre of music, there are literally thousands of stations
to choose from.
Currently this may be difficult in a car, but it's only a matter of
time before somebody finds a way.
With an internet connection (eg from a phone with mobile internet and wifi >tethering) an Alexa has access to all of her library and radio stations. Not >sure how resilient Alexa is to intermittent dropouts of internet
connection - does she abandon what you've asked for or is there just a pause >until the connection returns?
On Fri 28/01/2022 09:52, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 28/01/2022 09:34, NY wrote:
"Scott"<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in messageWhen BBC3 was on Freeview before, amongst the puerile rubbish they
news:ndh5vglq7jt2795162ogabnlta5s0h4v7i@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:01:44 +0000, MB<MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 27/01/2022 13:36, Mark Carver wrote:
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed >>>>>They would be better closing BBC Three, we keep being told that
youngsters do not watch live TV channels.
They did close it as a TV channel and now they are reopening it !!!
I've not understood the logic of reopening it. If younger people
(whom the
channel is aimed at) tend to watch on catchup rather than as a live
broadcast, then I can see the sense in stopping broadcasting it a
few years
ago if it reduces running costs a bit. But what has prompted them to
start
broadcasting it again now? Have the viewing habits changed - or did
they
discover that "younger people tend to watch on catchup" was not
entirely
true and that there are some viewers after all who want it as a
broadcast
channel?
also transmitted pilots of new programmes (a bit like BBC2 used to
do) and some of those were quite watchable.
When they went online only, I CBA to look and see what was on BBC3 -
if it isn't in the EPG I can't be bothered to hunt for the schedule
on a computer. At least by putting it back in the EPG I can see what
they have scheduled, even if none of it is of any interest to me.
I will have to do a retune in the next few days.
Change takes place 1st Feb Jim so don't be too eager!
On 28/01/2022 11:40, Woody wrote:
On Fri 28/01/2022 09:52, Indy Jess John wrote:No, BBC 3 launches on Feb 1st, the new EPG/LCN positions became active >yesterday. It's running test transmissions after 7pm every night.
On 28/01/2022 09:34, NY wrote:
"Scott"<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in messageWhen BBC3 was on Freeview before, amongst the puerile rubbish they
news:ndh5vglq7jt2795162ogabnlta5s0h4v7i@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:01:44 +0000, MB<MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 27/01/2022 13:36, Mark Carver wrote:
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed >>>>>>They would be better closing BBC Three, we keep being told that
youngsters do not watch live TV channels.
They did close it as a TV channel and now they are reopening it !!!
I've not understood the logic of reopening it. If younger people
(whom the
channel is aimed at) tend to watch on catchup rather than as a live
broadcast, then I can see the sense in stopping broadcasting it a
few years
ago if it reduces running costs a bit. But what has prompted them to
start
broadcasting it again now? Have the viewing habits changed - or did
they
discover that "younger people tend to watch on catchup" was not
entirely
true and that there are some viewers after all who want it as a
broadcast
channel?
also transmitted pilots of new programmes (a bit like BBC2 used to
do) and some of those were quite watchable.
When they went online only, I CBA to look and see what was on BBC3 -
if it isn't in the EPG I can't be bothered to hunt for the schedule
on a computer. At least by putting it back in the EPG I can see what
they have scheduled, even if none of it is of any interest to me.
I will have to do a retune in the next few days.
Change takes place 1st Feb Jim so don't be too eager!
On Fri 28/01/2022 11:27, charles wrote:
In article <st0ibm$rmn$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HQwLhACcY88hFwem@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
I imagine it's all part of their apparent strategy of spending more
money on programmes for the young - who don't watch much TV any more - >>>> and less and less on programmes for the elderly - who still do. In
their desperation to attract a new audience, they're in danger of
losing the one they've already got.
The rot set in when they announced (last year?) that BBC Four would show >>> repeats of archive programmes but that no new programmes would be made
for BBC Four.
and the "Yes, Minister" series was/is well worth watching
Not possible I'm afraid. It is far far too woke and politically (!)
incorrect for the present day BBC!
On Fri 28/01/2022 11:27, charles wrote:
In article <st0ibm$rmn$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HQwLhACcY88hFwem@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
I imagine it's all part of their apparent strategy of spending more
money on programmes for the young - who don't watch much TV any more - >>> and less and less on programmes for the elderly - who still do. In
their desperation to attract a new audience, they're in danger of
losing the one they've already got.
The rot set in when they announced (last year?) that BBC Four would
show repeats of archive programmes but that no new programmes would be
made for BBC Four.
and the "Yes, Minister" series was/is well worth watching
Not possible I'm afraid. It is far far too woke and politically (!)
incorrect for the present day BBC!
No, BBC 3 launches on Feb 1st, the new EPG/LCN positions became active >>yesterday. It's running test transmissions after 7pm every night.
Why does it need test transmissions when it is part of an existing
multiplex that has already been tested?
I imagine it's all part of their apparent strategy of spending more
money on programmes for the young - who don't watch much TV any more -
and less and less on programmes for the elderly - who still do. In their desperation to attract a new audience, they're in danger of losing the
one they've already got.
I think you're understating it. It is firm written BBC policy re climate change that "the science is settled" so no discussion, even about
different amelioration methods,is allowed.
On 27/01/2022 17:13, williamwright wrote:
I'm surprised there isn't a BBC Asian Channel on the telly. It sometimes
seems that the BBC has a policy policy of marginalising all us
indigenous people, so such a channel is on the cards I should think.
Like DAB where the Asian channel has full national coverage so probably listeners that can counted on one hand in many areas.
It always seems discriminatory that only one ethnic group has its own station. I suppose it compensates for the massive bias towards black
people on TV, it is often mentioned that almost any family in a TV
advert will be black or mixed race yet Asians are very under-represented
"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:ssuqkb$du1$1@dont-email.me...
On 27/01/2022 17:13, williamwright wrote:
I'm surprised there isn't a BBC Asian Channel on the telly. It sometimes >>> seems that the BBC has a policy policy of marginalising all us
indigenous people, so such a channel is on the cards I should think.
Like DAB where the Asian channel has full national coverage so
probably listeners that can counted on one hand in many areas.
It always seems discriminatory that only one ethnic group has its own
station. I suppose it compensates for the massive bias towards black
people on TV, it is often mentioned that almost any family in a TV
advert will be black or mixed race yet Asians are very under-represented
If anyone watched the new Bradley Walsh version of Darling Buds of May, they'll have seen the number of black and Asian characters in it.
Excellent that there are *some*, but I think they went a bit OTT and
there were a few too many token non-whites - and without any racist
comments by other characters which sadly would have been prevalent at
the time (1950s).
So just clarify, you regard Times Radio to be as "bad" (in your view) as
GB News? And LBC too?
John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
In message <j5flefFec8qU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
On 27/01/2022 12:24, SH wrote:
All we know is currently the licence for using UHF Ch55 (and 56) for
does anyone have any up to date info on whats happening with the
interim mux, Mu 7?
broadcasting expires on June 30th this year, so COM 7 is likely to go
on or before that date.
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
It would be typical if the channel that they close should be the one
with (IMO) the largest amount worthwhile content. No doubt they will
find a way to put a positive spin on it, though. Like Sky did when they
reduced their arts channels from two to one about five years ago, and in
trailers said "now you can find all your favourite arts programmes in
one place".
I could accept BBC 4 going if BBC2 went back to how it was in its first >couple of decades. I’m not sure if it’s me getting old or the world is >really going to pot. BBC1 has become BBC drivel, apart from the news I find >almost nothing worth watching.
I gave up on that when a character (entirely incidentally black) showed he had no idea how a coin box phone worked. It was the old button-A button-B ones - before my (phone using) time but I know how they work.
I had one of those for a few weeks once until the novelty wore off and
the annoyance began to set in. I found that if you put it back in its
box it will pause forever.
What an extraordinary myopic statement. You've clearly never listened to James O'Brien or Eddie Mair on LBC !
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 11:42:44 +0000, Mark CarverThe platform owners (in particular Sky) insist on a few days worth of
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 28/01/2022 11:40, Woody wrote:Why does it need test transmissions when it is part of an existing
On Fri 28/01/2022 09:52, Indy Jess John wrote:No, BBC 3 launches on Feb 1st, the new EPG/LCN positions became active
On 28/01/2022 09:34, NY wrote:Change takes place 1st Feb Jim so don't be too eager!
"Scott"<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in messageWhen BBC3 was on Freeview before, amongst the puerile rubbish they
news:ndh5vglq7jt2795162ogabnlta5s0h4v7i@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:01:44 +0000, MB<MB@nospam.net> wrote:(whom the
On 27/01/2022 13:36, Mark Carver wrote:They did close it as a TV channel and now they are reopening it !!! >>>>> I've not understood the logic of reopening it. If younger people
Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed >>>>>>> They would be better closing BBC Three, we keep being told thatyoungsters do not watch live TV channels.
channel is aimed at) tend to watch on catchup rather than as a live
broadcast, then I can see the sense in stopping broadcasting it a
few years
ago if it reduces running costs a bit. But what has prompted them to >>>>> start
broadcasting it again now? Have the viewing habits changed - or did
they
discover that "younger people tend to watch on catchup" was not
entirely
true and that there are some viewers after all who want it as a
broadcast
channel?
also transmitted pilots of new programmes (a bit like BBC2 used to
do) and some of those were quite watchable.
When they went online only, I CBA to look and see what was on BBC3 -
if it isn't in the EPG I can't be bothered to hunt for the schedule
on a computer. At least by putting it back in the EPG I can see what >>>> they have scheduled, even if none of it is of any interest to me.
I will have to do a retune in the next few days.
yesterday. It's running test transmissions after 7pm every night.
multiplex that has already been tested?
On 27/01/2022 23:47, Andy Burns wrote:
So just clarify, you regard Times Radio to be as "bad" (in your view)
as GB News? And LBC too?
The links to any of these that I can recall being posted here have not exactly been examples of fair and unbiased programming, but it's
possible my memory may be at fault - we see so much crud linked here
that it becomes difficult to remember one example from another.
and further suspicion was aroused when I found the name "Jim O’Brien"
on one of the "Hundreds of scientists that dispute climate change!"
fake lists churned out periodically by the denialist industry, which
doesn't exactly lend confidence in either the list, no surprise there,
or, if it's the same guy and not the only other possible but less
likely candidate found by a fairly extensive search at the time, a footballer, him and his employer LBC.
On 28/01/2022 12:50, Java Jive wrote:
and further suspicion was aroused when I found the name "Jim O’Brien"
on one of the "Hundreds of scientists that dispute climate change!"
fake lists churned out periodically by the denialist industry, which
doesn't exactly lend confidence in either the list, no surprise there,
or, if it's the same guy and not the only other possible but less
likely candidate found by a fairly extensive search at the time, a
footballer, him and his employer LBC.
Eh ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Brien_(broadcaster)
The last thing LBC's James O'Brien is, is a climate change sceptic !
In article<st0ibm$rmn$1@dont-email.me>, NY<me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"John Hall"<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HQwLhACcY88hFwem@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
I imagine it's all part of their apparent strategy of spending more
money on programmes for the young - who don't watch much TV any more -
and less and less on programmes for the elderly - who still do. In
their desperation to attract a new audience, they're in danger of
losing the one they've already got.
The rot set in when they announced (last year?) that BBC Four would show
repeats of archive programmes but that no new programmes would be made
for BBC Four.
and the "Yes, Minister" series was/is well worth watching
LBC doesn't have unbiased programming, it's fine, and it's sanctioned as
OK by Ofcom. The only requirement is overall the schedule is politically balanced.
Broadly weekdays, you have three hour chunks of:-
Nick Ferrari 'A fair amount Right'
James O'Brien 'A fair amount Left'
Shelagh Forgarty 'A little bit Left'
Eddie Mair 'Arguably a tiny bit left'
Iain Dale 'Not quite as far right as Ferrari'
You'd go mad if you listened all day, but I normally listen to an hour or
so of Mair, and an hour or so of Dale, I don't think I've been radicalised
by them.
Eddie Mair is significantly more entertaining, and asks enlightening questions, than his days being shackled at the BBC on the PM prog.
In article <st0kpt$bco$3@dont-email.me>,
Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On Fri 28/01/2022 11:27, charles wrote:
In article <st0ibm$rmn$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote: >>>> "John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HQwLhACcY88hFwem@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
I imagine it's all part of their apparent strategy of spending more
money on programmes for the young - who don't watch much TV any more - >>>>> and less and less on programmes for the elderly - who still do. In
their desperation to attract a new audience, they're in danger of
losing the one they've already got.
The rot set in when they announced (last year?) that BBC Four would
show repeats of archive programmes but that no new programmes would be >>>> made for BBC Four.
and the "Yes, Minister" series was/is well worth watching
Not possible I'm afraid. It is far far too woke and politically (!)
incorrect for the present day BBC!
I watched "Yes, Prime Minister" on BBC 4 this week!
I'm surprised there isn't a BBC Asian Channel on the telly. It sometimes seems that the BBC has a policy policy of marginalising all us
indigenous people, so such a channel is on the cards I should think.
Bill
On 27/01/2022 22:54, MB wrote:
They have been rather silly in recent years to get too close to
the Remoaners and similarly uncritical of the claims of climate
change.
I think you're understating it. It is firm written BBC policy re
climate change that "the science is settled" so no discussion,
even about different amelioration methods,is allowed.
On Fri 28/01/2022 11:27, charles wrote:
In article <st0ibm$rmn$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in messageand the "Yes, Minister" series was/is well worth watching
news:HQwLhACcY88hFwem@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
I imagine it's all part of their apparent strategy of spending more
money on programmes for the young - who don't watch much TV any more - >>>> and less and less on programmes for the elderly - who still do. In
their desperation to attract a new audience, they're in danger of
losing the one they've already got.
The rot set in when they announced (last year?) that BBC Four would
show
repeats of archive programmes but that no new programmes would be made
for BBC Four.
Not possible I'm afraid. It is far far too woke
and politically (!) incorrect for the present day BBC!
On 28/01/2022 12:15, Java Jive wrote:
On 27/01/2022 23:47, Andy Burns wrote:LBC doesn't have unbiased programming, it's fine, and it's sanctioned as
So just clarify, you regard Times Radio to be as "bad" (in your view)
as GB News? And LBC too?
The links to any of these that I can recall being posted here have not
exactly been examples of fair and unbiased programming, but it's
possible my memory may be at fault - we see so much crud linked here
that it becomes difficult to remember one example from another.
OK by Ofcom. The only requirement is overall the schedule is politically >balanced.
Broadly weekdays, you have three hour chunks of:-
Nick Ferrari 'A fair amount Right'
James O'Brien 'A fair amount Left'
Shelagh Forgarty 'A little bit Left'
Eddie Mair 'Arguably a tiny bit left'
Iain Dale 'Not quite as far right as Ferrari'
You'd go mad if you listened all day, but I normally listen to an hour
or so of Mair, and an hour or so of Dale, I don't think I've been
radicalised by them.
Eddie Mair is significantly more entertaining, and asks enlightening >questions, than his days being shackled at the BBC on the PM prog.
As for Times Radio, I don't really detect much bias, and actually one of
the presenters is Cathy Newman who's from the left leaning Channel 4
News, so go figure.
On 28/01/2022 08:49, Mark Carver wrote:
What an extraordinary myopic statement. You've clearly never listened to
James O'Brien or Eddie Mair on LBC !
No, I don't listen to talk radio, because I'm far too busy to allow
myself to be distracted by other people talking
Pointless! And I still can't get the answers right despite being on
its second(?) round of repeats.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:59:36 +0000, Mark CarverPerhaps the best endorsement of Times Radio as being 'OK' was when
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 28/01/2022 12:15, Java Jive wrote:I think Jenny Kleeman is ex C4 also.
On 27/01/2022 23:47, Andy Burns wrote:LBC doesn't have unbiased programming, it's fine, and it's sanctioned as
So just clarify, you regard Times Radio to be as "bad" (in your view)The links to any of these that I can recall being posted here have not
as GB News? And LBC too?
exactly been examples of fair and unbiased programming, but it's
possible my memory may be at fault - we see so much crud linked here >>> that it becomes difficult to remember one example from another.
OK by Ofcom. The only requirement is overall the schedule is politically
balanced.
Broadly weekdays, you have three hour chunks of:-
Nick Ferrari 'A fair amount Right'
James O'Brien 'A fair amount Left'
Shelagh Forgarty 'A little bit Left'
Eddie Mair 'Arguably a tiny bit left'
Iain Dale 'Not quite as far right as Ferrari'
You'd go mad if you listened all day, but I normally listen to an hour
or so of Mair, and an hour or so of Dale, I don't think I've been
radicalised by them.
Eddie Mair is significantly more entertaining, and asks enlightening
questions, than his days being shackled at the BBC on the PM prog.
As for Times Radio, I don't really detect much bias, and actually one of
the presenters is Cathy Newman who's from the left leaning Channel 4
News, so go figure.
"Max Demian"<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:jsSdnbSkxPaHfm78nZ2dnUU7-KmdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
I gave up on that when a character (entirely incidentally black) showed he >> had no idea how a coin box phone worked. It was the old button-A button-B
ones - before my (phone using) time but I know how they work.
Having never used one, and deliberately without looking it up, let's see if
I can work out what you'd do.
Insert several coins of appropriate denominations. Are they used in order of insertion or does the phone automatically use the smallest denomination first?
Call the number (or get the operator to dial the number, in which case
insert money after operator answers so he/she can hear the bongs relating to the denominations of the coins).
If the call to the number I want is answered, press Button A to connect,
then Button B at the end of the call to return unused coins. If it is not answered, press Button B to return all the coins.
Interesting that we went from pay-in-advance to pay-on-demand back to pay-in-advance, with the new version of pay-in-advance doing automatic "pressing" of button A when the call is answered, and automatic "pressing"
of Button B to return unused coins when the phone is put back on-hook. I wonder why that automatic operation of Buttons A and B wasn't possible with original payphones?
In article <j5h6vaFng92U1@mid.individual.net>,
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
I think you're understating it. It is firm written BBC policy re
climate change that "the science is settled" so no discussion,
even about different amelioration methods,is allowed.
"The science is settled" and "trust the science" are the most anti
science statements. Questioning science is how you do science.
Science that can't be questioned is propaganda.
Of course "All scientists agree" when you censor the ones who don't.
Hence the left's love of cancel culture.
On 28/01/2022 15:01, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:59:36 +0000, Mark CarverPerhaps the best endorsement of Times Radio as being 'OK' was when
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 28/01/2022 12:15, Java Jive wrote:I think Jenny Kleeman is ex C4 also.
On 27/01/2022 23:47, Andy Burns wrote:LBC doesn't have unbiased programming, it's fine, and it's sanctioned as >>> OK by Ofcom. The only requirement is overall the schedule is politically >>> balanced.
So just clarify, you regard Times Radio to be as "bad" (in your view) >>>>> as GB News? And LBC too?The links to any of these that I can recall being posted here have not >>>> exactly been examples of fair and unbiased programming, but it's
possible my memory may be at fault - we see so much crud linked here >>>> that it becomes difficult to remember one example from another.
Broadly weekdays, you have three hour chunks of:-
Nick Ferrari 'A fair amount Right'
James O'Brien 'A fair amount Left'
Shelagh Forgarty 'A little bit Left'
Eddie Mair 'Arguably a tiny bit left'
Iain Dale 'Not quite as far right as Ferrari'
You'd go mad if you listened all day, but I normally listen to an hour
or so of Mair, and an hour or so of Dale, I don't think I've been
radicalised by them.
Eddie Mair is significantly more entertaining, and asks enlightening
questions, than his days being shackled at the BBC on the PM prog.
As for Times Radio, I don't really detect much bias, and actually one of >>> the presenters is Cathy Newman who's from the left leaning Channel 4
News, so go figure.
Rupert Murdoch heard the station, and proclaimed it as, quote; "...a
load of boring old crap..."
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:50:04 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
No, I don't listen to talk radio, because I'm far too busy to allow
myself to be distracted by other people talking
Mother of a friend of mine once declared, 'I can honestly say I have
never read a book in my life'. I am sure you would get on well.
What an extraordinary myopic statement. You've clearly never listened to James O'Brien or Eddie Mair on LBC !
There's an even wider choice on internet radio. If you want a
particular genre of music, there are literally thousands of stations
to choose from.
So is their programming.
Flicking though the channels it amazes me how often the snatch of GB
News I catch is some stupid insult of something seen as left wing by
them such as The Guardian.
Why does it need test transmissions when it is part of an existing
multiplex that has already been tested?
Yes, instead of wasting a channel on BBC3 which most of its target
audience will not be interested in watching, why not use it to start a
new channel called "White TV"? As you say, everybody else has got one,
so why not the 85%.
The platform owners (in particular Sky) insist on a few days worth of
'dummy' running for any 'new' channel
If you look through the BBC 1 and 2 schedules for the week it’s pretty thin fare at the moment.
I too am a Pointless fan. It's about the only BBC 1 programme that I regularly listen to. It helps that my memory is so bad these days that I
have little recall of what happened the first time episodes were shown. (Though strangely, the factual information that I require for the
answers, that I learnt many years ago, is still mostly intact.)
Mother of a friend of mine once declared, 'I can honestly say I have
never read a book in my life'. I am sure you would get on well.
On 28/01/2022 08:49, Mark Carver wrote:
What an extraordinary myopic statement. You've clearly never listened to
James O'Brien or Eddie Mair on LBC !
Like most people, I have never heard LBC.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:50:04 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 28/01/2022 08:49, Mark Carver wrote:
What an extraordinary myopic statement. You've clearly never listened to >>> James O'Brien or Eddie Mair on LBC !
No, I don't listen to talk radio, because I'm far too busy to allow
myself to be distracted by other people talking
Mother of a friend of mine once declared, 'I can honestly say I have
never read a book in my life'. I am sure you would get on well.
You cannot get much more Left wing than than the Guardian except perhaps
the Daily Maxwell and Morning Star.
You will need to go and pull down a few statues or burn a few buildings
to get attention.
85% in England but over 95% in Scotland and Wales - even higher in
Northern Ireland.
On 28/01/2022 09:17, Brian Gregory wrote:
So is their programming. Flicking though the channels it amazes me
how often the snatch of GB News I catch is some stupid insult of
something seen as left wing by them such as The Guardian.
You cannot get much more Left wing than than the Guardian except
perhaps the Daily Maxwell and Morning Star.
I was listening to little Owen Jones (from the Guardian) spouting
rubbish as usual earlier today.
On 28/01/2022 15:01, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:59:36 +0000, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 28/01/2022 12:15, Java Jive wrote:I think Jenny Kleeman is ex C4 also.
On 27/01/2022 23:47, Andy Burns wrote:LBC doesn't have unbiased programming, it's fine, and it's
So just clarify, you regard Times Radio to be as "bad" (in yourThe links to any of these that I can recall being posted here have
view) as GB News? And LBC too?
not exactly been examples of fair and unbiased programming, but
it's possible my memory may be at fault - we see so much crud
linked here that it becomes difficult to remember one example from
another.
sanctioned as OK by Ofcom. The only requirement is overall the
schedule is politically balanced.
Broadly weekdays, you have three hour chunks of:-
Nick Ferrari 'A fair amount Right'
James O'Brien 'A fair amount Left'
Shelagh Forgarty 'A little bit Left'
Eddie Mair 'Arguably a tiny bit left'
Iain Dale 'Not quite as far right as Ferrari'
You'd go mad if you listened all day, but I normally listen to an
hour or so of Mair, and an hour or so of Dale, I don't think I've
been radicalised by them.
Eddie Mair is significantly more entertaining, and asks
enlightening questions, than his days being shackled at the BBC on
the PM prog.
As for Times Radio, I don't really detect much bias, and actually
one of the presenters is Cathy Newman who's from the left leaning
Channel 4 News, so go figure.
Perhaps the best endorsement of Times Radio as being 'OK' was when
Rupert Murdoch heard the station, and proclaimed it as, quote; "...a
load of boring old crap..."
In article <j5h6vaFng92U1@mid.individual.net>,
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 27/01/2022 22:54, MB wrote:
They have been rather silly in recent years to get too close to
the Remoaners and similarly uncritical of the claims of climate
change.
I think you're understating it. It is firm written BBC policy re
climate change that "the science is settled" so no discussion, even
about different amelioration methods,is allowed.
"The science is settled" and "trust the science" are the most anti
science statements. Questioning science is how you do science.
Science that can't be questioned is propaganda.
Of course "All scientists agree" when you censor the ones who don't.
Hence the left's love of cancel culture.
Bob.
On 28/01/2022 14:55, John Hall wrote:
I too am a Pointless fan. It's about the only BBC 1 programme that I regularly listen to. It helps that my memory is so bad these days that I have little recall of what happened the first time episodes were shown. (Though strangely, the factual information that I require for the
answers, that I learnt many years ago, is still mostly intact.)
It is funny the number of obscure things like elements in the Periodic
Table, countries and capital cities etc that have become much more
widely known thanks to Pointless. I can't think of any other TV quiz
show that achieved that!
On 28/01/2022 12:45, NY wrote:
"Max Demian"<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:jsSdnbSkxPaHfm78nZ2dnUU7-KmdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
I gave up on that when a character (entirely incidentally black)
showed he
had no idea how a coin box phone worked. It was the old button-A
button-B
ones - before my (phone using) time but I know how they work.
Having never used one, and deliberately without looking it up, let's
see if
I can work out what you'd do.
Insert several coins of appropriate denominations. Are they used in
order of
insertion or does the phone automatically use the smallest denomination
first?
Call the number (or get the operator to dial the number, in which case
insert money after operator answers so he/she can hear the bongs
relating to
the denominations of the coins).
If the call to the number I want is answered, press Button A to connect,
then Button B at the end of the call to return unused coins. If it is not
answered, press Button B to return all the coins.
Interesting that we went from pay-in-advance to pay-on-demand back to
pay-in-advance, with the new version of pay-in-advance doing automatic
"pressing" of button A when the call is answered, and automatic
"pressing"
of Button B to return unused coins when the phone is put back on-hook. I
wonder why that automatic operation of Buttons A and B wasn't possible
with
original payphones?
As someone who does remember using a Button-A/Button-B callbox, I can
say that you are far too modern in your imagination.
The push button callboxes had a single slot, into which you put 4 penny
(1d) coins. The penny was the largest coin in circulation at that time.
The only other coin of the same diameter was the half-crown and that
was thicker so wouldn't go into the slot (it was also worth 30 pennies
so nobody would do that anyway). Other coins were smaller and just fell through the mechanism and out into the coin return tray.
At the time these phone boxes were in use, there was no such thing as Subscriber Trunk Dialling. For local calls there was no call duration limit. You took the handset off its cradle and listened to see if there
was a dialling tone. If there was, you put in your 4d and dialled the
number you wanted. The person called answered and when you heard their voice you pressed Button A and you heard your coins fall into the unit's money box. If nobody answered, you pressed Button B and got your coins
back in the coin return tray. Phone boxes were well used though and if
you talked for too long someone would open the callbox door and remind
you that there was a queue and you should end your call. If you ignored
the hint for too long, someone would normally reach in and press down
the phone cradle which ended your call.
Anything outside your local area had to go through an operator's switchboard. For more distant ones (calling Manchester from Liverpool
for instance) you called the operator without putting coins in, gave the number you wanted to call, then waited until the operator told you the
other party has answered and you should put your money in, and said how
long your money would last. Then you put your 4d in and pressed Button
A. After the time the operator had told you, the connection was dropped
at the exchange.
Long distance calls had to be booked, so it was only practical from a
home phone. You called the operator, said who you wanted to call, and
you were given a time window when your call would be put through and you
hung up. In the interim your operator called another operator who
connected your operator to the next operator in sequence, until
eventually there was a call relay connection to your destination and the person you were calling answered and was told to hold on to the phone,
while your operator called your phone and when you answered you were
told that your call was through and it connected. The cost of that call went on your phone bill, and because the relay between operators was
tying up all the relay lines, you were normally limited to 3 minutes
before the operator broke into the call to tell you your time was up,
and you were given a short period of time to stay goodbye before the
operator cut the call. The idea of the time window was to set a limit to
how long the operator would spend trying to make your connection and not succeeding, and how long you would have to wait to find out. At the end
of your time window the operator rang your phone to say that the
connection couldn't be made.
On a practical note, the action of pressing Button A simply connected
the microphone in the handset to the line. If the person at the other
end was in a quiet location and you as caller spoke loudly in the
earpiece, they could hear you faintly and you could rather clumsily make
a call speaking and listening alternately, and still get your 4d back afterwards.
The biggest disappointment when the Button-A/Button-B system was
replaced was the discovery that local calls were timing out when they
never had before.
On 27/01/2022 23:14, Java Jive wrote:
On 27/01/2022 21:37, williamwright wrote:
Thank God for GB News. Discussions that are allowed to go beyond
the very narrow bounds set by the BBC for their own programmes.
It's so refreshing.
IMV, they ought to be renamed to "BigotsOnline" again, every link
to their material that has been posted here has been a link to
bigoted shit.
So is their programming. Flicking though the channels it amazes me
how often the snatch of GB News I catch is some stupid insult of
something seen as left wing by them such as The Guardian.
The biggest disappointment when the Button-A/Button-B system was
replaced was the discovery that local calls were timing out when they
never had before.
I too am a Pointless fan. It's about the only BBC 1 programme that I >regularly listen to. It helps that my memory is so bad these days that I
have little recall of what happened the first time episodes were shown. >(Though strangely, the factual information that I require for the
answers, that I learnt many years ago, is still mostly intact.)
On 28/01/2022 12:15, Java Jive wrote:
On 27/01/2022 23:47, Andy Burns wrote:LBC doesn't have unbiased programming, it's fine, and it's sanctioned as
So just clarify, you regard Times Radio to be as "bad" (in your view)
as GB News? And LBC too?
The links to any of these that I can recall being posted here have not
exactly been examples of fair and unbiased programming, but it's
possible my memory may be at fault - we see so much crud linked here
that it becomes difficult to remember one example from another.
OK by Ofcom. The only requirement is overall the schedule is politically balanced.
Broadly weekdays, you have three hour chunks of:-
Nick Ferrari 'A fair amount Right'
James O'Brien 'A fair amount Left'
Shelagh Forgarty 'A little bit Left'
Eddie Mair 'Arguably a tiny bit left'
Iain Dale 'Not quite as far right as Ferrari'
You'd go mad if you listened all day, but I normally listen to an hour
or so of Mair, and an hour or so of Dale, I don't think I've been
radicalised by them.
Eddie Mair is significantly more entertaining, and asks enlightening questions, than his days being shackled at the BBC on the PM prog.
As for Times Radio, I don't really detect much bias, and actually one of
the presenters is Cathy Newman who's from the left leaning Channel 4
News, so go figure.
Android Auto links my car to my phone, it can stream radioplayer (or
podcasts etc) through the car's speakers.
A few little ones there Jim!
The original A/B boxes also took (IMSMC) threepenny bits and either
sixpences or shillings, can't remember which.
Define local area. There were local dialling codes for nearby towns,
such as 91, 92,.....96 etc.
On 28/01/2022 17:35, Woody wrote:
A few little ones there Jim!
The original A/B boxes also took (IMSMC) threepenny bits and either sixpences or shillings, can't remember which.
I think you're right about that. I can't remember which coins were
accepted, either, although I'm not sure that any "silver" was, perhaps
just "thrupny" bits.
You cannot get much more Left wing than than the Guardian except
perhaps the Daily Maxwell and Morning Star.
I was listening to little Owen Jones (from the Guardian) spouting
rubbish as usual earlier today.
John Hall wrote:
I too am a Pointless fan. It's about the only BBC 1 programme that I
regularly listen to. It helps that my memory is so bad these days that I
have little recall of what happened the first time episodes were shown.
(Though strangely, the factual information that I require for the
answers, that I learnt many years ago, is still mostly intact.)
Perhaps it is like my remembering differentiating details of cars
of the 60s, but being unable to recognise much of the current
production.
Perhaps they had more character then?
Chris
Thank goodness Owen Jones is an opinion writer and not a reporter. He
must make a few shillings from all the newstalk shows his agent gets
him on.
John Hall wrote:
(Though strangely, the factual information that I require for the
answers, that I learnt many years ago, is still mostly intact.)
Perhaps it is like my remembering differentiating details of cars
of the 60s, but being unable to recognise much of the current
production.
Perhaps they had more character then?
On Fri 28/01/2022 15:03, Indy Jess John wrote:
The original A/B boxes also took (IMSMC) threepenny bits and either
sixpences or shillings, can't remember which.
Define local area. There were local dialling codes for nearby towns,
such as 91, 92,.....96 etc.
Per making local calls, you could dial the number by tapping the handset
rest in a phone box and you would get through with speech enabled.
Got to love him, he's in this video doing the rounds on twitter
today, it is amusing but worryingly close to true.
h t t p : / / p i c . t w i t t e r . c o m / 3 8 3 v v A x W 8 z
If you look through the BBC 1 and 2 schedules for the week it’s pretty thin fare at the moment.
Perhaps it is like my remembering differentiating details of cars
of the 60s, but being unable to recognise much of the current
production.
Perhaps they had more character then?
In message <61f3e31f.99262671@news.eternal-september.org>, AnthonyL <nospam@please.invalid> writes
Pointless! And I still can't get the answers right despite being on its >>second(?) round of repeats.
I too am a Pointless fan. It's about the only BBC 1 programme that I regularly listen to. It helps that my memory is so bad these days that I
have little recall of what happened the first time episodes were shown. (Though strangely, the factual information that I require for the answers, that I learnt many years ago, is still mostly intact.)
As someone who does remember using a Button-A/Button-B callbox, I can say
that you are far too modern in your imagination.
The push button callboxes had a single slot, into which you put 4 penny
(1d) coins. The penny was the largest coin in circulation at that time.
The only other coin of the same diameter was the half-crown and that was
thicker so wouldn't go into the slot (it was also worth 30 pennies so
nobody would do that anyway). Other coins were smaller and just fell
through the mechanism and out into the coin return tray.
At the time these phone boxes were in use, there was no such thing as
Subscriber Trunk Dialling. For local calls there was no call duration
limit. You took the handset off its cradle and listened to see if there
was a dialling tone. If there was, you put in your 4d and dialled the
number you wanted. The person called answered and when you heard their
voice you pressed Button A and you heard your coins fall into the unit's
money box. If nobody answered, you pressed Button B and got your coins
back in the coin return tray. Phone boxes were well used though and if
you talked for too long someone would open the callbox door and remind
you that there was a queue and you should end your call. If you ignored
the hint for too long, someone would normally reach in and press down the
phone cradle which ended your call.
Anything outside your local area had to go through an operator's
switchboard. For more distant ones (calling Manchester from Liverpool
for instance) you called the operator without putting coins in, gave the
number you wanted to call, then waited until the operator told you the
other party has answered and you should put your money in, and said how
long your money would last. Then you put your 4d in and pressed Button
A. After the time the operator had told you, the connection was dropped
at the exchange.
Long distance calls had to be booked, so it was only practical from a
home phone. You called the operator, said who you wanted to call, and
you were given a time window when your call would be put through and you
hung up. In the interim your operator called another operator who
connected your operator to the next operator in sequence, until
eventually there was a call relay connection to your destination and the
person you were calling answered and was told to hold on to the phone,
while your operator called your phone and when you answered you were told
that your call was through and it connected. The cost of that call went
on your phone bill, and because the relay between operators was tying up
all the relay lines, you were normally limited to 3 minutes before the
operator broke into the call to tell you your time was up, and you were
given a short period of time to stay goodbye before the operator cut the
call.
The idea of the time window was to set a limit to how long the operator
would spend trying to make your connection and not succeeding, and how
long you would have to wait to find out. At the end of your time window
the operator rang your phone to say that the connection couldn't be made.
On 28/01/2022 17:08, Pamela wrote:
Thank goodness Owen Jones is an opinion writer and not a reporter. He
must make a few shillings from all the newstalk shows his agent gets
him on.
A year or so ago, it was reckoned that he must be a millionaire with his earnings from his book(s?) so he is one one the "wealthy" that he wants
to tax heavily.
On the contrary, I'm reading a book at the moment, on and off because
it's rather a tome, and you certainly can't read such a book and listen
to talk radio at the same time, because you will be ignoring one or the >other, and I know which is most likely to be informative, it's:
Shoshana Zuboff: The Age Of Surveillance Capitalism.
On the contrary, I'm reading a book at the moment, on and off because
it's rather a tome, and you certainly can't read such a book and listen
to talk radio at the same time, because you will be ignoring one or the other, and I know which is most likely to be informative, it's:
Shoshana Zuboff: The Age Of Surveillance Capitalism.
On 15:11 28 Jan 2022, Mark Carver said:Yes, that was exactly my point !
On 28/01/2022 15:01, Scott wrote:Murdoch is the owner of Times Radio, isn't he?
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:59:36 +0000, Mark CarverPerhaps the best endorsement of Times Radio as being 'OK' was when
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 28/01/2022 12:15, Java Jive wrote:I think Jenny Kleeman is ex C4 also.
On 27/01/2022 23:47, Andy Burns wrote:LBC doesn't have unbiased programming, it's fine, and it's
So just clarify, you regard Times Radio to be as "bad" (in yourThe links to any of these that I can recall being posted here have
view) as GB News? And LBC too?
not exactly been examples of fair and unbiased programming, but
it's possible my memory may be at fault - we see so much crud
linked here that it becomes difficult to remember one example from
another.
sanctioned as OK by Ofcom. The only requirement is overall the
schedule is politically balanced.
Broadly weekdays, you have three hour chunks of:-
Nick Ferrari 'A fair amount Right'
James O'Brien 'A fair amount Left'
Shelagh Forgarty 'A little bit Left'
Eddie Mair 'Arguably a tiny bit left'
Iain Dale 'Not quite as far right as Ferrari'
You'd go mad if you listened all day, but I normally listen to an
hour or so of Mair, and an hour or so of Dale, I don't think I've
been radicalised by them.
Eddie Mair is significantly more entertaining, and asks
enlightening questions, than his days being shackled at the BBC on
the PM prog.
As for Times Radio, I don't really detect much bias, and actually
one of the presenters is Cathy Newman who's from the left leaning
Channel 4 News, so go figure.
Rupert Murdoch heard the station, and proclaimed it as, quote; "...a
load of boring old crap..."
In message <ua18vgpk55kg8nq8dr63id9ul797v2i3uo@4ax.com>, Scott ><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:50:04 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> >>wrote:
On 28/01/2022 08:49, Mark Carver wrote:
What an extraordinary myopic statement. You've clearly never listened to >>>> James O'Brien or Eddie Mair on LBC !
No, I don't listen to talk radio, because I'm far too busy to allow >>>myself to be distracted by other people talking
Mother of a friend of mine once declared, 'I can honestly say I have
never read a book in my life'. I am sure you would get on well.
My sister-in-law's niece once said that in my hearing. She seemed to be
proud of it. I was rather shocked, but thought it better not to say
anything.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 15:27:45 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote as underneath :
snip
On the contrary, I'm reading a book at the moment, on and off because
it's rather a tome, and you certainly can't read such a book and listen
to talk radio at the same time, because you will be ignoring one or the >>other, and I know which is most likely to be informative, it's:
Shoshana Zuboff: The Age Of Surveillance Capitalism.
An informative and worrying read! C+
On 28/01/2022 11:05, Roderick Stewart wrote:
There's an even wider choice on internet radio. If you want a
particular genre of music, there are literally thousands of stations
to choose from.
Not being American, I don't like to listen to one narrow type of music
on the radio. I prefer the mixture we get on many BBC programmes and
when one of the more obnoxious (usually very camp) presenters comes on
then I just switch to memory stick or CD.
The worst paper on the newstands is surely the Daily Mail. It's news >gathering operation is well funded but even when I agree with it's
point of view, I blanch at the gallons of editorial comment it pours
into news stories. It's got so carried away that editorialising now
gets squeezed into its long and drawn out news headlines.
On 28/01/2022 17:10, Pamela wrote:
On 15:11 28 Jan 2022, Mark Carver said:Yes, that was exactly my point !
On 28/01/2022 15:01, Scott wrote:Murdoch is the owner of Times Radio, isn't he?
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:59:36 +0000, Mark CarverPerhaps the best endorsement of Times Radio as being 'OK' was when
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 28/01/2022 12:15, Java Jive wrote:I think Jenny Kleeman is ex C4 also.
On 27/01/2022 23:47, Andy Burns wrote:LBC doesn't have unbiased programming, it's fine, and it's
The links to any of these that I can recall being posted here
So just clarify, you regard Times Radio to be as "bad" (in your
view) as GB News? And LBC too?
have not exactly been examples of fair and unbiased programming,
but it's possible my memory may be at fault - we see so much
crud linked here that it becomes difficult to remember one
example from another.
sanctioned as OK by Ofcom. The only requirement is overall the
schedule is politically balanced.
Broadly weekdays, you have three hour chunks of:-
Nick Ferrari 'A fair amount Right' James O'Brien 'A fair
amount Left' Shelagh Forgarty 'A little bit Left' Eddie Mair
'Arguably a tiny bit left' Iain Dale 'Not quite as far right as
Ferrari'
You'd go mad if you listened all day, but I normally listen to an
hour or so of Mair, and an hour or so of Dale, I don't think I've
been radicalised by them. Eddie Mair is significantly more
entertaining, and asks enlightening questions, than his days
being shackled at the BBC on the PM prog.
As for Times Radio, I don't really detect much bias, and actually
one of the presenters is Cathy Newman who's from the left leaning
Channel 4 News, so go figure.
Rupert Murdoch heard the station, and proclaimed it as, quote;
"...a load of boring old crap..."
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 17:08:43 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
The worst paper on the newstands is surely the Daily Mail. It's news >>gathering operation is well funded but even when I agree with it's
point of view, I blanch at the gallons of editorial comment it pours
into news stories. It's got so carried away that editorialising now
gets squeezed into its long and drawn out news headlines.
In some ways it's the worst and the best all rolled into one. I only
look at the website as I haven't bought an actual paper paper in
years, but as long as you count the adjectives in the headlines and
the spelling mistakes in the text, you're reading it with the
required amount of circumspection. The headlines full of adjectives
are to make sure that even before you've read the article itself you
know not only what it's about but what you will be expected to think
of it. The spelling mistakes show how much thought the writer has put
into it.
Rod.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 17:08:43 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
The worst paper on the newstands is surely the Daily Mail. It's news
gathering operation is well funded but even when I agree with it's
point of view, I blanch at the gallons of editorial comment it pours
into news stories. It's got so carried away that editorialising now
gets squeezed into its long and drawn out news headlines.
In some ways it's the worst and the best all rolled into one. I only
look at the website as I haven't bought an actual paper paper in
years, but as long as you count the adjectives in the headlines and
the spelling mistakes in the text, you're reading it with the required
amount of circumspection. The headlines full of adjectives are to make
sure that even before you've read the article itself you know not only
what it's about but what you will be expected to think of it. The
spelling mistakes show how much thought the writer has put into it.
On 28/01/2022 15:27, Java Jive wrote:
On the contrary, I'm reading a book at the moment, on and off because
it's rather a tome, and you certainly can't read such a book and listen
to talk radio at the same time, because you will be ignoring one or the
other, and I know which is most likely to be informative, it's:
Shoshana Zuboff: The Age Of Surveillance Capitalism.
I acknowledge your staying power! Over 700 pages long...
Does it add anything revolutionary to what has been understood for over
40 years: "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product"?
"Chris J Dixon" <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote in message news:qka8vgdd2cboinjjddm9d5cpf1u5ifku3b@4ax.com...You beat me to it, I could do the same in the 70s and 80s. Not now.
Perhaps it is like my remembering differentiating details of cars
of the 60s, but being unable to recognise much of the current
production.
Perhaps they had more character then?
My dad maintains that at the age of 3 I sat on his knee behind the
wheel of the car as he was parked waiting for mum outside a friend's
house, at night, and I was calling out "Ford Cortina", "Mini", "Ford Corsair", "Triumph Herald", "Rover 2000" as each car approached. I was recognising the cars by the pattern of their headlights and side lights.
The worst paper on the newstands is surely the Daily Mail. It's news gathering operation is well funded but even when I agree with it's
point of view, I blanch at the gallons of editorial comment it pours
into news stories. It's got so carried away that editorialising now
gets squeezed into its long and drawn out news headlines.
deeply embedded in the
Labour party through printing fake pictures of British servicemen which probably lead to the loss of lives of British servicemen and Iraqis and continuing with sleazy stories.
They ran a smear about David Cameron when he was PM (or were going to
run) that was so bad no one dare repeat it so never found out what it was.
But because of its very close connections to the Labour party, the
Labour party directs all its attacks towards the Daily Mail and Sun.
It should be noted that during the Leveson business, it was reported
there were very few complaints about the Mail and many about the Daily Maxwell, rivalling the News of the World in number of complaints.
On 28/01/2022 17:08, Pamela wrote:
The worst paper on the newstands is surely the Daily Mail. It's news
gathering operation is well funded but even when I agree with it's
point of view, I blanch at the gallons of editorial comment it pours
into news stories. It's got so carried away that editorialising now
gets squeezed into its long and drawn out news headlines.
The Daily Maxwell is by far the worst. From being owned by the
biggest criminal in the history of British newspapers and deeply
embedded in the Labour party through printing fake pictures of
British servicemen which probably lead to the loss of lives of
British servicemen and Iraqis and continuing with sleazy stories.
They ran a smear about David Cameron when he was PM (or were going to
run) that was so bad no one dare repeat it so never found out what it
was.
But because of its very close connections to the Labour party, the
Labour party directs all its attacks towards the Daily Mail and Sun.
It should be noted that during the Leveson business, it was reported
there were very few complaints about the Mail and many about the
Daily Maxwell, rivalling the News of the World in number of
complaints.
Papers are partisan. The Mirror (along with the Telegraph) have been
writing a lot of anti-Boris Partygate stuff but it's their prerogative.
On 29/01/2022 18:40, Pamela wrote:
I can't say I have read a copy of the Mirror lately but I remember
it trying to be a news-focussed newspaper, unlike the Sun. It had
lots of impressive photo-like graphics too.
I can't remember the Mail ever faking pictures as the Daily Maxwell
did.
The Daily Maxwell had had to pay out a lot of compensation because
of its hacking.
I can honestly say I've never subscribed to Twitter. I wonder how long
it will be possible to admit to being proud of that?
I can't say I have read a copy of the Mirror lately but I remember it
trying to be a news-focussed newspaper, unlike the Sun. It had lots of impressive photo-like graphics too.
One moment it is rabidly anti-Boris and the next it thinks he's the
greatest. Same goes for the Mail's Covid coverage where at one
point it was pillorying Whitty and Vallance remorselessly but now
it's terribly concerned that we're coming out of Plan B too soon.
I can't remember the Mail ever faking pictures as the Daily Maxwell did.
The Daily Maxwell had had to pay out a lot of compensation because of
its hacking.
In article <XnsAE2EBE0E63B7037B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
One moment it is rabidly anti-Boris and the next it thinks he's the
greatest. Same goes for the Mail's Covid coverage where at one
point it was pillorying Whitty and Vallance remorselessly but now
it's terribly concerned that we're coming out of Plan B too soon.
At the start of the pandemic nobody had much of a clue what was going
to happen next, we had not seen anything like this in our lifetime.
Predictions were made and decisions taken that were a mixture of
panic and arse covering. As time went on opinion split more and more
about everything covid.
To be fair to Johnson, I think he knew from the start that the path
we went down was wrong, we should never have abandoned the original
decades old pandemic plan.
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/excessD.jpg
He was pushed and pushed hard by the media and sage that demanded the
most draconian of measures without any balance at all in the decision
making process. What cost benefit analysis? And of course through
panic, we followed China and the "soft underbelly of europe".
He was weak, he also became ill himself and I'm not sure I would have
had the courage of my convictions when I'm told by my "advisers" and
press that I must lockdown or face charges of mass murder. Not an
enviable position at all.
When he eventually realized that the predictions coming from Ferguson
and all, were preposterous every single time and admittedly pushed by
a need to save his own political skin he called enough and he was
right. At least, he was right last summer and over christmas and the
dire predictions proved complete nonsense.
None of us know what will come next but some people do look like they
have a clue whilst others have been proved wrong too often to have
any credibility except to the lockdown loving left and the media.
So far I'm still glad I had my jabs but I do now worry that things
can be pushed too far even with that and we none of us know what
effect they may have on our immune systems and general health. One
issue where I think the advise from the EU is correct. We think it
still helps us recover from covid but certainly no longer helps us
avoid Omicron so I think the next jab is a harder call for me.
So I'm not surprise that papers are struggling to say the right thing
on covid, so is everyone else unless you're like a clapping seal in
the zoo. Lock us down harder daddy, clap clap.
In article <XnsAE2EBE0E63B7037B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
One moment it is rabidly anti-Boris and the next it thinks he's the
greatest. Same goes for the Mail's Covid coverage where at one
point it was pillorying Whitty and Vallance remorselessly but now
it's terribly concerned that we're coming out of Plan B too soon.
At the start of the pandemic nobody had much of a clue what was going
to happen next, we had not seen anything like this in our lifetime.
Predictions were made and decisions taken that were a mixture of
panic and arse covering. As time went on opinion split more and more
about everything covid.
To be fair to Johnson, I think he knew from the start that the path
we went down was wrong, we should never have abandoned the original
decades old pandemic plan.
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/excessD.jpg
He was pushed and pushed hard by the media and sage that demanded the
most draconian of measures without any balance at all in the decision
making process. What cost benefit analysis? And of course through
panic, we followed China and the "soft underbelly of europe".
He was weak, he also became ill himself and I'm not sure I would have
had the courage of my convictions when I'm told by my "advisers" and
press that I must lockdown or face charges of mass murder. Not an
enviable position at all.
When he eventually realized that the predictions coming from Ferguson
and all, were preposterous every single time and admittedly pushed by
a need to save his own political skin he called enough and he was
right. At least, he was right last summer and over christmas and the
dire predictions proved complete nonsense.
None of us know what will come next but some people do look like they
have a clue whilst others have been proved wrong too often to have
any credibility except to the lockdown loving left and the media.
So far I'm still glad I had my jabs but I do now worry that things
can be pushed too far even with that and we none of us know what
effect they may have on our immune systems and general health. One
issue where I think the advise from the EU is correct. We think it
still helps us recover from covid but certainly no longer helps us
avoid Omicron so I think the next jab is a harder call for me.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:50:46 +0000, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
In message <ua18vgpk55kg8nq8dr63id9ul797v2i3uo@4ax.com>, Scott >><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:50:04 +0000, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 28/01/2022 08:49, Mark Carver wrote:
What an extraordinary myopic statement. You've clearly never
listened to James O'Brien or Eddie Mair on LBC !
No, I don't listen to talk radio, because I'm far too busy to allow >>>>myself to be distracted by other people talking
Mother of a friend of mine once declared, 'I can honestly say I have >>>never read a book in my life'. I am sure you would get on well.
My sister-in-law's niece once said that in my hearing. She seemed to
be proud of it. I was rather shocked, but thought it better not to
say anything.
I can honestly say I've never subscribed to Twitter. I wonder how
long it will be possible to admit to being proud of that? The
rambling subliterate pronouncements typical of its users appear to be something of a mainstay of some news outlets, which simply print
screeds of it unedited on their websites, as if it were some sort of
official policy or holy writ. Even the name doesn't sound serious.
Rod.
Perhaps she was hoping to introduce new words into the academic
vocabulary in her field, for which she'd be recognised and quoted.
There's a review of the book here: <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2019/11/04/book-review-the-age-of-surveillance-capitalism-the-fight-for-the-future-at-the-new-frontier-of-power-by-shoshana-zuboff/>.
In it are quite a few words in quote marks such as ‘inevitabilism’. Is that one of Zuboff's words or the reviewer's? I can't decide if the
review is of really high quality or is vying for a top position in
"Pseud's Corner" (Quote: "To that purpose, surveillance companies use a rhetoric of exceptionalism to mask our dispossession.").
I don't subscribe to any social media, because I have never seen the
point in telling the world what they can manage without.
Papers are partisan.
Jazz (R2 and 3 have given up), Rock (R1 gave up a long time ago), Light Classical (given up long ago by R2), Theatre and film score Music (
given up long ago by R2)
Recently, some months after it was broadcast, I've got around to
watching Brian Cox's "Universe", and jeez, what an interminable
over-produced funereal invocation of boredom - music so loud you can't
hear his mumbling, presumably into a mask; what he had to say spun out
over such long time-filling intervals that you forget the beginning of
the sentence by the time he reaches the end; far too many locations pointlessly visited; little or SFA new information imparted.
Andy Burns wrote:
So just clarify, you regard Times Radio to be as "bad" (in your view) as GB >> News? And LBC too?
The links to any of these that I can recall being posted here have not exactly
been examples of fair and unbiased programming
but it's possible my memory may be at fault - we see so much crud linked here that it becomes difficult to remember one example from another.
You can safely stay away from Twitter and will not miss anything.
It is full of people tweeting away but almost no one there is
listening.
In article <XnsAE2ED791F9B137B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
You can safely stay away from Twitter and will not miss anything.
That is true if your intention is to remain only partially informed
about what is happening in the world. If you don't wish to know what
main stream media isn't telling you then that policy works well.
That's not to say that there isn't junk and misinformation on there,
there is but even if you don't already know who to trust you quickly
learn. Who ends up being right and who is consistently wrong?
It is full of people tweeting away but almost no one there is
listening.
Well I do very little talking at all there but I do read a lot and
have a list of people who I trust based on my experience of them and
they are the ones I "follow".
The "filtering" and deception of MSM on the subject of protests have
been a recent confirmation of agenda bias. If mentioned at all, (and
they only do that if they can't avoid doing so) the numbers
estimations are pure deception. Twitter has video footage showing
huge numbers protesting, orders of magnitude higher than the our
agenda driven BBC will ever admit.
So yes, if you wish to diet on propaganda without balance don't look
anywhere else including twitter. It's only when you look outside that
you see the bias, I'm now convinced people love living in a world
fully filtered and controlled and they're not interested in balance
or the truth.
You shouldn't judge entire radio stations without actually listening to
them *as* *stations* rather than just snippets.
On 30/01/2022 10:39, Andy Burns wrote:
You shouldn't judge entire radio stations without actually listening to
them *as* *stations* rather than just snippets.
Maybe, but who's got the time and the reason to listen to yet another
talk radio station?
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 20:03:30 +0000, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
I don't subscribe to any social media, because I have never seen the
point in telling the world what they can manage without.
What's usenet then?
Rod.
"Junk and misinformation" is too large a proportion of what gets
posted to Twitter to make it useful. There will be the odd nugget
of value but you have to wade through a sewer to get to it.
In article <XnsAE2ED791F9B137B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
You can safely stay away from Twitter and will not miss anything.
That is true if your intention is to remain only partially informed
about what is happening in the world. If you don't wish to know what
main stream media isn't telling you then that policy works well.
That's not to say that there isn't junk and misinformation on there,
there is but even if you don't already know who to trust you quickly
learn. Who ends up being right and who is consistently wrong?
It is full of people tweeting away but almost no one there is
listening.
Well I do very little talking at all there but I do read a lot and
have a list of people who I trust based on my experience of them and
they are the ones I "follow".
The "filtering" and deception of MSM on the subject of protests have
been a recent confirmation of agenda bias. If mentioned at all, (and
they only do that if they can't avoid doing so) the numbers
estimations are pure deception. Twitter has video footage showing
huge numbers protesting, orders of magnitude higher than the our
agenda driven BBC will ever admit.
So yes, if you wish to diet on propaganda without balance don't look
anywhere else including twitter. It's only when you look outside that
you see the bias, I'm now convinced people love living in a world
fully filtered and controlled and they're not interested in balance
or the truth.
Bob.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 30/01/2022 10:39, Andy Burns wrote:
You shouldn't judge entire radio stations without actually listening to
them *as* *stations* rather than just snippets.
Maybe, but who's got the time and the reason to listen to yet another
talk radio station?
You might if you spent less time on here :)
In article <XnsAE2F92C37BAB537B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
"Junk and misinformation" is too large a proportion of what gets
posted to Twitter to make it useful. There will be the odd nugget
of value but you have to wade through a sewer to get to it.
Well of course the first question is what defines "junk"?
Much can be junk I agree but you learn who to read and who to ignore.
But I suspect you mark as junk items that simply disagree with your
position or current narrative and I'm sorry but that doesn't mean
it's really junk.
On 30/01/2022 12:40, Tweed wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 30/01/2022 10:39, Andy Burns wrote:
You shouldn't judge entire radio stations without actually listening to >>>> them *as* *stations* rather than just snippets.
Maybe, but who's got the time and the reason to listen to yet another
talk radio station?
You might if you spent less time on here :)
I might if certain others here stopped posting crap that wastes
everyone's time :-(
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 30/01/2022 12:40, Tweed wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Maybe, but who's got the time and the reason to listen to yet another
talk radio station?
You might if you spent less time on here :)
I might if certain others here stopped posting crap that wastes
everyone's time :-(
I fear you are creating a Streisand Effect.
In article <XnsAE2F92C37BAB537B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
"Junk and misinformation" is too large a proportion of what gets
posted to Twitter to make it useful. There will be the odd nugget
of value but you have to wade through a sewer to get to it.
Well of course the first question is what defines "junk"?
Much can be junk I agree but you learn who to read and who to ignore.
But I suspect you mark as junk items that simply disagree with your
position or current narrative and I'm sorry but that doesn't mean
it's really junk.
Bob.
On 30/01/2022 14:54, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <XnsAE2F92C37BAB537B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
"Junk and misinformation" is too large a proportion of what gets
posted to Twitter to make it useful. There will be the odd nugget
of value but you have to wade through a sewer to get to it.
Well of course the first question is what defines "junk"?
That's easy, anything you follow, and a load of other crap as well.
Much can be junk I agree but you learn who to read and who to
ignore.
If only you would, sadly, no-one here can see any sign of that
happening anytime soon.
But I suspect you mark as junk items that simply disagree with your
position or current narrative and I'm sorry but that doesn't mean
it's really junk.
Beams and motes - *APPLY* those principles to *YOURSELF* before
preaching them parrot-fashion to others.
On 30/01/2022 12:40, Tweed wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 30/01/2022 10:39, Andy Burns wrote:
You shouldn't judge entire radio stations without actually
listening to
them *as* *stations* rather than just snippets.
Maybe, but who's got the time and the reason to listen to yet another
talk radio station?
You might if you spent less time on here :)
I might if certain others here stopped posting crap that wastes
everyone's time :-(
Bob, in my reply to you I used the same phrase you chose ("junk and misinformation") to avoid your disagreement with it. So it means
what you intended it to mean and I have gone along with that. You
wrote this:
"That's not to say that there isn't junk and misinformation on
there"
From your message: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=164355901000
There is no point in the average person posting to Twitter. "MB" didI find Twitter is a bit like wandering around a large city. Stay on the
suggest a public message to an organisation may get more attention there. That could workbut but it needs you to keep going back to check for responses.
On 30/01/2022 14:25, Pamela wrote:
There is no point in the average person posting to Twitter. "MB" did
suggest a public message to an organisation may get more attention
there. That could workbut but it needs you to keep going back to
check for responses.
I find Twitter is a bit like wandering around a large city. Stay on
the main streets, and look at (in other words, follow) tweets from
trusted and well balanced individuals or organisations (I only follow
107 in total) and all is fine, and enjoyable. However looking beyond
a couple of replies to one of your 'followee's ' tweets, and it's
like turning off that main street, into some dodgy alleyway inhabited
by idiots (or worse).
The further you go, the worse it becomes.
I generally only Tweet if it's something utterly anoraky or trivial,
(or to have a polite moan about bad service I've received somewhere)
"Junk and misinformation" is too large a proportion of what gets posted to Twitter to make it useful.
I find Twitter is a bit like wandering around a large city.
I don't deny it it. But I also said that I decide who I read and who
has proved to be unreliable and consequently I find I get good
consistent information and I don't reject twitter as a waste of time.
I think you're understating it. It is firm written BBC policy re climate change that "the science is settled" so no discussion, even about
different amelioration methods,is allowed.
On 11:15 29 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
I can honestly say I've never subscribed to Twitter. I wonder how
long it will be possible to admit to being proud of that? The
rambling subliterate pronouncements typical of its users appear to be
something of a mainstay of some news outlets, which simply print
screeds of it unedited on their websites, as if it were some sort of
official policy or holy writ. Even the name doesn't sound serious.
You can safely stay away from Twitter and will not miss anything. It is
full of people tweeting away but almost no one there is listening. It's
not really like Usenet or web-based forums. Reading twitter is like listening to a field full of grasshoppers and about as informative,
unless you regularly spend time there digging very deeply.
On 29/01/2022 21:11, Pamela wrote:
On 11:15 29 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
I can honestly say I've never subscribed to Twitter. I wonder how
long it will be possible to admit to being proud of that? The
rambling subliterate pronouncements typical of its users appear to
be something of a mainstay of some news outlets, which simply print
screeds of it unedited on their websites, as if it were some sort
of official policy or holy writ. Even the name doesn't sound
serious.
You can safely stay away from Twitter and will not miss anything. It
is full of people tweeting away but almost no one there is
listening. It's not really like Usenet or web-based forums. Reading
twitter is like listening to a field full of grasshoppers and about
as informative, unless you regularly spend time there digging very
deeply.
How about Reddit? Is that useable? How is it used? I've got accounts
with Twitter and Reddit, but only because they offered to sign me up
using my Google account when I happened to access a link to them with
a browser that was logged into Google.
In article <j5h6va...@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
I think you're understating it. It is firm written BBC policy re climate change that "the science is settled" so no discussion, even about
different amelioration methods,is allowed.
They also regard it as settled in terms of science that the Earth orbits
the Sun.
Jim
On Monday, 31 January 2022 at 10:09:53 UTC, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <j5h6va...@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
I think you're understating it. It is firm written BBC policy re climate >>> change that "the science is settled" so no discussion, even about
different amelioration methods,is allowed.
They also regard it as settled in terms of science that the Earth orbits
the Sun.
Jim
And round not flat.
But there are still some in darkest Yorkshire who think it is.
I'm in Yorkshire, been here all my life. Never yet met anyone who thinks
the earth is flat. Hell of a lot though who think that the global
warming hypothesis is at best over-stated and at worst a massive scam.
What's more there's a lot round here who are mightily pissed off with
the BBC for other reasons as well. I think it's because we do tend to
think for ourselves, and we are natural sceptics.
On 31/01/2022 18:43, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
On Monday, 31 January 2022 at 10:09:53 UTC, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <j5h6va...@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
I think you're understating it. It is firm written BBC policy re
climate
change that "the science is settled" so no discussion, even about
different amelioration methods,is allowed.
They also regard it as settled in terms of science that the Earth orbits >>> the Sun.
Jim
And round not flat.
But there are still some in darkest Yorkshire who think it is.
I'm in Yorkshire, been here all my life. Never yet met anyone who thinks
the earth is flat. Hell of a lot though who think that the global warming hypothesis is at best over-stated and at worst a massive scam.
Do we in the UK have enough generating capacity to support the change from >petrol/diesel to electric cars and the gradual change from gas/oil for >central heating to electric heating via ground source?
On 31/01/2022 22:45, williamwright wrote:
I'm in Yorkshire, been here all my life. Never yet met anyone who thinks
the earth is flat. Hell of a lot though who think that the global warming
hypothesis is at best over-stated and at worst a massive scam.
What's more there's a lot round here who are mightily pissed off with the
BBC for other reasons as well. I think it's because we do tend to think
for ourselves, and we are natural sceptics.
Those two paragraphs are rather self-contradictory, if you thought for yourselves, you'd find out enough about global warming to know that it's
real and happening. But then, there's nowt so blind as will not see.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:16:34 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Do we in the UK have enough generating capacity to support the change from >>petrol/diesel to electric cars and the gradual change from gas/oil for >>central heating to electric heating via ground source?
And do we have enough copper to upgrade all the distribution wiring,
or any politicians who realise that we will need to?
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message news:fjvhvg15d72cjquq9a396cp46mpqoigu7o@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:16:34 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Do we in the UK have enough generating capacity to support the change from >>> petrol/diesel to electric cars and the gradual change from gas/oil for
central heating to electric heating via ground source?
And do we have enough copper to upgrade all the distribution wiring,
or any politicians who realise that we will need to?
Very true. Everyone gets home from work at about 5-6 PM, plugs in their car to charge and turns on their electric ground-source heating. Can the wiring cope? Maybe all the copper telephone cable that BT is wanting to replace
with fibre can be turned into (*) electricity cable ;-)
(*) I mean by melting down and making new cable, not just feeding mains down telephone-grade copper wiring.
Never mind global warming, we need to move to more home grown energy
sources, which mainly means renewables, for energy security. The current
hike in world gas prices and instability in Russia should be a lesson.
On 31/01/2022 22:45, williamwright wrote:
I'm in Yorkshire, been here all my life. Never yet met anyone who
thinks the earth is flat.
Hell of a lot though who think that the global warming hypothesis
is at best over-stated and at worst a massive scam.
What's more there's a lot round here who are mightily pissed off
with the BBC for other reasons as well. I think it's because we
do tend to think for ourselves, and we are natural sceptics.
Those two paragraphs are rather self-contradictory, if you thought
for yourselves, you'd find out enough about global warming to know
that it's real and happening.
But then, there's nowt so blind as will not see.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Wind and solar *need* almost 100% backup with something that can come
Never mind global warming, we need to move to more home grown energy
sources, which mainly means renewables, for energy security. The current
hike in world gas prices and instability in Russia should be a lesson.
on line when there's no sun (a good 70% to 80% of the time for much of
the year in the UK) and no wind which happens not infrequently (like
several days earlier in January).
So what 'home grown energy' is going to do the 'gap filling'?
Tweed wrote:
we need to move to more home grown energy sources
People complain we haven't go much gas storage; rather than manufacturing new
salt caverns, why not continue developing offshore gas fields, think of them as
storage that's sitting there, already full of gas?
Protestors were frightened of a few tiny earth tremors from fracking, yet coal
mining has caused plenty (and continues to cause them in ex-mining areas) even
the Eden project has caused an earthquake this year by drilling for geothermal
energy.
we need to move to more home grown energy sources
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:If we had invested in (very clean and very safe) nuclear power we
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Wind and solar *need* almost 100% backup with something that can come
Never mind global warming, we need to move to more home grown energy
sources, which mainly means renewables, for energy security. The current >>>> hike in world gas prices and instability in Russia should be a lesson. >>>>
on line when there's no sun (a good 70% to 80% of the time for much of
the year in the UK) and no wind which happens not infrequently (like
several days earlier in January).
So what 'home grown energy' is going to do the 'gap filling'?
None, but having to fill your gaps with world traded gas is better than
being mostly reliant on it, which is largely where we are now. Don’t let >> perfect be the enemy of good.
wouldn't have such deep gaps to fill. Yes, I know this is hindsight
but some foresight now would suggest more investment in clean base
power generation and wind/sun isn't it.
Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Wind and solar *need* almost 100% backup with something that can come
Never mind global warming, we need to move to more home grown energy
sources, which mainly means renewables, for energy security. The current >> hike in world gas prices and instability in Russia should be a lesson.
on line when there's no sun (a good 70% to 80% of the time for much of
the year in the UK) and no wind which happens not infrequently (like several days earlier in January).
So what 'home grown energy' is going to do the 'gap filling'?
None, but having to fill your gaps with world traded gas is better than
being mostly reliant on it, which is largely where we are now. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
If we had invested in (very clean and very safe) nuclear power we
wouldn't have such deep gaps to fill. Yes, I know this is hindsight
but some foresight now would suggest more investment in clean base
power generation and wind/sun isn't it.
We had a big offshore gas storage facility (Rough facility) but it needed a big sum of money spending on it to plug leaks. UK government wouldn’t underwrite the project, so it got closed and look where we are now.
I’ve just been looking at the various comments in the press from 2017 when the facility’s closure was announced. There were quite a few staring we’d be at the mercy of high prices in the event of supply shortages. The government sources stated it would be just fine because we could import
loads of gas by tanker ship.
Energy security is very important and mostly ignored because we’ve had coal and then North Sea gas and oil. Regardless of global warming, we can’t carry on being mostly dependent on foreign supplies of energy.
Yes, same here. The BS almost entirely middle class lefties with an
agenda. When men stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing;
they believe in anything.
I don't think there's much doubt that the earth is getting warmer at the moment.
On 31/01/2022 18:43, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
On Monday, 31 January 2022 at 10:09:53 UTC, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <j5h6va...@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
I think you're understating it. It is firm written BBC policy re climate >>> change that "the science is settled" so no discussion, even about
different amelioration methods,is allowed.
They also regard it as settled in terms of science that the Earth orbits >> the Sun.
Jim
And round not flat.
But there are still some in darkest Yorkshire who think it is.I'm in Yorkshire, been here all my life. Never yet met anyone who thinks
the earth is flat. Hell of a lot though who think that the global
warming hypothesis is at best over-stated and at worst a massive scam.
What's more there's a lot round here who are mightily pissed off with
the BBC for other reasons as well. I think it's because we do tend to
think for ourselves, and we are natural sceptics.
Bill
Yes I know that, but there's undeveloped gas sitting out there
waiting to be "dug up" which we've agreed to leave in place, while
we buy expensive gas from other countries instead.
The principle town of Yorkshire is of course York and it keeps
getting flooded more and more often - still nowt to do with global
warming.
similarly
Huge queues of lorries at the channel ports,
empty shelves at the supermarkets,
trawlers tied up in Hull,
food prices soaring
- still nowt to do with Brexit and so on
Do yourself a favour Bill and stop living in denial.
"Roderick Stewart" <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message news:fjvhvg15d72cjquq9...@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:16:34 -0000, "NY" <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Do we in the UK have enough generating capacity to support the change from >>petrol/diesel to electric cars and the gradual change from gas/oil for >>central heating to electric heating via ground source?
And do we have enough copper to upgrade all the distribution wiring,Very true. Everyone gets home from work at about 5-6 PM, plugs in their car to charge and turns on their electric ground-source heating.
or any politicians who realise that we will need to?
Can the wiring cope?
Maybe all the copper telephone cable that BT is wanting to replace
with fibre can be turned into (*) electricity cable ;-)
(*) I mean by melting down and making new cable, not just feeding mains down telephone-grade copper wiring.
On Tuesday, 1 February 2022 at 09:41:18 UTC, NY wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message news:fjvhvg15d72cjquq9...@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:16:34 -0000, "NY" <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Do we in the UK have enough generating capacity to support the change >>from petrol/diesel to electric cars and the gradual change from
gas/oil for central heating to electric heating via ground source?
And do we have enough copper to upgrade all the distribution wiring,Very true. Everyone gets home from work at about 5-6 PM, plugs in their
or any politicians who realise that we will need to?
car to charge and turns on their electric ground-source heating.
All but the most profligate would recharge their car overnight from
economy 7 and from a regular 13A socket (enough for about 200 miles in an electric car).
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message >news:fjvhvg15d72cjquq9a396cp46mpqoigu7o@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:16:34 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Do we in the UK have enough generating capacity to support the change from >>>petrol/diesel to electric cars and the gradual change from gas/oil for >>>central heating to electric heating via ground source?
And do we have enough copper to upgrade all the distribution wiring,
or any politicians who realise that we will need to?
Very true. Everyone gets home from work at about 5-6 PM, plugs in their car >to charge and turns on their electric ground-source heating. Can the wiring >cope? Maybe all the copper telephone cable that BT is wanting to replace
with fibre can be turned into (*) electricity cable ;-)
(*) I mean by melting down and making new cable, not just feeding mains down >telephone-grade copper wiring.
In article <j5skj7Fteh8U1@mid.individual.net>,
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
.
Yes I know that, but there's undeveloped gas sitting out there
waiting to be "dug up" which we've agreed to leave in place, while
we buy expensive gas from other countries instead.
Exactly so. Having energy people can afford is far less important
than virtue signalling.
Bob.
I charge at 24 miles per hour on a 32A feed. That would drop to
about 10 miles per hour on a 13 A feed. 200 miles would take 20
hours!
Even the 60A fuse (i.e. 15kW at 250V) in the electricity supply to
my house couldn't cope with charging a 75kWh car battery at the 10
hour rate, cooking my dinner, boiling the kettle, and providing hot
water and heating my house electrically at the same rate that my
24kW gas combi boiler currently does it. I'm sure it will be a
similar story in a great many other houses. Somebody needs to find
the back of an envelope and do a few sums. (If they know how).
We need that gas for the future.
Tweed wrote:
We need that gas for the future.
That's not the greenies plan, they want to just leave it there and forget all about it.
On 01/02/2022 11:11, Bob Latham wrote:
Yes, same here. The BS almost entirely middle class lefties with an
agenda. When men stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing;
they believe in anything.
The best example I remember was someone who said that if you go to the appropriate authorities and ask for a grant to study the breeding habits
of squirrels in South East England then you will be unlikely to get anything. But ask for a grant to study the effect of "global warming"
on the breeding habits of squirrels in South East England then they will
be queuing up to give you money.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:41:07 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message >news:fjvhvg15d72cjquq9a396cp46mpqoigu7o@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:16:34 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Do we in the UK have enough generating capacity to support the change >>>from petrol/diesel to electric cars and the gradual change from
gas/oil for central heating to electric heating via ground source?
And do we have enough copper to upgrade all the distribution wiring,
or any politicians who realise that we will need to?
Very true. Everyone gets home from work at about 5-6 PM, plugs in their
car to charge and turns on their electric ground-source heating. Can
the wiring cope? Maybe all the copper telephone cable that BT is
wanting to replace with fibre can be turned into (*) electricity cable
;-)
(*) I mean by melting down and making new cable, not just feeding mains >down telephone-grade copper wiring.
Even the 60A fuse (i.e. 15kW at 250V) in the electricity supply to my
house couldn't cope with charging a 75kWh car battery at the 10 hour
rate, cooking my dinner, boiling the kettle, and providing hot water and heating my house electrically at the same rate that my 24kW gas combi
boiler currently does it. I'm sure it will be a similar story in a great
many other houses. Somebody needs to find the back of an envelope and do
a few sums. (If they know how).
Very little of that in my supermarkets in fact my wife has just had
an email from Tesco about her delivery for this afternoon. All item
in stock and no substitutions. Would you like me to post the email?
In article <st9skt$3g0$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 31/01/2022 22:45, williamwright wrote:
I'm in Yorkshire, been here all my life. Never yet met anyone who
thinks the earth is flat.
No, me neither in the West Mids.
Hell of a lot though who think that the global warming hypothesis
is at best over-stated and at worst a massive scam.
Yes, same here. The BS almost entirely middle class lefties with an
agenda. When men stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing;
they believe in anything.
What's more there's a lot round here who are mightily pissed off
with the BBC for other reasons as well. I think it's because we
do tend to think for ourselves, and we are natural sceptics.
Yes again. We don't sit around clapping the BBC like seals in the zoo
here either, most see them for what they are: propaganda pushers.
Those two paragraphs are rather self-contradictory, if you thought
for yourselves, you'd find out enough about global warming to know
that it's real and happening.
Where, I can't find it.
I have seen very slightly milder winters but
nothing negative, all good and no proof it's caused by CO2 either
because it isn't. 7 years now without OVERALL warming but CO2
continues upwards.
There is proof the planet has more green than before and that is due
to CO2 being plant food.
Indeed the Office of National Statistics assessed deaths from extreme cold/heat for the first two decades of this century. On average,
27,755 FEWER people die annually in England and Wales, mainly due to
warmer winters. The exact OPPOSITE of a CRISIS.
[Propaganda snipped]
Because we have a public subjected to propaganda and not education
from the the media we have a population who on the whole have no idea
how much of this killer, awful pollution CO2 is in the atmosphere.
On the rare occasions it's ever mentioned it will be in meaningless
but scary gigatonnes or very rarely just possibly 412ppm. Nothing
with any proportional meaning to the public like a percentage that
would increase understanding and do nothing for the fear/agenda.
Try asking people at random, the majority have no idea. Isn't that
strange, you would think with this being the crisis to end all crisis everyone would know precisely how much of this killer was around, we
know how much covid there is.
But honestly they don't. If you then tell them its a trace gas
0.0412% of the atmosphere be prepared for disbelief and have evidence
with you, or they will not accept it. They've not been educated,
they've been brainwashed.
Go on to tell them that around around 6% of that comes from burning
fossil fuels (FF) >50% from the oceans and 38% from breath
exhalation. Then crown it by saying that the UK produces around 1% of
the world's FF CO2.
So the great plan is to bankrupt Britain,
put millions into fuel
poverty and cold homes, abandon boilers, cars and a life to reduce 1%
of the world's FF CO2 to zero. That's roughly 0.00003% of the
atmosphere and these lunatics believe it's changing the weather.
I
presume they've not looked at the CO2 history of the world where for
most of history it was far higher that now
and around 15 times higher
when life itself really burst out on the planet. We had an ice age
with CO2 far higher.
Explain why at 438 million years ago we had an ice age with CO2 at
4000ppm. If CO2 is the temperature control knob, how did we get that
ice age? You simply cannot deny that there must be another factor it
cannot be CO2 at that point in history or any other. QED!
An ice age with 4000ppm CO2, the oceans didn't boil off, the planet
did not fry, quite the opposite.
Having looked at the earth's CO2 history no one in their right mind
would think 0.00003% CO2 would make any difference and we know it
will not.
So, they claim we need to set an example to China etc..
Yes, right. I can just imagine China's government looking at
Britain's disingenuous virtue signalling and saying, "So shamed by
what Britain is doing we must change now.". On what planet? They
would piss themselves laughing at our utter stupidity.
Prophecies of climate doom are now 50 years old and there is still
nothing anywhere negative happening. Not one fantasy climate story
has ever got close, it's always act now or catastrophe but they don't
happen - ever. They are as useless as a Neil Ferguson prediction.
[Snip unsubstantiated propaganda]
Oh yes, there are stories like fires or winds or sea level or coral
lapped up with glee by the BBC. But then within a short time we get
the truth, evidence from scientists that shows in every case it's
rubbish. Arson
lack of maintenance done for decades,
graph
manipulation
and polar bears are in greater numbers than ever.
But of
course, the BBC doesn't show the counter position, that would be how
to do science and education. They just want another scare story to
push a communist agenda.
But then, there's nowt so blind as will not see.
[Puerile propaganda snipped]
On 01/02/2022 12:08, Bob Latham wrote:
Very little of that in my supermarkets in fact my wife has just had
an email from Tesco about her delivery for this afternoon. All item
in stock and no substitutions. Would you like me to post the email?
Like most others, I am yet to see signifant numbers of empty shelves and
we are quite vulnerable here. It only needs the A82 or A9 to be blocked
by snow or a Road Traffic Accident and the shelves can be quickly emptied.
Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
If we had invested in (very clean and very safe) nuclear power we
wouldn't have such deep gaps to fill. Yes, I know this is hindsight
but some foresight now would suggest more investment in clean base
power generation and wind/sun isn't it.
We probably need a mix of both. Fission isn’t proving to be a very cheap form of electricity, so there’s a cost in getting that base load. SMRs are being touted as the way forwards, but they aren’t yet proven in the field at scale and will doubtless come with their own undiscovered issues and costs. Unfortunately decades of let the market decide policy has done just that, and the market is extracting money from our wallets handsomely.
In article <j5skj7Fteh8U1@mid.individual.net>,
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Yes I know that, but there's undeveloped gas sitting out there
waiting to be "dug up" which we've agreed to leave in place, while
we buy expensive gas from other countries instead.
Exactly so. Having energy people can afford is far less important
than virtue signalling.
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Tweed wrote:
We need that gas for the future.
That's not the greenies plan, they want to just leave it there and forget all
about it.
Indeed they do, but reality will catch up with them.
I’m arguing from the
point of view of energy security. You don’t have to cut *all* fossil fuel burning to still make a significant reduction by the use of renewable generation. The cost of offshore wind generation is falling quite rapidly
so it makes sense to use it when it is available.
In article <226a5334-30c9-42f2-a40c-dae441ee97den@googlegroups.com>,
R. Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
The principle town of Yorkshire is of course York and it keeps
getting flooded more and more often - still nowt to do with global
warming.
Correct. Flooding has always happened, if it happens more these days
It's usually to do with river dredging not be done as it once was.
similarly
Huge queues of lorries at the channel ports,
Yes, that's called EU spite from our friends and partners across the
channel.
empty shelves at the supermarkets,
Very little of that in my supermarkets in fact my wife has just had
an email from Tesco about her delivery for this afternoon. All item
in stock and no substitutions. Would you like me to post the email?
There is quite a bit of that in the USA apparently, is that Brexit
too?
trawlers tied up in Hull,
Really?
food prices soaring
The price of everything is soaring, it's called inflation. Inflation
is a disease caused by governments spending money they don't have.
Usually high in Labour periods of gov for precisely that reason. This
time due to conservatives wasting billions due to covid.
- still nowt to do with Brexit and so on
Very, very little if anything. You're simply seeing what you want to
see, not what's there.
Do yourself a favour Bill and stop living in denial.
In article <pb9ivgtk6gt3mk8dql1n8fasa9nc229f5j@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Even the 60A fuse (i.e. 15kW at 250V) in the electricity supply to
my house couldn't cope with charging a 75kWh car battery at the 10
hour rate, cooking my dinner, boiling the kettle, and providing hot
water and heating my house electrically at the same rate that my
24kW gas combi boiler currently does it. I'm sure it will be a
similar story in a great many other houses. Somebody needs to find
the back of an envelope and do a few sums. (If they know how).
+1
Exactly so.
I also have a 24KW gas boiler and anything less is not enough to be
warm on the coldest days. I have a 10KW shower and an cooker. Often
all in use at the same time. No car to charge.
The penny hasn't dropped yet with the majority yet.
In article <stbebb$v3s$1@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 01/02/2022 12:08, Bob Latham wrote:
Very little of that in my supermarkets in fact my wife has just had
an email from Tesco about her delivery for this afternoon. All item
in stock and no substitutions. Would you like me to post the email?
Like most others, I am yet to see signifant numbers of empty shelves and
we are quite vulnerable here. It only needs the A82 or A9 to be blocked
by snow or a Road Traffic Accident and the shelves can be quickly emptied.
Our local Waitrose ran out of Orkney Oatcakes last week
On 01/02/2022 12:55, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <pb9ivgtk6gt3mk8dql1n8fasa9nc229f5j@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Even the 60A fuse (i.e. 15kW at 250V) in the electricity supply to
my house couldn't cope with charging a 75kWh car battery at the 10
hour rate, cooking my dinner, boiling the kettle, and providing hot
water and heating my house electrically at the same rate that my
24kW gas combi boiler currently does it. I'm sure it will be a
similar story in a great many other houses. Somebody needs to find
the back of an envelope and do a few sums. (If they know how).
+1
Exactly so.
I also have a 24KW gas boiler and anything less is not enough to be
warm on the coldest days. I have a 10KW shower and an cooker. Often
all in use at the same time. No car to charge.
The penny hasn't dropped yet with the majority yet.
To an extent, the sums are already being done. Cars won't be charging
at the maximum rate while domestic consumption is high in the evenings, they'll be charged when consumption is low overall, at night.
In article <226a5334-30c9-42f2-a40c-dae441ee97den@googlegroups.com>,
R. Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
The principle town of Yorkshire is of course York and it keeps
getting flooded more and more often - still nowt to do with global
warming.
Correct. Flooding has always happened, if it happens more these days
It's usually to do with river dredging not be done as it once was.
In article <stbgcp$chk$2@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
To an extent, the sums are already being done. Cars won't be charging
at the maximum rate while domestic consumption is high in the evenings,
they'll be charged when consumption is low overall, at night.
Certainly the app which controls my charger allows me to set charging times.
On 01/02/2022 12:55, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <pb9ivgtk6gt3mk8dql1n8fasa9nc229f5j@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Even the 60A fuse (i.e. 15kW at 250V) in the electricity supply to
my house couldn't cope with charging a 75kWh car battery at the 10
hour rate, cooking my dinner, boiling the kettle, and providing hot
water and heating my house electrically at the same rate that my
24kW gas combi boiler currently does it. I'm sure it will be a
similar story in a great many other houses. Somebody needs to find
the back of an envelope and do a few sums. (If they know how).
+1
Exactly so.
I also have a 24KW gas boiler and anything less is not enough to be
warm on the coldest days. I have a 10KW shower and an cooker. Often
all in use at the same time. No car to charge.
The penny hasn't dropped yet with the majority yet.
To an extent, the sums are already being done. Cars won't be charging at
the maximum rate while domestic consumption is high in the evenings,
they'll be charged when consumption is low overall, at night.
Tweed wrote:
We need that gas for the future.
That's not the greenies plan, they want to just leave it there and
forget all about it.
"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message news:stbgcp$chk$2@dont-email.me...
On 01/02/2022 12:55, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <pb9ivgtk6gt3mk8dql1n8fasa9nc229f5j@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Even the 60A fuse (i.e. 15kW at 250V) in the electricity supply to
my house couldn't cope with charging a 75kWh car battery at the 10
hour rate, cooking my dinner, boiling the kettle, and providing hot
water and heating my house electrically at the same rate that my
24kW gas combi boiler currently does it. I'm sure it will be a
similar story in a great many other houses. Somebody needs to find
the back of an envelope and do a few sums. (If they know how).
+1
Exactly so.
I also have a 24KW gas boiler and anything less is not enough to be
warm on the coldest days. I have a 10KW shower and an cooker. Often
all in use at the same time. No car to charge.
The penny hasn't dropped yet with the majority yet.
To an extent, the sums are already being done. Cars won't be charging at
the maximum rate while domestic consumption is high in the evenings,
they'll be charged when consumption is low overall, at night.
And you hope and pray that the car will be sufficiently charged overnight to be able to make the commute to work in the morning. "There was a much higher electricity demand than usual last night so my car's only got 20 miles
range - I'll have to work from home today" - will that placate the boss?
"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message news:stbgcp$chk$2@dont-email.me...
On 01/02/2022 12:55, Bob Latham wrote:
To an extent, the sums are already being done. Cars won't be charging
at the maximum rate while domestic consumption is high in the
evenings, they'll be charged when consumption is low overall, at night.
And you hope and pray that the car will be sufficiently charged
overnight to be able to make the commute to work in the morning. "There
was a much higher electricity demand than usual last night so my car's
only got 20 miles range - I'll have to work from home today" - will that placate the boss?
On 01/02/2022 15:14, NY wrote:
"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:stbgcp$chk$2@dont-email.me...
On 01/02/2022 12:55, Bob Latham wrote:
To an extent, the sums are already being done. Cars won't be charging
at the maximum rate while domestic consumption is high in the
evenings, they'll be charged when consumption is low overall, at night.
And you hope and pray that the car will be sufficiently charged
overnight to be able to make the commute to work in the morning. "There
was a much higher electricity demand than usual last night so my car's
only got 20 miles range - I'll have to work from home today" - will that
placate the boss?
With a few exceptions, I most of the perhaps twenty or so jobs I have
ever done, including summer holiday jobs, etc, have involved commuting
by foot or on public transport, I can only remember three that I had to commute by car. One of the things that the pandemic has proved,
entirely incidentally, is that nowadays the technology exists to allow a great many people to work from home, at least more often, sometimes on a semi-permanent basis. Of course there are difficulties involved with
this. Some staff report being 'neglected' or 'forgotten about' and fear being passed over for promotion if they're not seen at the office
enough, and overcoming such difficulties will require a change in
management style, and, if I know anything about British management at
all, that will be a sticking point.
I'm in Yorkshire, been here all my life. Never yet met anyone who
thinks the earth is flat. Hell of a lot though who think that the
global warming hypothesis is at best over-stated and at worst a
massive scam.
How many coal-fired power stations do you have to close to equate to the pollution from one Tongan volcanic eruption? I'm all for "every little
helps" but you start with the big offenders rather than getting everyone
to change their lightbulbs.
Do we in the UK have enough generating capacity to support the change
from petrol/diesel to electric cars and the gradual change from gas/oil
for central heating to electric heating via ground source? (Ground
source is fugly: I saw a house down the road from us which was having
it fitted and there are two enormous boxes about 10 feet square mounted
on the wall of the bungalow which cover most of the end wall of the
house. It is also eggs-in-one-basket: if the power fails, you are
utterly buggered for heating. At least gas continues to power our Aga
(which heats the kitchen) and we have a wood-burning stove with several
years of wood from trees that I have cut down or pruned, so we have
some fall-back if the power goes off.
Wind and solar *need* almost 100% backup with something that can come on
line when there's no sun (a good 70% to 80% of the time for much of the
year in the UK) and no wind which happens not infrequently (like several
days earlier in January).
So what 'home grown energy' is going to do the 'gap filling'?
In a similar manner the government has planned for 1% growth in
electricity generation in the UK by 2025 and under 10% by 2030. Does
it want power cuts or more imports?
Hardly enough growth in power there to cope with the demand of
illegal immigrants, let alone heat pumps and electric cars. They're
living in a fantasy world, a false utopia.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
With a few exceptions, I ...
... most of the perhaps twenty or so jobs I have
ever done, including summer holiday jobs, etc, have involved commuting
by foot or on public transport, I can only remember three that I had to
commute by car. One of the things that the pandemic has proved,
entirely incidentally, is that nowadays the technology exists to allow a
great many people to work from home, at least more often, sometimes on a
semi-permanent basis. Of course there are difficulties involved with
this. Some staff report being 'neglected' or 'forgotten about' and fear
being passed over for promotion if they're not seen at the office
enough, and overcoming such difficulties will require a change in
management style, and, if I know anything about British management at
all, that will be a sticking point.
Very job dependent though. Bit difficult if you are a surgeon, as my son
is. Add in shift work so you might be keeping irregular hours - car
charging becomes hard.
I suppose you could argue that the flooding in York is due to excessive rain in the northern Dales which is due to climate change.
Our local Waitrose ran out of Orkney Oatcakes last week
Never mind all that. Huge numbers of people don’t have the luxury of off street parking to get charged up.
On 01/02/2022 14:17, charles wrote:
Our local Waitrose ran out of Orkney Oatcakes last week
I think you will survive, not as if they have run out of Highland Park
(I hope).
On 01/02/2022 15:35, Tweed wrote:
Never mind all that. Huge numbers of people dont have the luxury of off street parking to get charged up.
Wasn't there some crazy bit in the new Highway Code about running
charging cables over pavements! I hope they are also warned to get some insurance for the claims by people tripping over the cables.
I have been forecasting this!
"Thefts of electric car charging cables could be the next crime wave to
sweep Britain's streets in the wake of catalytic converter raids"
I do have one unopened bottle - a pressie for providing PA for a charity Christmas event.
On 01/02/2022 17:34, charles wrote:
I do have one unopened bottle - a pressie for providing PA for a charity Christmas event.
I remember Roy telling me of someone who would open a new bottle and
throw the top away with "we won't be needing that again"
Huge queues of lorries at the channel ports,
Yes, that's called EU spite from our friends and partners across the channel.
It's the EU's job to look after it's own interests, not ours.
In article <skdnci-08um1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
Wind and solar *need* almost 100% backup with something that can come on line when there's no sun (a good 70% to 80% of the time for much of the year in the UK) and no wind which happens not infrequently (like several days earlier in January).
So what 'home grown energy' is going to do the 'gap filling'?
HVDC interconnectors help deal with that for the people linked togther. As does having a wide area for you sources.
In addition, people are already expecting to add hydrogen generation, storage, distribuition and use.
Your 'no wind' assumption that it is "not infrequent" needs also to take
into account the areas becoming available for wind capture as per an
earlier posting.
Plus also wave and 'tidal'.
So the reality is likely to be rather better than your backward-looking assumptions.
In article <statpo$dug$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Do we in the UK have enough generating capacity to support the change
from petrol/diesel to electric cars and the gradual change from gas/oil
for central heating to electric heating via ground source? (Ground
source is fugly: I saw a house down the road from us which was having
it fitted and there are two enormous boxes about 10 feet square mounted
on the wall of the bungalow which cover most of the end wall of the
house. It is also eggs-in-one-basket: if the power fails, you are
utterly buggered for heating. At least gas continues to power our Aga (which heats the kitchen) and we have a wood-burning stove with several years of wood from trees that I have cut down or pruned, so we have
some fall-back if the power goes off.
Fairly obviously, we don't *currently* have enough alternative power generation to switch off all our coal/oil/gas burning at 6 o/clock today
and still have enough power for our requirements.
But people really do need to wake up to what is coming if we make the right choices and plan ahead. e.g
http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/ScotsPower.png
The above shows the area that - under International Law and Treaties - Scotland has available for power generation from wind, wave, tidal, etc, power. It is, erm, quite large. And a lot of it is generally quite windy.
(As many people hit by the storms of the last few days - another coming
this afternoon - can testify.[1])
On 01/02/2022 15:10, NY wrote:
I suppose you could argue that the flooding in York is due to
excessive rain
in the northern Dales which is due to climate change.
Was the flooding in the North Yorkshire Dales in 1882 also "climate
change"?
And the storm all over Yorkshire in 1886?
And the flooding in Lancashire and Yorkshire in 1866?
Must have been all those cars.
I charge at 24 miles per hour on a 32A feed. That would drop to about 10 miles per hour on a 13 A feed. 200 miles would take 20 hours!
On 01/02/2022 12:08, Bob Latham wrote:
Correct. Flooding has always happened, if it happens more these days
It's usually to do with river dredging not be done as it once was.
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?
On 01/02/2022 14:43, Java Jive wrote:
On 01/02/2022 12:08, Bob Latham wrote:
Correct. Flooding has always happened, if it happens more these days
It's usually to do with river dredging not be done as it once was.
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?
Try the River Avon.
Once upon a time the Rivers Authority was responsible for keeping the waterways flowing, and they had a dredger called the Graf Daffodil that chugged up and down the River Avon clearing out the silt.
Then the responsibility for the waterways was transferred to DEFRA, who immediately sold the dredger to Holland and ignored the silting problem because it wasn't a danger to life.
The flood plain around Keynsham floods frequently now because the river
at that area is now under half of the depth that it used to be when such flooding was rare.
There is evidence in the form of surveys and reports and I have seen
some of them over the past 10 years but I CBA to hunt out where they got filed, so you can either take my word for it or not as you see fit.
You will also probably have seen the news reports on TV about the major floods on the Somerset Levels where the locals put the reason down to
DEFRA no longer being interested in dredging. That did get documented
where I could find it easily: https://www.internetgeography.net/topics/the-somerset-levels-flood-case-study/
"There had been less dredging of the river channels on the Somerset
Levels leading up to 2014. However, as a result of this, the channels
had raised due to sediment accumulation. This reduced the capacity of
rivers to transport water, leading to flooding."
I would wager a small sum that the increased flooding in York is
similarly caused by reduced dredging.
Jim
On 01/02/2022 12:24, charles wrote:
I charge at 24 miles per hour on a 32A feed. That would drop to about 10Interesting you can now use 'mph' in two completely different ways !
miles per hour on a 13 A feed. 200 miles would take 20 hours!
With a few exceptions, I most of the perhaps twenty or so jobs I have
ever done, including summer holiday jobs, etc, have involved commuting
by foot or on public transport, I can only remember three that I had to >commute by car. One of the things that the pandemic has proved,
entirely incidentally, is that nowadays the technology exists to allow a >great many people to work from home, at least more often, sometimes on a >semi-permanent basis. Of course there are difficulties involved with
this. Some staff report being 'neglected' or 'forgotten about' and fear >being passed over for promotion if they're not seen at the office
enough, and overcoming such difficulties will require a change in
management style, and, if I know anything about British management at
all, that will be a sticking point.
In article <pb9ivgtk6gt3mk8dql1n8fasa9nc229f5j@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart ><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:41:07 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fjvhvg15d72cjquq9a396cp46mpqoigu7o@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:16:34 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Do we in the UK have enough generating capacity to support the change
from petrol/diesel to electric cars and the gradual change from
gas/oil for central heating to electric heating via ground source?
And do we have enough copper to upgrade all the distribution wiring,
or any politicians who realise that we will need to?
Very true. Everyone gets home from work at about 5-6 PM, plugs in their
car to charge and turns on their electric ground-source heating. Can
the wiring cope? Maybe all the copper telephone cable that BT is
wanting to replace with fibre can be turned into (*) electricity cable
;-)
(*) I mean by melting down and making new cable, not just feeding mains
down telephone-grade copper wiring.
Even the 60A fuse (i.e. 15kW at 250V) in the electricity supply to my
house couldn't cope with charging a 75kWh car battery at the 10 hour
rate, cooking my dinner, boiling the kettle, and providing hot water and
heating my house electrically at the same rate that my 24kW gas combi
boiler currently does it. I'm sure it will be a similar story in a great
many other houses. Somebody needs to find the back of an envelope and do
a few sums. (If they know how).
I, too, have a 60A incoming fuse. The controller for the charging point >monitors the total load current and turns off the charger if tehntotal load >is too great. It did that last Sunday when both top & bottomm ovens were in >use.
On 01/02/2022 12:55, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <pb9ivgtk6gt3mk8dql1n8fasa9nc229f5j@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Even the 60A fuse (i.e. 15kW at 250V) in the electricity supply to
my house couldn't cope with charging a 75kWh car battery at the 10
hour rate, cooking my dinner, boiling the kettle, and providing hot
water and heating my house electrically at the same rate that my
24kW gas combi boiler currently does it. I'm sure it will be a
similar story in a great many other houses. Somebody needs to find
the back of an envelope and do a few sums. (If they know how).
+1
Exactly so.
I also have a 24KW gas boiler and anything less is not enough to be
warm on the coldest days. I have a 10KW shower and an cooker. Often
all in use at the same time. No car to charge.
The penny hasn't dropped yet with the majority yet.
To an extent, the sums are already being done. Cars won't be charging
at the maximum rate while domestic consumption is high in the evenings, >they'll be charged when consumption is low overall, at night.
The principleprincipal
towncity
Yes indeed. The psychology of management will be the biggest obstacle
to working from home. They like to be able to survey all that they
command. It makes them feel important.
Rod.
Can the wiring cope?Generally yes, our supply has a 100A company fuse.
On 01/02/2022 11:50, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
The principleprincipal
towncity
of Yorkshire is of course York and it keeps getting flooded more andmore often - still nowt to do with global warming.
The highest floods in York ever recorded were in 1625 and 1638.
On 01/02/2022 11:11, Bob Latham wrote:
Yes, same here. The BS almost entirely middle class lefties with an
agenda. When men stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing;
they believe in anything.
The best example I remember was someone who said that if you go to the appropriate authorities and ask for a grant to study the breeding habits
of squirrels in South East England then you will be unlikely to get
anything. But ask for a grant to study the effect of "global warming"
on the breeding habits of squirrels in South East England then they will
be queuing up to give you money.
HVDC interconnectors help deal with that for the people linked
togther. As does having a wide area for you sources.
That's another cost of wind/solar that is rarely directly accounted for,
nor its environmental damage. Distribution costs are *way* higher when
the power has to be moved between lots of small 'generators' and the consumers.
The HVDC interconnects are tiny so far, very useful yes, but
they're not a fundamental way of doing things.
In article <stbnmu$5t1$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 01/02/2022 14:17, charles wrote:
Our local Waitrose ran out of Orkney Oatcakes last week
I think you will survive, not as if they have run out of Highland Park
(I hope).
I do have one unopened bottle - a pressie for providing PA for a charity Christmas event.
If we had invested in (very clean and very safe) nuclear power we
wouldn't have such deep gaps to fill.
You will also probably have seen the news reports on TV about the major floods on the Somerset Levels where the locals put the reason down to
DEFRA no longer being interested in dredging. That did get documented
where I could find it easily: https://www.internetgeography.net/topics/the-somerset-levels-flood-case-study/
"There had been less dredging of the river channels on the Somerset
Levels leading up to 2014. However, as a result of this, the channels
had raised due to sediment accumulation. This reduced the capacity of
rivers to transport water, leading to flooding."
I would wager a small sum that the increased flooding in York is
similarly caused by reduced dredging.
DEFRA = Department for Elimination of Farming & Rural Activities
http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/ScotsPower.png
The above shows the area that - under International Law and Treaties - Scotland has available for power generation from wind, wave, tidal,
etc, power. It is, erm, quite large. And a lot of it is generally
quite windy. (As many people hit by the storms of the last few days - another coming this afternoon - can testify.[1])
... and a lot of it is quite beautiful!
In article<stchs3$67j$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
You will also probably have seen the news reports on TV about the major
floods on the Somerset Levels where the locals put the reason down to
DEFRA no longer being interested in dredging. That did get documented
where I could find it easily:
https://www.internetgeography.net/topics/the-somerset-levels-flood-case-study/
"There had been less dredging of the river channels on the Somerset
Levels leading up to 2014. However, as a result of this, the channels
had raised due to sediment accumulation. This reduced the capacity of
rivers to transport water, leading to flooding."
I would wager a small sum that the increased flooding in York is
similarly caused by reduced dredging.
My recollection is that when this was investigated the 'reasons' where more complex. In part the increase in flooding affecting people is due to two factors:
1) Developers being allowed to build on known flood plain areas without dealing with the increased risk of flooding causing damage to the
suckers... erm buyers of the homes there.
2) Dredging and tidying upsteam causing the water to flow more rapidly down to the plains than before. Causing more flooding.
In effect the calls for 'dredging' in a given place simply shift the
problem downstream to cause a *bigger* problem there!
Another part of this is the clearing away of wooded areas on the hills that tended to temporarily soak up the rain and then release it more slowly. and into a meandering river that *hadn't* beed dredged aggressively, and this smoothed out the flow, avoiding flooding in the areas where homes had been built.
Hence the demands for dredging, etc, actually can make things worse, not better.
Jim
In article <a9hnci-lf7n1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
If we had invested in (very clean and very safe) nuclear power we
wouldn't have such deep gaps to fill.
IF it had been "very clean and very safe" returns in reality as FALSE.
In article <j7coci-lrqo1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/ScotsPower.png
The above shows the area that - under International Law and Treaties - Scotland has available for power generation from wind, wave, tidal,
etc, power. It is, erm, quite large. And a lot of it is generally
quite windy. (As many people hit by the storms of the last few days - another coming this afternoon - can testify.[1])
... and a lot of it is quite beautiful!
Yes, quite a lot of the land, is indeed. :-)
But there is also quite a lot of ocean area that can be used for energy capture.
In article <59b408da5echarles@candehope.me.uk>, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <stbnmu$5t1$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 01/02/2022 14:17, charles wrote:
Our local Waitrose ran out of Orkney Oatcakes last week
I think you will survive, not as if they have run out of Highland Park
(I hope).
I do have one unopened bottle - a pressie for providing PA for a charity Christmas event.
I gave away all my old bottles of malts when I had to give up drinking for health reasons. Alas.
The highest floods in York ever recorded were in 1625 and 1638.
My younger daughter looked at my collection and suggested she took some
away because I'd kill myself if I drank them all. I said "No"
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <a9hnci-lf7n1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
wrote:
If we had invested in (very clean and very safe) nuclear power we
wouldn't have such deep gaps to fill.
IF it had been "very clean and very safe" returns in reality as FALSE.
If you look at the 'deaths per output power' rate for nuclear power it
is way down in the statistical 'noise' alongside wind.
certainly, as with all new technology, there will be problems, but usually there
will in time be solutions also.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 14:34:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 01/02/2022 12:55, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <pb9ivgtk6gt3mk8dql1n8fasa9nc229f5j@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Even the 60A fuse (i.e. 15kW at 250V) in the electricity supply to
my house couldn't cope with charging a 75kWh car battery at the 10
hour rate, cooking my dinner, boiling the kettle, and providing hot
water and heating my house electrically at the same rate that my
24kW gas combi boiler currently does it. I'm sure it will be a
similar story in a great many other houses. Somebody needs to find
the back of an envelope and do a few sums. (If they know how).
+1
Exactly so.
I also have a 24KW gas boiler and anything less is not enough to be
warm on the coldest days. I have a 10KW shower and an cooker. Often
all in use at the same time. No car to charge.
The penny hasn't dropped yet with the majority yet.
To an extent, the sums are already being done. Cars won't be charging
at the maximum rate while domestic consumption is high in the evenings,
they'll be charged when consumption is low overall, at night.
But will there always be enough night to charge it?
Take a representative figure of 75kWh (to make the sums easy) for the
energy capacity of a present day electric car. They vary a bit, but 75
is close to many of the quoted figures. Given that one of the biggest criticisms of electric cars is their lack of range between charges, it
seem likely that future development will be aimed at making batteries
able to store even more.
Consider that the *maximum* power that a car charger can draw from a
domestic supply is currently (no pun intended unless you think it's a
good one) 7.5kW. Increasing this would require not just a bigger main
fuse in every house but roads dug up to provide thicker supply cables everywhere. And more generators of course (fuelled by what?)
Divide the energy capacity of the battery in kilowatt-hours by the
charging rate in kilowatts, and the answer is the number of hours it
will take to charge the battery. That's 75 divided by 7.5. (I told you
I'd make it easy). There is no magic that can subvert the laws of
physics. That's how long it would take, and future cars may have
bigger batteries and need even more.
Provided you don't get back late at night and need an early start the
next day, and provided it isn't winter so you need the heater on, and provided it isn't summer so you need the airconditioning, then
depending on your travelling distance you may be lucky. You never need
to worry about any of this with a petrol car because you can charge up
its fuel tank for about 300 miles worth in a couple of minutes, but
the development of electric cars has a long way to go, not least in
the provision of the infrastructure that will have to supply all the
magic energy that will be needed to drive them.
I was with someone who considered himself a whisky connoisseur and was
trying to identify a single malt, he was convinced it was one particular
one so I just had a sniff of it and compared with the one that he
thought it was. I could tell straight away that it was not the same but
he had had a few drams which of course had killed any sense of taste.
On 02/02/2022 12:58, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Hence the demands for dredging, etc, actually can make things worse, not
better.
The dredging that hasn't been done but needed to be done is the part of
the river from the estuary to the first major residential area.
Dredging upstream of the major residential areas is a sign of someone
who doesn't understand Queueing Theory.
On 02/02/2022 13:53, williamwright wrote:
The highest floods in York ever recorded were in 1625 and 1638.
Obviously too many cars in the city. :-)
On 02/02/2022 17:05, Chris Green wrote:
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <a9hnci-lf7n1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> >> wrote:
If we had invested in (very clean and very safe) nuclear power we
wouldn't have such deep gaps to fill.
IF it had been "very clean and very safe" returns in reality as FALSE.
If you look at the 'deaths per output power' rate for nuclear power it
is way down in the statistical 'noise' alongside wind.
I think that probably Jim is not disputing that. It is certainly true
that nuclear power has killed very few people compared with, say, coal,
when you add up all the people killed by both - it's not just mining accidents for coal, but also those killed by smogs, incidental disasters
like Aberfan, etc. I don't recall whether the last figures I saw a year
or two back were properly weighted per GWhr generated, but I don't wish
to dispute them. However, the thing about nuclear power is that when it fails, it often fails catastrophically, with widespread long-lasting
damage, and that is not necessarily true of coal, oil, etc, though of
course we've all heard of damaging marine oil spills as well. It's this potential risk for major catastrophe that is so concerning about
nuclear, and then when you start to think about all the nuclear waste in deteriorating containment at Sellafield, the lack of indigenous sources
of suitable fuel, and that many major new nuclear builds are way over
budget and/or way behind schedule, and that new nuclear's feed-in-tariff
is about double the next most expensive generating method, you come to
ask: "Do we need this white elephant?"
On 02/02/2022 17:19, charles wrote:
My younger daughter looked at my collection and suggested she took some
away because I'd kill myself if I drank them all. I said "No"
I was with someone who considered himself a whisky connoisseur and was
trying to identify a single malt, he was convinced it was one particular
one so I just had a sniff of it and compared with the one that he
thought it was. I could tell straight away that it was not the same but
he had had a few drams which of course had killed any sense of taste.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Hydro-electric power also has the potential for huge catastrphic
It's this
potential risk for major catastrophe that is so concerning about
nuclear, and then when you start to think about all the nuclear waste in
deteriorating containment at Sellafield, the lack of indigenous sources
of suitable fuel, and that many major new nuclear builds are way over
budget and/or way behind schedule, and that new nuclear's feed-in-tariff
is about double the next most expensive generating method, you come to
ask: "Do we need this white elephant?"
failures but no one seems to think that hydro-electric is a bad idea.
Good design is what's needed for all types of power. And, apart from Chernobyl, what nuclear power 'disaasters' have had 'widespread
long-lasting damage'?
On 02/02/2022 19:36, Chris Green wrote:
Java Jive<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Hydro-electric power also has the potential for huge catastrphic
It's this
potential risk for major catastrophe that is so concerning about
nuclear, and then when you start to think about all the nuclear waste in >>> deteriorating containment at Sellafield, the lack of indigenous sources
of suitable fuel, and that many major new nuclear builds are way over
budget and/or way behind schedule, and that new nuclear's feed-in-tariff >>> is about double the next most expensive generating method, you come to
ask: "Do we need this white elephant?"
failures but no one seems to think that hydro-electric is a bad idea.
Good design is what's needed for all types of power. And, apart from
Chernobyl, what nuclear power 'disasters' have had 'widespread
long-lasting damage'?
How could you forget Fukushima?
On 02/02/2022 18:38, MB wrote:
I was with someone who considered himself a whisky connoisseur and was trying to identify a single malt, he was convinced it was one
particular one so I just had a sniff of it and compared with the one
that he thought it was. I could tell straight away that it was not the
same but he had had a few drams which of course had killed any sense
of taste.
You've told us this story before, and I've answered before that there is indeed a wide variety of tastes of single malts.
The best example I remember was someone who said that if you go to the
appropriate authorities and ask for a grant to study the breeding habits
of squirrels in South East England then you will be unlikely to get
anything. But ask for a grant to study the effect of "global warming"
on the breeding habits of squirrels in South East England then they will
be queuing up to give you money.
Tracable source for this mysteriously convenient "someone"?
Jim
In article <a9hnci-lf7n1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
If we had invested in (very clean and very safe) nuclear power we
wouldn't have such deep gaps to fill.
IF it had been "very clean and very safe" returns in reality as FALSE.
Unless, perhaps you mean fusion. Which still remains in prospect.
Jim
That reminds me of a training course I attended many years ago,
where we stayed overnight in the hotel where the course was held.
One person on the course considered himself a whisky connoisseur
and was delighted in the range available in the hotel bar. So he
had several, trying a lot of the ones he had never tried before.
When the barman wanted to close the bar and asked everyone who
wanted a final drink to order them now, I joined the group wanting
a nightcap, and heard connoisseur asking the barman which whisky
would be worth trying as his last for the night. The barman with
a completely straight face said "I suggest you choose the
cheapest, because after what you have had so far this evening,
they will all taste the same".
2) Dredging and tidying upsteam causing the water to flow more rapidly down to the plains than before. Causing more flooding.
On 02/02/2022 19:36, Chris Green wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Hydro-electric power also has the potential for huge catastrphic
It's this
potential risk for major catastrophe that is so concerning about
nuclear, and then when you start to think about all the nuclear waste in >> deteriorating containment at Sellafield, the lack of indigenous sources
of suitable fuel, and that many major new nuclear builds are way over
budget and/or way behind schedule, and that new nuclear's feed-in-tariff >> is about double the next most expensive generating method, you come to
ask: "Do we need this white elephant?"
failures but no one seems to think that hydro-electric is a bad idea.
Good design is what's needed for all types of power. And, apart from Chernobyl, what nuclear power 'disaasters' have had 'widespread long-lasting damage'?
How could you forget Fukushima?
On 02/02/2022 12:41, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <a9hnci-lf7n1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
wrote:
If we had invested in (very clean and very safe) nuclear power we
wouldn't have such deep gaps to fill.
IF it had been "very clean and very safe" returns in reality as FALSE.
Unless, perhaps you mean fusion. Which still remains in prospect.
Jim
How many deaths per GWh from generation by solid fuel, wind turbines,
versus nuclear? Living in what used to be a coal mining area I'm all too
well aware of the deaths from mining.
Bill
In article <steolb$s5o$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
That reminds me of a training course I attended many years ago,
where we stayed overnight in the hotel where the course was held.
One person on the course considered himself a whisky connoisseur
and was delighted in the range available in the hotel bar. So he
had several, trying a lot of the ones he had never tried before.
When the barman wanted to close the bar and asked everyone who
wanted a final drink to order them now, I joined the group wanting
a nightcap, and heard connoisseur asking the barman which whisky
would be worth trying as his last for the night. The barman with
a completely straight face said "I suggest you choose the
cheapest, because after what you have had so far this evening,
they will all taste the same".
In August 1987 my employer instructed me to attend a meeting in
Edinburgh. I had a few days notice and people gave me a shopping list
for things to bring back for them. Something called 'Bridies' was it?
And a few other things.
Anyway, flew out of Birmingham early morning arrived not long
afterwards and went to the meeting. It lasted a couple of hours and
to be honest I thought it a waste of time. As we departed I said the
host that I liked some whiskey and whilst there I'd like to buy
something he recommended.
"What do you like", he asked.
"Glenmorangie is my favourite" I said.
"You won't do any better than that" he said. Disappointment or what
and I'm sure he's not correct.
Did all the shopping and home for tea.
Such a waste of money and time.
Bob.
In article <stbok2$ebn$1@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 01/02/2022 15:35, Tweed wrote:
Never mind all that. Huge numbers of people don't have the luxury of
off
street parking to get charged up.
Wasn't there some crazy bit in the new Highway Code about running
charging cables over pavements! I hope they are also warned to get some
insurance for the claims by people tripping over the cables.
I have been forecasting this!
"Thefts of electric car charging cables could be the next crime wave to
sweep Britain's streets in the wake of catalytic converter raids"
Although mine is locked into the car, a good cutter would leave the plug behind. Tell them to cut the cable before unplugging from the charge
oint.
Anyway, flew out of Birmingham early morning arrived not longWHISKY
afterwards and went to the meeting. It lasted a couple of hours and
to be honest I thought it a waste of time. As we departed I said the
host that I liked some whiskey and whilst there I'd like to buy
something he recommended.
With a few exceptions, I most of the perhaps twenty or so jobs I have ever done, including summer holiday jobs, etc, have involved commuting by foot
or on public transport, I can only remember three that I had to commute by car.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 19:36, Chris Green wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Hydro-electric power also has the potential for huge catastrphic
It's this
potential risk for major catastrophe that is so concerning about
nuclear, and then when you start to think about all the nuclear waste in >>>> deteriorating containment at Sellafield, the lack of indigenous sources >>>> of suitable fuel, and that many major new nuclear builds are way over
budget and/or way behind schedule, and that new nuclear's feed-in-tariff >>>> is about double the next most expensive generating method, you come to >>>> ask: "Do we need this white elephant?"
failures but no one seems to think that hydro-electric is a bad idea.
Good design is what's needed for all types of power. And, apart from
Chernobyl, what nuclear power 'disaasters' have had 'widespread
long-lasting damage'?
How could you forget Fukushima?
I think one peson was killed by the nuclear accident, very little
"widespread damage" had anything whatsoever to do with the nuclear
accident.
In article <stelum$1lb$2@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 18:38, MB wrote:
I was with someone who considered himself a whisky connoisseur and was
trying to identify a single malt, he was convinced it was one
particular one so I just had a sniff of it and compared with the one
that he thought it was. I could tell straight away that it was not the
same but he had had a few drams which of course had killed any sense
of taste.
You've told us this story before, and I've answered before that there is
indeed a wide variety of tastes of single malts.
Since MB lives in the Highlands, he probably knows that.
On 02/02/2022 12:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Tracable source for this mysteriously convenient "someone"?
It's an apocryphal tile
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message news:59b40914f1charles@candehope.me.uk...
In article <stbok2$ebn$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 01/02/2022 15:35, Tweed wrote:
Never mind all that. Huge numbers of people don't have the luxury of
off street parking to get charged up.
Wasn't there some crazy bit in the new Highway Code about running
charging cables over pavements! I hope they are also warned to get
some insurance for the claims by people tripping over the cables.
I have been forecasting this! "Thefts of electric car charging cables
could be the next crime wave to sweep Britain's streets in the wake of
catalytic converter raids"
Although mine is locked into the car, a good cutter would leave the
plug behind. Tell them to cut the cable before unplugging from the
charge oint.
What supply voltage is typically used between the charging station and
the car? Presumably to get a high charging rate, they need a high
voltage to keep the current down so the cable can be made thin enough to
coil it up.
So there could be some nice high-voltage shocks for people who try to
steal charging cables by cutting them.
On 02/02/2022 20:49, Chris Green wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 19:36, Chris Green wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Hydro-electric power also has the potential for huge catastrphic
It's this
potential risk for major catastrophe that is so concerning about
nuclear, and then when you start to think about all the nuclear waste in >>>> deteriorating containment at Sellafield, the lack of indigenous sources >>>> of suitable fuel, and that many major new nuclear builds are way over >>>> budget and/or way behind schedule, and that new nuclear's feed-in-tariff >>>> is about double the next most expensive generating method, you come to >>>> ask: "Do we need this white elephant?"
failures but no one seems to think that hydro-electric is a bad idea.
Good design is what's needed for all types of power. And, apart from
Chernobyl, what nuclear power 'disaasters' have had 'widespread
long-lasting damage'?
How could you forget Fukushima?
I think one peson was killed by the nuclear accident, very little "widespread damage" had anything whatsoever to do with the nuclear accident.
AFAICR, there was significant radiation leakage, some of it through groundwater.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 20:49, Chris Green wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
How could you forget Fukushima?
I think one peson was killed by the nuclear accident, very little
"widespread damage" had anything whatsoever to do with the nuclear
accident.
AFAICR, there was significant radiation leakage, some of it through
groundwater.
The leakage was actually pretty trivial and the level of radiation
there is very little above normal background levels. The Japanese authorities overdid the precautions considerably.
So there could be some nice high-voltage shocks for people who try to steal charging cables by cutting them.
On 02/02/2022 19:36, Chris Green wrote:
Hydro-electric power also has the potential for huge catastrophic
failures but no one seems to think that hydro-electric is a bad idea.
Good design is what's needed for all types of power. And, apart from
Chernobyl, what nuclear power 'disaasters' have had 'widespread
long-lasting damage'?
There are a surprising number of deaths "caused" by hydro-electricity,
mainly drownings.
But there is some sort of rule where the number of people who be
affected by a dam failure is estimated. If that number increases
because a new housing estate or town has been built then the owner of
the dam has to increase protection, often by raising the height of the dam.
Hydro-electric power also has the potential for huge catastrphic
failures but no one seems to think that hydro-electric is a bad idea.
Good design is what's needed for all types of power. And, apart from Chernobyl, what nuclear power 'disaasters' have had 'widespread
long-lasting damage'?
The barman with a completely straight
face said "I suggest you choose the cheapest, because after what you
have had so far this evening, they will all taste the same".
On 02/02/2022 12:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
The best example I remember was someone who said that if you go to the
appropriate authorities and ask for a grant to study the breeding habits >>> of squirrels in South East England then you will be unlikely to get
anything. But ask for a grant to study the effect of "global warming"
on the breeding habits of squirrels in South East England then they will >>> be queuing up to give you money.
Tracable source for this mysteriously convenient "someone"?
Jim
It's an apocryphal tile intended to illustrate a valid point. Would you
ask for attribution for the story of the boy who cried wolf, or the
Parable of the Good Samaritan?
Of the places I've worked, two (on nearby sites in the same town) needed a long (eg 1 hour) walk - I've done it very occasionally when the road hasn't been cleared of snow or once when my car broke down. There was a railway station about 15 minutes walk from home in the wrong direction, then
walk of
about 30 minutes from the other station to the office.
The office for the third was about 30 minutes walk - I've done it occasionally in nice weather when I fancied a it of fresh air.
I could have cycled to the third job the third job where the journey was mostly along 30 mph residential or business park streets and where I had
a house with a garage to keep the bike - don't know why I never did. The previous house (first two jobs) had no garage and nowhere that I could padlock a bike to or keep it under cover, so I'd have had to keep it in
the living room - so I didn't have a bike there!
On 02/02/2022 21:11, NY wrote:
So there could be some nice high-voltage shocks for people who try to steal >> charging cables by cutting them.
I am sure they will soon learn to get insulated cutters.
Presumably I won't be expected to drive when it's my turn to go to the
crem. It'll make a pleasant change.
On 02/02/2022 21:15, charles wrote:
WHISKY
He was so pissed he thought he was in Dublin.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:50:46 +0000, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
In message <ua18vgpk55kg8nq8dr63id9ul797v2i3uo@4ax.com>, Scott >><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:50:04 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> >>>wrote:
On 28/01/2022 08:49, Mark Carver wrote:
What an extraordinary myopic statement. You've clearly never listened >>>>> to
James O'Brien or Eddie Mair on LBC !
No, I don't listen to talk radio, because I'm far too busy to allow >>>>myself to be distracted by other people talking
Mother of a friend of mine once declared, 'I can honestly say I have >>>never read a book in my life'. I am sure you would get on well.
My sister-in-law's niece once said that in my hearing. She seemed to be >>proud of it. I was rather shocked, but thought it better not to say >>anything.
I can honestly say I've never subscribed to Twitter. I wonder how long
it will be possible to admit to being proud of that? The rambling
subliterate pronouncements typical of its users appear to be something
of a mainstay of some news outlets, which simply print screeds of it
unedited on their websites, as if it were some sort of official policy
or holy writ. Even the name doesn't sound serious.
Rod.
The World Nuclear Association say rather different:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.aspx
Apart from cooling, the basic ongoing task was to prevent release
of radioactive materials, particularly in contaminated water leaked from
the three units. This task became newsworthy in August 2013.
There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the
nuclear accident, but over 100,000 people were evacuated from their
homes as a preventative measure. Government nervousness has delayed the return of many.
Official figures show that there have been 2313 disaster-related
deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture. Disaster-related deaths
are in addition to the about 19,500 that were killed by the earthquake
or tsunami.
In article <j60bkdF4o8iU2@mid.individual.net>,
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 21:15, charles wrote:
WHISKY
He was so pissed he thought he was in Dublin.
:-)
I'm not the worlds best at spelling quite correct.
On 02/02/2022 21:11, NY wrote:
So there could be some nice high-voltage shocks for people who try to
steal
charging cables by cutting them.
I am sure they will soon learn to get insulated cutters.
On 02/02/2022 20:13, Indy Jess John wrote:
The barman with a completely straight
face said "I suggest you choose the cheapest, because after what you
have had so far this evening, they will all taste the same".
Very true but get a room full of people who think they are experts and
they will probably buy the most expensive that they can afford.
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <j60bkdF4o8iU2@mid.individual.net>,It's not a mis-spelling, whiskey is Irish whiskey, whisky is Scotch
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 21:15, charles wrote:
WHISKY
He was so pissed he thought he was in Dublin.
:-)
I'm not the worlds best at spelling quite correct.
whisky (though pedants might say it should be just Scotch).
In message <mcjsci-reo12.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> writes
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <j60bkdF4o8iU2@mid.individual.net>,It's not a mis-spelling, whiskey is Irish whiskey, whisky is Scotch
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 21:15, charles wrote:
WHISKY
He was so pissed he thought he was in Dublin.
:-)
I'm not the worlds best at spelling quite correct.
whisky (though pedants might say it should be just Scotch).
So, depending on the context, "whisky" can be a misspelling of "whiskey"
and vice versa.
What supply voltage is typically used between the charging station and the >car? Presumably to get a high charging rate, they need a high voltage to
keep the current down so the cable can be made thin enough to coil it up.
Correct: it is just as wrong to spell the Irish version "whisky" as it is to spell the Scottish version "whiskey".
And then we get onto the side-issue of the use of the adjective "Scotch" in constructions other than whisky, pancakes and mist, when in almost all other contexts it should be Scottish or Scots. Try teaching that rule to Americans for whom everything relating to Scotland is "Scotch"
"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:stf3n2$kni$2@dont-email.me...
On 02/02/2022 20:13, Indy Jess John wrote:
The barman with a completely straight face said "I suggest you choose
the cheapest, because after what you have had so far this evening,
they will all taste the same".
Very true but get a room full of people who think they are experts and
they will probably buy the most expensive that they can afford.
That brings back memories of going to Dublin with a few work colleagues
for a meeting the following day. It was a Sunday and the pubs were open, something of a novelty because in the UK they'd have been closed at that
time (this was about 30 years ago). So we "had" to go for a drink, and
we "had" to compare the three stouts that they had on draught: Guinness, Mackeson and Beamish. The first pint was Guinness: very nice, very very
nice. Mackesons - yes, that was good too, as was the Beamish. But how did they compare with the Guinness? Better try that again. By then we'd
forgotten the Mackeson, so we had to have a comparison point of that, and likewise for Beamish. By then we were at the stage of "they're all very
good - what the hell, how can you ever say one was better than the
others". It was after that, one our walk back from the pub to the hotel,
that we saw angels and leprechauns - makes a change from pink elephants. Actually, this wasn't alcohol-fuelled hallucinations: the angel was a
little girl on her way from confirmation class, in a white "mini-wedding-dress", and the leprechaun was a lad going (presumably) to
a fancy-dress party. I have to report now that a stout hangover is just
as bad as one from any other beer, with the added effect of causing
black poo.
As regards "they will all taste the same" for whisk(e)y and wine, that reminds me of a Dick Francis novel in which a restaurant was passing off cheap blended wine and cheap blended whisky (I think it was Scotch rather than Irish whiskey) as the expensive brands by re-bottling it and adding suitable labels. The scam worked because most people would have the wine
with a meal (and maybe they would be smoking, since it was allowed at
that time) and they'd have the whisky afterwards, and it takes a brave
person to complain to the manager that the Glenfiddich that they've seen
the barman dispense from a Glenfiddich bottle didn't taste quite right.
On 03/02/2022 05:31, williamwright wrote:
Presumably I won't be expected to drive when it's my turn to go to the
crem. It'll make a pleasant change.
How about this, Bill: <https://www.electrive.com/2021/12/01/tesla-hearse-conversion-enters-real-life-operations-in-the-uk/>
You might be a able to leave a recorded message telling it which route
to take. ;-)
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
The World Nuclear Association say rather different:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.aspx
[snip some preamble]
Isn't that pretty much exactly what I said.
No deaths,
and the
radioactive leakage was contained.
... and the authoritoes (with
hindsight) overreacted somewhat by evacuating 100000 people.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 03/02/2022 09:15, Chris Green wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
The World Nuclear Association say rather different:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.aspx
[snip some preamble]
So let's put it back ...
Fukushima Daiichi Accident
Following a major earthquake, a 15-metre tsunami disabled the power
supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a
nuclear accident beginning on 11 March 2011. All three cores largely
melted in the first three days.
The accident was rated level 7 on the International Nuclear and
Radiological Event Scale, due to high radioactive releases over days 4
to 6, eventually a total of some 940 PBq (I-131 eq).
All four Fukushima Daiichi reactors were written off due to damage
in the accident – 2719 MWe net.
After two weeks, the three reactors (units 1-3) were stable with
water addition and by July they were being cooled with recycled water
from the new treatment plant. Official 'cold shutdown condition' was
announced in mid-December.
Apart from cooling, the basic ongoing task was to prevent release
of radioactive materials, particularly in contaminated water leaked from
the three units. This task became newsworthy in August 2013.
There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the
nuclear accident, but over 100,000 people were evacuated from their
homes as a preventative measure. Government nervousness has delayed the
return of many.
Official figures show that there have been 2313 disaster-related
deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture. Disaster-related deaths
are in addition to the about 19,500 that were killed by the earthquake
or tsunami.
Isn't that pretty much exactly what I said.
No, you were trying to gloss over it
There's nothing to gloss over for heavens sake.
No deaths,
"2313"
They were **NOT** due to radiation, re-read the above carefully.
and the
radioactive leakage was contained.
"[...] high radioactive releases over days 4 to 6, eventually a total of
some 940 PBq (I-131 eq)."
Which were low enough not to affect anyone, at all.
... and the authoritoes (with
hindsight) overreacted somewhat by evacuating 100000 people.
Possibly, but the incident was far more serious than you were trying to
imply, and I note that you snipped some of the evidence of that in your
reply.
I did mark the snip (or at least I meant to, sorry if I didn't).
On 03/02/2022 09:15, Chris Green wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
The World Nuclear Association say rather different:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.aspx
[snip some preamble]
So let's put it back ...
Fukushima Daiichi Accident
Following a major earthquake, a 15-metre tsunami disabled the power supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a
nuclear accident beginning on 11 March 2011. All three cores largely
melted in the first three days.
The accident was rated level 7 on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, due to high radioactive releases over days 4
to 6, eventually a total of some 940 PBq (I-131 eq).
All four Fukushima Daiichi reactors were written off due to damage
in the accident – 2719 MWe net.
After two weeks, the three reactors (units 1-3) were stable with
water addition and by July they were being cooled with recycled water
from the new treatment plant. Official 'cold shutdown condition' was announced in mid-December.
Apart from cooling, the basic ongoing task was to prevent release
of radioactive materials, particularly in contaminated water leaked from
the three units. This task became newsworthy in August 2013.
There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the
nuclear accident, but over 100,000 people were evacuated from their
homes as a preventative measure. Government nervousness has delayed the return of many.
Official figures show that there have been 2313 disaster-related
deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture. Disaster-related deaths
are in addition to the about 19,500 that were killed by the earthquake
or tsunami.
Isn't that pretty much exactly what I said.
No, you were trying to gloss over it
No deaths,
"2313"
and the
radioactive leakage was contained.
"[...] high radioactive releases over days 4 to 6, eventually a total of
some 940 PBq (I-131 eq)."
... and the authoritoes (with
hindsight) overreacted somewhat by evacuating 100000 people.
Possibly, but the incident was far more serious than you were trying to imply, and I note that you snipped some of the evidence of that in your reply.
No deaths,
"2313"
They were **NOT** due to radiation, re-read the above carefully.
They were related to the disaster in the Fukushima area, we are not told whether or not radiation was directly involved.
As regards "they will all taste the same" for whisk(e)y and wine, that >reminds me of a Dick Francis novel in which a restaurant was passing off >cheap blended wine and cheap blended whisky (I think it was Scotch rather >than Irish whiskey) as the expensive brands by re-bottling it and adding >suitable labels. The scam worked because most people would have the wine
with a meal (and maybe they would be smoking, since it was allowed at that >time) and they'd have the whisky afterwards, and it takes a brave person to >complain to the manager that the Glenfiddich that they've seen the barman >dispense from a Glenfiddich bottle didn't taste quite right.
It was Laphroaig that had been replaced by something else and in the
book he makes the point that anyone who has tasted Laphroaig would know
that what they had been given was not Laphroaig.
I had a bottle of 15 year old Laphroaig once and it was very different
from the usual 10 year old. They stopped producing 15 year old some
years ago and I think they did 18 year old for a while but now there is
a 25 year old as well as various other expressions.
On 03/02/2022 20:58, Owen Rees wrote:
It was Laphroaig that had been replaced by something else and in the
book he makes the point that anyone who has tasted Laphroaig would know
that what they had been given was not Laphroaig.
One time on Islay the barman gave the boss something like a 25 year old >Laphroaig, I gather it was nothing like the usual stuff so the barman
washed out a miniature bottle and put some in that for him to give to a >friend who was a big fan of Laphroaig. He took some convincing that is
what it was!
get a room full of people who think they are experts and they will
probably buy the most expensive that they can afford.
On 03/02/2022 22:43, Owen Rees wrote:
I had a bottle of 15 year old Laphroaig once and it was very different
from the usual 10 year old. They stopped producing 15 year old some
years ago and I think they did 18 year old for a while but now there is
a 25 year old as well as various other expressions.
I don't think it was available to the public, there are usually specials
made available only to directors etc and this was one.
Official figures show that there have been 2313 disaster-related deaths
among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture. Disaster-related deaths are in addition to the about 19,500 that were killed by the earthquake or tsunami.
The dredging that hasn't been done but needed to be done is the part of
the river from the estuary to the first major residential area.
Dredging upstream of the major residential areas is a sign of someone
who doesn't understand Queueing Theory.
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <a9hnci-lf7n1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green
<cl@isbd.net> wrote:
If we had invested in (very clean and very safe) nuclear power we wouldn't have such deep gaps to fill.
IF it had been "very clean and very safe" returns in reality as FALSE.
If you look at the 'deaths per output power' rate for nuclear power it
is way down in the statistacal 'noise' alongside wind.
On 02/02/2022 17:22, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 02/02/2022 12:58, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Hence the demands for dredging, etc, actually can make things worse,
not better.
The dredging that hasn't been done but needed to be done is the part
of the river from the estuary to the first major residential area.
Dredging upstream of the major residential areas is a sign of someone
who doesn't understand Queueing Theory.
That's not my recollection of the Somerset flooding, which I recall as
being mostly fairly up river. I may still have a programme about it somewhere, I'll see if I can find it, and if so, watch it again.
Java Jive wrote:
certainly, as with all new technology, there will be problems, but
usually there will in time be solutions also.
I accept that someone has to do some pushing of the envelope, to see
where the problems are and what the solutions might be ... but what we
seem to be doing with energy policy is gathering up a bundle of
material, jumping off a cliff and hoping we can figure out how to make
a parachute on the way down ...
Hydro-electric power also has the potential for huge catastrphic
failures but no one seems to think that hydro-electric is a bad idea.
Good design is what's needed for all types of power. And, apart from Chernobyl, what nuclear power 'disaasters' have had 'widespread
long-lasting damage'?
Java Jive wrote:
Official figures show that there have been 2313 disaster-related
deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture. Disaster-related
deaths are in addition to the about 19,500 that were killed by the
earthquake or tsunami.
<https://12ft.io/https://www.ft.com/content/000f864e-22ba-11e8-add1-0e8958b189ea>
"it is becoming increasingly clear, say experts,
that the evacuation, not the nuclear accident itself,
was the most devastating part of the disaster"
p.s. 12ft.io is for paywall avoidance
In article<b7qqci-4q8u1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green<cl@isbd.net>
wrote:
Jim Lesurf<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article<a9hnci-lf7n1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris GreenIf you look at the 'deaths per output power' rate for nuclear power it
<cl@isbd.net> wrote:
If we had invested in (very clean and very safe) nuclear power we
wouldn't have such deep gaps to fill.
IF it had been "very clean and very safe" returns in reality as FALSE.
is way down in the statistical 'noise' alongside wind.
However a wind farm may not leave a residual risk for many years after it
has ceased being used. Nor is it likely to be so potentially attractive to
a future terrorist or rogue state as a way to inflict mass harm on others.
Perhaps 9/11 should have been a wake-up call on that. Particularly given
that more than one plane was hijacked at the same time.
One of the worries about fission is that it remains a source of risk long after the power generation has ceased.
Basically fission is an idea that turned out sour, but now has vested interests pushing it. Now jumping on climate change as a new 'reason' for
it.
Jim
In article <j604hqF3etvU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
certainly, as with all new technology, there will be problems,
but usually there will in time be solutions also.
I accept that someone has to do some pushing of the envelope, to
see where the problems are and what the solutions might be ...
but what we seem to be doing with energy policy is gathering up a
bundle of material, jumping off a cliff and hoping we can figure
out how to make a parachute on the way down ...
To a large extent that is a product of the way big fossil has used
the "Tobacco Playbook" to get politicians to keep delaying the
changes that are needed.
Many people desperately want to believe there isn't a problem
because facing up to it means action and effort and change.
Hence the change of tack prompted by the science, but which clashes with
the political drive to wave 'dredging' as a magic bullet as being a process where the powers-that-be can be seen to be "doing something".
Jim
On 03/02/2022 10:57, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Basically fission is an idea that turned out sour, but now has vested
interests pushing it. Now jumping on climate change as a new 'reason' for
it.
It hasn't turned completely sour, it just needs to be re-thought. As
newly mined stocks run low, reprocessing will become more financially viable[1]:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx
No, there is no problem, it warmed a bit which is a very good thing
in terms of saving human lives. There has been no overall warming for
7 years.
There is no proof at all that CO2 is the cause because it isn't.
Indeed, burning fossil fuels only returns CO2 to where it came from originally. We are repairing the damage caused by life so that plants
have the food they should have.
0.01% increase in CO2 in the atmos and only 6% of that burning FF has
not changed the climate. In the history of life on earth, CO2 levels
are near the lowest they've ever been.
[Emotive and irrational non-arguments snipped]
Many people desperately want to believe there isn't a problem
Propaganda and nonsense. A fantasy and religion of the spoilt,
privileged, middle classes who want to ease their guilt.
because facing up to it means action and effort and change.
There is nothing you can do about it whatever the cause.
But also note the resident who said: "There’s absolutely no need for nuclear power, with just one mistake, terrible things happen." And
those terrible things don't have to be directly caused by radiation, tragedies indirectly caused by radiation or the fear of it are no less tragic, and are a legitimate part of the death toll of the event.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
But also note the resident who said: "There’s absolutely no need for
nuclear power, with just one mistake, terrible things happen." And
those terrible things don't have to be directly caused by radiation,
tragedies indirectly caused by radiation or the fear of it are no less
tragic, and are a legitimate part of the death toll of the event.
One the other hand you can't really blame the results of people
running around like headless chickens afterwards on the event itself. Especially if the fear has been induced by exaggerated reporting of
the dangers of the event/technology.
There were accidents caused by people's fear of steam trains and motor
cars in their early days but we don't tend therefore to blame the
technology.
On 03/02/2022 11:07, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Hence the change of tack prompted by the science, but which clashes with
the political drive to wave 'dredging' as a magic bullet as being a
process where the powers-that-be can be seen to be "doing something".
Dredging isn't a political drive. The agreement to dredge the most
silted up waterways on the Somerset levels was begrudgingly accepted as
a last resort because of the media publicity and the threat by the
residents to vote for "anybody except the sitting MP" unless something
was done. Even so, they didn't dredge for depth, they widened the watercourse, which was better than nothing but not the best solution.
The best solution would be a barrier like that on the Thames, to block
the inflow of the highest tides. Much of the Somerset Levels is below
the height of a Spring Tide with an onshore wind, and keeping that water
out not only reduces the land that will flood, it will prevent that land
from being poisoned by salt. That type of barrier doesn't come cheap though.
Similarly, the most recent previous major nuclear accident was
Chernobyl, you can't really blame people at Fukushima for acting is if
it too might be another Chernobyl. They had to apply the precautionary principle, and were right to do so. The necessary evacuations were
caused by the accident, and therefore part of the accident's death toll.
Somerset: After the Floods
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gd7j7
Mostly the programme is about the villagers of Moorland, the flooding of their homes, their struggles to rebuild, in various cases with or
without insurance paying up, and their anger and their accusations
against the Environment Agency for, allegedly:
a) Failing to dredge.
The villagers formed an action group and pressured the EA into resuming dredging to clear one particular stretch, but see below.
b) 'Moving water about' to sacrifice their village to save towns.
This is such an absurd and unrealistic accusation that no more need be
said about it. The simple truth was that the pumps that the EA had
available weren't sufficient to keep the flooding at bay, let alone move water about to cause it in the first place!
Basically, in their anger at what was essentially very bad luck they
were looking for someone to blame.
In fact, in normal years, surplus water floods out of the rivers and
ditches over the surrounding fields and countryside, for which the local
term seems to be moorland, presumably giving the village its name. In
the programme, the EA don't agree with the villagers' assessment that
the flooding was caused by lack of dredging, but say that the same
volume of water fell over a similar period as in previous winters, the difference that year was simply that the moorland was already sodden
after weeks of rain beforehand, so the sudden excess water had nowhere
to go. There's also the question of dredging increasing the water
flowing downstream into Bridgewater, where many tens of times more
people live than in Moorland, thereby increasing the likelihood of
flooding there.
On 04/02/2022 16:45, Java Jive wrote:
Somerset: After the Floods
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gd7j7
Mostly the programme is about the villagers of Moorland, the flooding of
their homes, their struggles to rebuild, in various cases with or
without insurance paying up, and their anger and their accusations
against the Environment Agency for, allegedly:
a) Failing to dredge.
The villagers formed an action group and pressured the EA into resuming
dredging to clear one particular stretch, but see below.
b) 'Moving water about' to sacrifice their village to save towns. >>
This is such an absurd and unrealistic accusation that no more need be
said about it. The simple truth was that the pumps that the EA had
available weren't sufficient to keep the flooding at bay, let alone move
water about to cause it in the first place!
Basically, in their anger at what was essentially very bad luck they
were looking for someone to blame.
In fact, in normal years, surplus water floods out of the rivers and
ditches over the surrounding fields and countryside, for which the local
term seems to be moorland, presumably giving the village its name. In
the programme, the EA don't agree with the villagers' assessment that
the flooding was caused by lack of dredging, but say that the same
volume of water fell over a similar period as in previous winters, the
difference that year was simply that the moorland was already sodden
after weeks of rain beforehand, so the sudden excess water had nowhere
to go. There's also the question of dredging increasing the water
flowing downstream into Bridgewater, where many tens of times more
people live than in Moorland, thereby increasing the likelihood of
flooding there.
This is a documentary after the floods (no longer available on iplayer;
your clip only lasts a minute).
I live in Somerset and know that during
the floods there was a lot of local news, including interviews from
those who were employed to keep the area drained before they were put
out of the job by the problem being transferred to DEFRA by the Government.
Basically the area is a flood plain rescued sufficiently to be
productive farmland,
but as I said in my earlier post it would flood
from high spring tides with an onshore wind because the land level is
lower than that.
The problem with that particular flood was not that
the water arrived, but that it took so long for the water to drain away
when it did. This was a flood that took so many weeks to drain that the crops were destroyed by drowning.
The people who used to look after the
drainage took video footage of drainage ditches blocked by fly tipping
and outflow rivers that were a third of the depth that they used to be.
Bridgewater is a reasonable height above high tide level and the river there is tidal so if it was going to flood it would do so regularly.
Thus dredging the river to improve the flow off the Levels would not
create a problem for Bridgewater, it would just restore the arrangement
that had been in place until DEFRA took over.
I have a suspicion that the pumps the EA first brought in were more of a
PR arrangement in the face of mounting hostility, initially undersized because the river they were pumping into couldn't carry away much more
that they were adding (hence the "moving water about" accusation).
However, they did manage to shift most of the new water that the weather
was bringing in so they did stop the flooding getting worse. It was only after the water level in that river went down a bit that they brought in larger pumps that could remove more water than was being added and thus reduce the flood, but that was an unacceptably long time after the
initial flooding.
The EA have a policy of refusing to believe that lack of dredging is a problem; they did exactly the same thing when the Avon flooded badly
and drowned some of the basements of Georgian listed buildings in Bath because the Avon through Keynsham was so silted up that there was insufficient flow downstream to clear the volume of water arriving from upstream. Again this was a problem arising because the Bristol Avon
Flood Defence Committee was disbanded when DEFRA took over, and the EA
take the official position that they regard DEFRA as the experts and the
EA merely implements their policies, when in reality DEFRA just have an inadequate budget and refuse to spend money on things they think they
can get away with ignoring.
This background was given to me (and others in the same session) by Alan
J Aldous BSc CEng MIET (ex - Bristol Avon Flood Defence Committee). I
believe his main speciality is fluid dynamics. He is a Chartered
Engineer qualified in 2 disciplines of engineering and with many years
of experience of this river, and certainly had the facts and figures
about the necessary design depths (3 metres minimum), flow rates (365
cubic metres per second) etc needed to protect the lower lying areas of
Bath readily to hand alongside the data of the recent flood which
resulted from just 285 cubic metres per second water flow which proved
that reduced depth resulting from deposited silt and no dredging,
greatly increased the risk of flooding.
No BBC documentary is going to go into that level of detail.
And indeed it didn't, however it did state causes that agree with other findings, viz that a period of intense heavy rainfall followed a long
period of less intense but sustained rainfall that had already filled
the moorland's capacity to absorb any more water. Others also mention
high tides, but they only last a few hours, so they can't really explain
the longevity of the flooding:
https://www.internetgeography.net/topics/the-somerset-levels-flood-case-study/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_Levels#Flooding
On 04/02/2022 16:45, Java Jive wrote:
Somerset: After the Floods
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gd7j7
Mostly the programme is about the villagers of Moorland, the flooding of
their homes, their struggles to rebuild, in various cases with or
without insurance paying up, and their anger and their accusations
against the Environment Agency for, allegedly:
a) Failing to dredge.
The villagers formed an action group and pressured the EA into resuming
dredging to clear one particular stretch, but see below.
b) 'Moving water about' to sacrifice their village to save towns.
This is such an absurd and unrealistic accusation that no more need be
said about it. The simple truth was that the pumps that the EA had
available weren't sufficient to keep the flooding at bay, let alone move
water about to cause it in the first place!
Basically, in their anger at what was essentially very bad luck they
were looking for someone to blame.
In fact, in normal years, surplus water floods out of the rivers and
ditches over the surrounding fields and countryside, for which the local
term seems to be moorland, presumably giving the village its name. In
the programme, the EA don't agree with the villagers' assessment that
the flooding was caused by lack of dredging, but say that the same
volume of water fell over a similar period as in previous winters, the
difference that year was simply that the moorland was already sodden
after weeks of rain beforehand, so the sudden excess water had nowhere
to go. There's also the question of dredging increasing the water
flowing downstream into Bridgewater, where many tens of times more
people live than in Moorland, thereby increasing the likelihood of
flooding there.
This is a documentary after the floods (no longer available on iplayer;
your clip only lasts a minute). I live in Somerset and know that during
the floods there was a lot of local news, including interviews from
those who were employed to keep the area drained before they were put
out of the job by the problem being transferred to DEFRA by the Government.
Basically the area is a flood plain rescued sufficiently to be
productive farmland, but as I said in my earlier post it would flood
from high spring tides with an onshore wind because the land level is
lower than that.
The problem with that particular flood was not that
the water arrived, but that it took so long for the water to drain away
when it did. This was a flood that took so many weeks to drain that the >crops were destroyed by drowning. The people who used to look after the >drainage took video footage of drainage ditches blocked by fly tipping
and outflow rivers that were a third of the depth that they used to be.
Bridgewater is a reasonable height above high tide level and the river
there is tidal so if it was going to flood it would do so regularly.
Thus dredging the river to improve the flow off the Levels would not
create a problem for Bridgewater, it would just restore the arrangement
that had been in place until DEFRA took over.
I have a suspicion that the pumps the EA first brought in were more of a
PR arrangement in the face of mounting hostility, initially undersized >because the river they were pumping into couldn't carry away much more
that they were adding (hence the "moving water about" accusation).
However, they did manage to shift most of the new water that the weather
was bringing in so they did stop the flooding getting worse. It was only >after the water level in that river went down a bit that they brought in >larger pumps that could remove more water than was being added and thus >reduce the flood, but that was an unacceptably long time after the
initial flooding.
The EA have a policy of refusing to believe that lack of dredging is a >problem;
they did exactly the same thing when the Avon flooded badly
and drowned some of the basements of Georgian listed buildings in Bath >because the Avon through Keynsham was so silted up that there was >insufficient flow downstream to clear the volume of water arriving from >upstream. Again this was a problem arising because the Bristol Avon
Flood Defence Committee was disbanded when DEFRA took over, and the EA
take the official position that they regard DEFRA as the experts and the
EA merely implements their policies, when in reality DEFRA just have an >inadequate budget and refuse to spend money on things they think they
can get away with ignoring.
This background was given to me (and others in the same session) by Alan
J Aldous BSc CEng MIET (ex - Bristol Avon Flood Defence Committee). I
believe his main speciality is fluid dynamics. He is a Chartered
Engineer qualified in 2 disciplines of engineering and with many years
of experience of this river, and certainly had the facts and figures
about the necessary design depths (3 metres minimum), flow rates (365
cubic metres per second) etc needed to protect the lower lying areas of
Bath readily to hand alongside the data of the recent flood which
resulted from just 285 cubic metres per second water flow which proved
that reduced depth resulting from deposited silt and no dredging,
greatly increased the risk of flooding.
No BBC documentary is going to go into that level of detail.
Jim
<https://12ft.io/https://www.ft.com/content/000f864e-22ba-11e8-add1-0e8958b189ea>
"it is becoming increasingly clear, say experts, that the evacuation,
not the nuclear accident itself, was the most devastating part of the disaster"
AFAIR the pumps were borrowed from the Dutch. In the 1960s, the Civil Defence had lots of large diesel powered pumps for emergencies, I had a summer holiday
job at a water works part of the job was starting all these pumps.
On 04/02/2022 21:31, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 04/02/2022 16:45, Java Jive wrote:
Somerset: After the Floods
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gd7j7
Mostly the programme is about the villagers of Moorland, the flooding of >>> their homes, their struggles to rebuild, in various cases with or
without insurance paying up, and their anger and their accusations
against the Environment Agency for, allegedly:
a) Failing to dredge.
The villagers formed an action group and pressured the EA into resuming
dredging to clear one particular stretch, but see below.
b) 'Moving water about' to sacrifice their village to save towns.
This is such an absurd and unrealistic accusation that no more need be
said about it. The simple truth was that the pumps that the EA had
available weren't sufficient to keep the flooding at bay, let alone move >>> water about to cause it in the first place!
Basically, in their anger at what was essentially very bad luck they
were looking for someone to blame.
In fact, in normal years, surplus water floods out of the rivers and
ditches over the surrounding fields and countryside, for which the local >>> term seems to be moorland, presumably giving the village its name. In
the programme, the EA don't agree with the villagers' assessment that
the flooding was caused by lack of dredging, but say that the same
volume of water fell over a similar period as in previous winters, the
difference that year was simply that the moorland was already sodden
after weeks of rain beforehand, so the sudden excess water had nowhere
to go. There's also the question of dredging increasing the water
flowing downstream into Bridgewater, where many tens of times more
people live than in Moorland, thereby increasing the likelihood of
flooding there.
This is a documentary after the floods (no longer available on iplayer;
your clip only lasts a minute).
No, I still have a recording of the programme, and watched it again in
its entirety this afternoon.
I live in Somerset and know that during
the floods there was a lot of local news, including interviews from
those who were employed to keep the area drained before they were put
out of the job by the problem being transferred to DEFRA by the Government. >>
Basically the area is a flood plain rescued sufficiently to be
productive farmland,
Yes, the drainage was begun by medieval monks, and continued up to the
the TV era, the programme included B&W footage of drag-shovels from
around the 60s.
but as I said in my earlier post it would flood
from high spring tides with an onshore wind because the land level is
lower than that.
That was not so much the problem with this particular flood, which was
caused by extreme rainfall.
The problem with that particular flood was not that
the water arrived, but that it took so long for the water to drain away
when it did. This was a flood that took so many weeks to drain that the
crops were destroyed by drowning.
As the programme explained above, that was because an intense period of
heavy rainfall followed many months of rain that had already filled the entire floodplains capacity to absorb water.
The people who used to look after the
drainage took video footage of drainage ditches blocked by fly tipping
and outflow rivers that were a third of the depth that they used to be.
Bridgewater is a reasonable height above high tide level and the river
there is tidal so if it was going to flood it would do so regularly.
Thus dredging the river to improve the flow off the Levels would not
create a problem for Bridgewater, it would just restore the arrangement
that had been in place until DEFRA took over.
Not necessarily. One of the now accepted truths about historical land-management is that man has often been his own worst enemy,
particularly that increasing flows upstream often leads to flooding downstream, and consequently there have been moves in recent times to
replant forests and reflood peat bogs in river catchments and
watersheds, so that they have a greater capacity to hold back extreme rainfall and discharge it more evenly in the following weeks.
I have a suspicion that the pumps the EA first brought in were more of a
PR arrangement in the face of mounting hostility, initially undersized
because the river they were pumping into couldn't carry away much more
that they were adding (hence the "moving water about" accusation).
No, the absurd accusation was that the EA was deliberately moving water
onto the levels to save other areas, but, as you yourself have
suggested, the pumps available could not possibly have managed to do any
such thing. The accusation was made by an obviously very ignorant man
who was just determined to find someone to blame.
However, they did manage to shift most of the new water that the weather
was bringing in so they did stop the flooding getting worse. It was only
after the water level in that river went down a bit that they brought in
larger pumps that could remove more water than was being added and thus
reduce the flood, but that was an unacceptably long time after the
initial flooding.
You yourself have suggested that the water courses were full anyway, so
I fail to see what else could have been done that would have been 'acceptable'. The simple truth is that the water was coming in too fast
for the water courses to remove, and you only have to compare the huge volumes of water over such a wide area flooded with the volumes of soil
that would have been excavated by dredging to realise that the lack of dredging probably made little difference to the end result. It would
have made some little difference, certainly, but I doubt whether it
could possibly have saved Moorland. See below ...
The EA have a policy of refusing to believe that lack of dredging is a
problem; they did exactly the same thing when the Avon flooded badly
and drowned some of the basements of Georgian listed buildings in Bath
because the Avon through Keynsham was so silted up that there was
insufficient flow downstream to clear the volume of water arriving from
upstream. Again this was a problem arising because the Bristol Avon
Flood Defence Committee was disbanded when DEFRA took over, and the EA
take the official position that they regard DEFRA as the experts and the
EA merely implements their policies, when in reality DEFRA just have an
inadequate budget and refuse to spend money on things they think they
can get away with ignoring.
This background was given to me (and others in the same session) by Alan
J Aldous BSc CEng MIET (ex - Bristol Avon Flood Defence Committee). I
believe his main speciality is fluid dynamics. He is a Chartered
Engineer qualified in 2 disciplines of engineering and with many years
of experience of this river, and certainly had the facts and figures
about the necessary design depths (3 metres minimum), flow rates (365
cubic metres per second) etc needed to protect the lower lying areas of
Bath readily to hand alongside the data of the recent flood which
resulted from just 285 cubic metres per second water flow which proved
that reduced depth resulting from deposited silt and no dredging,
greatly increased the risk of flooding.
No BBC documentary is going to go into that level of detail.
And indeed it didn't, however it did state causes that agree with other findings, viz that a period of intense heavy rainfall followed a long
period of less intense but sustained rainfall that had already filled
the moorland's capacity to absorb any more water. Others also mention
high tides, but they only last a few hours, so they can't really explain
the longevity of the flooding:
https://www.internetgeography.net/topics/the-somerset-levels-flood-case-study/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_Levels#Flooding
I gave away all my old bottles of malts when I had to give up drinking for >> health reasons. Alas.
My younger daughter looked at my collection and suggested she took some
away because I'd kill myself if I drank them all. I said "No"
Presumably I won't be expected to drive when it's my turn to go to the
crem. It'll make a pleasant change.
On Wed, 02 Feb 2022 17:19:02 +0000 (GMT), charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
I gave away all my old bottles of malts when I had to give up drinking
for health reasons. Alas.
My younger daughter looked at my collection and suggested she took some away because I'd kill myself if I drank them all. I said "No"
She'll get 'em eventually, regardless. Why can't she enjoy them now?
On 04/02/2022 23:41, Java Jive wrote:
And indeed it didn't, however it did state causes that agree with other
findings, viz that a period of intense heavy rainfall followed a long
period of less intense but sustained rainfall that had already filled
the moorland's capacity to absorb any more water. Others also mention
high tides, but they only last a few hours, so they can't really explain
the longevity of the flooding:
https://www.internetgeography.net/topics/the-somerset-levels-flood-case-study/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_Levels#Flooding
These are also worth a read:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-26157538 https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/lec/news-and-events/news/2014/february/flooding-in-somerset--an-indicator-of-changes-to-come/
On 05/02/2022 00:02, Java Jive wrote:
On 04/02/2022 23:41, Java Jive wrote:
And indeed it didn't, however it did state causes that agree with other
findings, viz that a period of intense heavy rainfall followed a long
period of less intense but sustained rainfall that had already filled
the moorland's capacity to absorb any more water. Others also mention
high tides, but they only last a few hours, so they can't really explain >>> the longevity of the flooding:
https://www.internetgeography.net/topics/the-somerset-levels-flood-case-study/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_Levels#Flooding
These are also worth a read:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-26157538
https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/lec/news-and-events/news/2014/february/flooding-in-somerset--an-indicator-of-changes-to-come/
Yes, but neither of them make the connection that when the flood
management activities were controlled locally, those responsible
understood the rivers they were dealing with, and cost effectively dealt
with it. Indeed the Bristol Avon Flood Defence Committee had balance of £2.4m ready for their proposed river improvements, which disappeared
from local view when DEFRA replaced the committee, as did the money
obtained from selling their dredger.
I have no financial information for the Internal Drainage board for the Levels, but they were effective in keeping the waterways flowing until
they stopped being autonomous when they were placed under Government Control. Eric Pickles confessed this was a mistake, but was told to be quiet!
There are still accidents caused by trains and cars, and sometimes,
depending on the cause, we do still blame the technology.
On 04/02/2022 23:41, Java Jive wrote:
On 04/02/2022 21:31, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 04/02/2022 16:45, Java Jive wrote:
Somerset: After the Floods
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gd7j7
Mostly the programme is about the villagers of Moorland, the
flooding of
their homes, their struggles to rebuild, in various cases with or
without insurance paying up, and their anger and their accusations
against the Environment Agency for, allegedly:
a) Failing to dredge.
The villagers formed an action group and pressured the EA into resuming >>>> dredging to clear one particular stretch, but see below.
b) 'Moving water about' to sacrifice their village to save towns.
This is such an absurd and unrealistic accusation that no more need be >>>> said about it. The simple truth was that the pumps that the EA had
available weren't sufficient to keep the flooding at bay, let alone
move
water about to cause it in the first place!
Basically, in their anger at what was essentially very bad luck they
were looking for someone to blame.
In fact, in normal years, surplus water floods out of the rivers and
ditches over the surrounding fields and countryside, for which the
local
term seems to be moorland, presumably giving the village its name. In >>>> the programme, the EA don't agree with the villagers' assessment that
the flooding was caused by lack of dredging, but say that the same
volume of water fell over a similar period as in previous winters, the >>>> difference that year was simply that the moorland was already sodden
after weeks of rain beforehand, so the sudden excess water had nowhere >>>> to go. There's also the question of dredging increasing the water
flowing downstream into Bridgewater, where many tens of times more
people live than in Moorland, thereby increasing the likelihood of
flooding there.
This is a documentary after the floods (no longer available on iplayer;
your clip only lasts a minute).
No, I still have a recording of the programme, and watched it again in
its entirety this afternoon.
The link you put in your message ran for 1 minute with a pop-up on the
side of the screen saying that the full clip is no longer available.
Whatever you watched wasn't available to me.
I live in Somerset and know that during
the floods there was a lot of local news, including interviews from
those who were employed to keep the area drained before they were put
out of the job by the problem being transferred to DEFRA by the
Government.
Basically the area is a flood plain rescued sufficiently to be
productive farmland,
Yes, the drainage was begun by medieval monks, and continued up to the
the TV era, the programme included B&W footage of drag-shovels from
around the 60s.
but as I said in my earlier post it would flood
from high spring tides with an onshore wind because the land level is
lower than that.
That was not so much the problem with this particular flood, which was
caused by extreme rainfall.
The problem with that particular flood was not that
the water arrived, but that it took so long for the water to drain away
when it did. This was a flood that took so many weeks to drain that the >>> crops were destroyed by drowning.
As the programme explained above, that was because an intense period of
heavy rainfall followed many months of rain that had already filled the
entire floodplains capacity to absorb water.
Rainfall is not especially rare on the levels, and nor is flooding. The problem was that the watercourses intended to drain the floods were not maintained and flow rates were inadequate because of it.
You are making the same mistake the EA did, in assuming that storage is
as good as drainage. It isn't.
The people who used to look after the
drainage took video footage of drainage ditches blocked by fly tipping
and outflow rivers that were a third of the depth that they used to be.
Bridgewater is a reasonable height above high tide level and the
river
there is tidal so if it was going to flood it would do so regularly.
Thus dredging the river to improve the flow off the Levels would not
create a problem for Bridgewater, it would just restore the arrangement
that had been in place until DEFRA took over.
Not necessarily. One of the now accepted truths about historical
land-management is that man has often been his own worst enemy,
particularly that increasing flows upstream often leads to flooding
downstream, and consequently there have been moves in recent times to
replant forests and reflood peat bogs in river catchments and
watersheds, so that they have a greater capacity to hold back extreme
rainfall and discharge it more evenly in the following weeks.
That is not the problem on the levels.
I have a suspicion that the pumps the EA first brought in were more of a >>> PR arrangement in the face of mounting hostility, initially undersized
because the river they were pumping into couldn't carry away much more
that they were adding (hence the "moving water about" accusation).
No, the absurd accusation was that the EA was deliberately moving water
onto the levels to save other areas, but, as you yourself have
suggested, the pumps available could not possibly have managed to do any
such thing. The accusation was made by an obviously very ignorant man
who was just determined to find someone to blame.
However, they did manage to shift most of the new water that the weather >>> was bringing in so they did stop the flooding getting worse. It was only >>> after the water level in that river went down a bit that they brought in >>> larger pumps that could remove more water than was being added and thus
reduce the flood, but that was an unacceptably long time after the
initial flooding.
You yourself have suggested that the water courses were full anyway, so
I fail to see what else could have been done that would have been
'acceptable'. The simple truth is that the water was coming in too fast
for the water courses to remove, and you only have to compare the huge
volumes of water over such a wide area flooded with the volumes of soil
that would have been excavated by dredging to realise that the lack of
dredging probably made little difference to the end result. It would
have made some little difference, certainly, but I doubt whether it
could possibly have saved Moorland. See below ...
Not so. The water courses were full from simple neglect. The river
they were pumping into was too silted to take the necessary flow rate
needed to drain the levels, as was the other river that would be
expected to drain the occasional flood.
The EA have a policy of refusing to believe that lack of dredging is a
problem; they did exactly the same thing when the Avon flooded badly
and drowned some of the basements of Georgian listed buildings in Bath
because the Avon through Keynsham was so silted up that there was
insufficient flow downstream to clear the volume of water arriving from
upstream. Again this was a problem arising because the Bristol Avon
Flood Defence Committee was disbanded when DEFRA took over, and the EA
take the official position that they regard DEFRA as the experts and the >>> EA merely implements their policies, when in reality DEFRA just have an
inadequate budget and refuse to spend money on things they think they
can get away with ignoring.
This background was given to me (and others in the same session) by Alan >>> J Aldous BSc CEng MIET (ex - Bristol Avon Flood Defence Committee). I
believe his main speciality is fluid dynamics. He is a Chartered
Engineer qualified in 2 disciplines of engineering and with many years
of experience of this river, and certainly had the facts and figures
about the necessary design depths (3 metres minimum), flow rates (365
cubic metres per second) etc needed to protect the lower lying areas of
Bath readily to hand alongside the data of the recent flood which
resulted from just 285 cubic metres per second water flow which proved
that reduced depth resulting from deposited silt and no dredging,
greatly increased the risk of flooding.
No BBC documentary is going to go into that level of detail.
And indeed it didn't, however it did state causes that agree with other
findings, viz that a period of intense heavy rainfall followed a long
period of less intense but sustained rainfall that had already filled
the moorland's capacity to absorb any more water. Others also mention
high tides, but they only last a few hours, so they can't really explain
the longevity of the flooding:
https://www.internetgeography.net/topics/the-somerset-levels-flood-case-study/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_Levels#Flooding
The first link just backs up what I said before:
"There had been less dredging of the river channels on the Somerset
Levels leading up to 2014. However, as a result of this, the channels
had raised due to sediment accumulation. This reduced the capacity of
rivers to transport water, leading to flooding."
and
"The Somerset Levels and Moors Action Plan was developed and included measures such as reintroducing dredging, the construction of a tidal
barrage and additional permanent pumping stations."
I disagree with the assumption that "more intensive use of the land
means it is less able to retain water".
It is impervious surfaces that
reduce water retention;
grass and maize are both monocotyledons and thus
grasses, except that one is taller and delivers a crop. The soil they
grow from has the same water retention capability.
The second link reveals that "There have been public protests about the
river Parrett not being dredged in recent years", and it is the Parrett
that the EA was pumping into. (It also confirms that seawater inundation poisons the land for crop growing. This proves that rainwater flooding
is the norm not an exceptional event.)
The problem is that the EA approach was to widen the watercourses when
the proper solution would have been to deepen them. Nothing you have
said changes that.
On 05/02/2022 16:25, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 05/02/2022 00:02, Java Jive wrote:
On 04/02/2022 23:41, Java Jive wrote:
And indeed it didn't, however it did state causes that agree with other >>>> findings, viz that a period of intense heavy rainfall followed a long
period of less intense but sustained rainfall that had already filled
the moorland's capacity to absorb any more water. Others also mention >>>> high tides, but they only last a few hours, so they can't really explain >>>> the longevity of the flooding:
https://www.internetgeography.net/topics/the-somerset-levels-flood-case-study/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_Levels#Flooding
These are also worth a read:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-26157538
https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/lec/news-and-events/news/2014/february/flooding-in-somerset--an-indicator-of-changes-to-come/
Yes, but neither of them make the connection that when the flood
management activities were controlled locally, those responsible
understood the rivers they were dealing with, and cost effectively dealt
with it. Indeed the Bristol Avon Flood Defence Committee had balance of
£2.4m ready for their proposed river improvements, which disappeared
from local view when DEFRA replaced the committee, as did the money
obtained from selling their dredger.
I have no financial information for the Internal Drainage board for the
Levels, but they were effective in keeping the waterways flowing until
they stopped being autonomous when they were placed under Government
Control. Eric Pickles confessed this was a mistake, but was told to be
quiet!
Yes, but is that cause and effect, or just merely coincidence? If a
once in a century event had occurred just before the handover, you'd now
be cursing the local management and arguing for it to be managed
nationally, but as the once in a century event happened after the
changeover, everyone's now blaming the national authority for the mess.
My suspicion from everything that I've read about it is that it would
have happened anyway, simply because of the unusual combination of
causal factors involved in it.
I invite you to calculate the volume of soil that could be excavated
from the rivers by dredging and compare that figure with the volume of
water spread over the flooded area. I haven't done such a calculation, because I'm happy to rely on the professional and/or scientific
assessments and contemporary reports that I've already linked, but my
strong suspicion is that you'll find the volume of earth that could be removed would only be a small fraction of the volume of water doing the flooding. Of course, that is only one relevant calculation, because
really the purpose of the rivers and drains is to remove water, not to
hold it, so it would be even more interesting and relevant also to
calculate the increased flow possible and compare it with the rate of accumulation in the entire upstream catchment due to the exceptional sustained heavy rainfall - you'd be better placed than me to do such a calculation, because of your better local knowledge - and I think such
a calculation would be needed if you're going to convince the sort of
people who write the sort of reports that I've linked.
Note also:
* That flow is determined by the most restricted section of a watercourse, so if any dredging is to be done on it, it's no good just
doing one section, you'd have to do the entire course of it to ensure
that it all has a minimum cross-section for adequate flow.
* That faster water flow can erode banks and flood defences more quickly, so may be undesirable for those reasons, and that dredging
removes bankside vegetation that tends to hold the banks together.
For both the above reasons, you may be committing yourself to a vicious circle where the more you dredge, the more you have to keep on dredging.
* That much of the wildlife living along the banks of the
watercourses will be protected species, and thus may require capture and relocation before dredging can be allowed to proceed, which will add considerably to the cost.
On 05/02/2022 17:26, Java Jive wrote:
On 05/02/2022 16:25, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 05/02/2022 00:02, Java Jive wrote:
On 04/02/2022 23:41, Java Jive wrote:
https://www.internetgeography.net/topics/the-somerset-levels-flood-case-study/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_Levels#Flooding
These are also worth a read:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-26157538
https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/lec/news-and-events/news/2014/february/flooding-in-somerset--an-indicator-of-changes-to-come/
Yes, but neither of them make the connection that when the flood
management activities were controlled locally, those responsible
understood the rivers they were dealing with, and cost effectively dealt >>> with it. Indeed the Bristol Avon Flood Defence Committee had balance of
£2.4m ready for their proposed river improvements, which disappeared
from local view when DEFRA replaced the committee, as did the money
obtained from selling their dredger.
I have no financial information for the Internal Drainage board for the
Levels, but they were effective in keeping the waterways flowing until
they stopped being autonomous when they were placed under Government
Control. Eric Pickles confessed this was a mistake, but was told to be >>> quiet!
Yes, but is that cause and effect, or just merely coincidence? If a
once in a century event had occurred just before the handover, you'd now
be cursing the local management and arguing for it to be managed
nationally, but as the once in a century event happened after the
changeover, everyone's now blaming the national authority for the mess.
My suspicion from everything that I've read about it is that it would
have happened anyway, simply because of the unusual combination of
causal factors involved in it.
I invite you to calculate the volume of soil that could be excavated
from the rivers by dredging and compare that figure with the volume of
water spread over the flooded area. I haven't done such a calculation,
because I'm happy to rely on the professional and/or scientific
assessments and contemporary reports that I've already linked, but my
strong suspicion is that you'll find the volume of earth that could be
removed would only be a small fraction of the volume of water doing the
flooding. Of course, that is only one relevant calculation, because
really the purpose of the rivers and drains is to remove water, not to
hold it, so it would be even more interesting and relevant also to
calculate the increased flow possible and compare it with the rate of
accumulation in the entire upstream catchment due to the exceptional
sustained heavy rainfall - you'd be better placed than me to do such a >> calculation, because of your better local knowledge - and I think such >> a calculation would be needed if you're going to convince the sort of
people who write the sort of reports that I've linked.
Note also:
* That flow is determined by the most restricted section of a
watercourse, so if any dredging is to be done on it, it's no good just
doing one section, you'd have to do the entire course of it to ensure
that it all has a minimum cross-section for adequate flow.
* That faster water flow can erode banks and flood defences more
quickly, so may be undesirable for those reasons, and that dredging
removes bankside vegetation that tends to hold the banks together.
For both the above reasons, you may be committing yourself to a vicious
circle where the more you dredge, the more you have to keep on dredging.
* That much of the wildlife living along the banks of the
watercourses will be protected species, and thus may require capture and
relocation before dredging can be allowed to proceed, which will add
considerably to the cost.
You are confusing the EA's attempt at dredging (widening the river by
cutting back the banks) with the dredging that the previous authorities
were doing which is increasing the flow volume by maintaining a minimum
depth of the normal flow channel.
Yes, it would be interesting to compare the actual numbers for the
Somerset levels, but there are 4 draining rivers and no published
information on maximum flow rates there so it is well beyond my
capabilities. The numbers for the Avon are a bit easier, thanks to the information provided by the former Bristol Avon Flood Defence Committee member. The cessation of dredging for depth on a single river reduced
the maximum flow rate before over-topping takes place by 22%.
I am not interested in convincing the people who write the type of
report you linked to. If they had done their homework and asked the
people who actually understand how those particular watercourses operate
they wouldn't have reached their superficial conclusions. If they can't
see the value of talking to the experts, they are certainly not going to
take notice of me who hasn't got the relevant qualifications after my
name. They can write what they like; it doesn't necessarily make it true.
Why do you think that one is going to do more than the other? Given a roughly V or U-shaped channel, widening will increase the
cross-sectional area as much, possibly more, than deepening. Hint,
think of a V-shaped channel and areas of triangles.
On 05/02/2022 20:46, Java Jive wrote:
Why do you think that one is going to do more than the other? Given a
roughly V or U-shaped channel, widening will increase the
cross-sectional area as much, possibly more, than deepening. Hint,
think of a V-shaped channel and areas of triangles.
The water has friction with the surfaces it is in contact with. The
effect of friction is to slow down the flow. Widening a channel gives a larger friction surface than deepening it does, so it doesn't have the
same throughput even if it has the same volume of water.
On 05/02/2022 20:50, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 05/02/2022 20:46, Java Jive wrote:
Why do you think that one is going to do more than the other? Given a
roughly V or U-shaped channel, widening will increase the
cross-sectional area as much, possibly more, than deepening. Hint,
think of a V-shaped channel and areas of triangles.
The water has friction with the surfaces it is in contact with. The
effect of friction is to slow down the flow. Widening a channel gives a
larger friction surface than deepening it does, so it doesn't have the
same throughput even if it has the same volume of water.
Bah! Pseudo-science! As there is no smiley I can only suppose that you
mean this tosh actually to be taken seriously, but it's not going to be, because it's laughable!
The programme showed the dredging being done, and the angle of the sides
was approximately 45 degrees to the vertical, which means that - even supposing friction to be significant in the first place, which of course
it isn't - it doesn't matter whether you increase the width by taking
each bank back by 1m or just the depth by 1m, the increase in the
hypotenuse length of each bank, and therefore the increase in any
friction against it, will be same.
However the area of a triangle, including an upturned one of the cross-section of a ditch, is ...
1/2 * base * height
... which means that if you increase the depth by one metre, you will
not increase the cross-sectional area as much as you would by taking
each bank back by one metre, because in the former case you are
increasing the height by one metre, but in the latter the base by two.
On 05/02/2022 20:50, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 05/02/2022 20:46, Java Jive wrote:
Why do you think that one is going to do more than the other? Given a
roughly V or U-shaped channel, widening will increase the
cross-sectional area as much, possibly more, than deepening. Hint,
think of a V-shaped channel and areas of triangles.
The water has friction with the surfaces it is in contact with. The
effect of friction is to slow down the flow. Widening a channel gives a
larger friction surface than deepening it does, so it doesn't have the
same throughput even if it has the same volume of water.
Bah! Pseudo-science! As there is no smiley I can only suppose that you
mean this tosh actually to be taken seriously, but it's not going to be, because it's laughable!
The programme showed the dredging being done, and the angle of the sides
was approximately 45 degrees to the vertical, which means that - even supposing friction to be significant in the first place, which of course
it isn't - it doesn't matter whether you increase the width by taking
each bank back by 1m or just the depth by 1m, the increase in the
hypotenuse length of each bank, and therefore the increase in any
friction against it, will be same.
However the area of a triangle, including an upturned one of the cross-section of a ditch, is ...
1/2 * base * height
... which means that if you increase the depth by one metre, you will
not increase the cross-sectional area as much as you would by taking
each bank back by one metre, because in the former case you are
increasing the height by one metre, but in the latter the base by two.
On 05/02/2022 21:45, Java Jive wrote:
You are showing your ignorance, because a naturally moulded water course
On 05/02/2022 20:50, Indy Jess John wrote:
The water has friction with the surfaces it is in contact with. The
effect of friction is to slow down the flow. Widening a channel gives a
larger friction surface than deepening it does, so it doesn't have the
same throughput even if it has the same volume of water.
Bah! Pseudo-science! As there is no smiley I can only suppose that you >> mean this tosh actually to be taken seriously, but it's not going to be,
because it's laughable!
The programme showed the dredging being done, and the angle of the sides
was approximately 45 degrees to the vertical, which means that - even
supposing friction to be significant in the first place, which of course
it isn't - it doesn't matter whether you increase the width by taking
each bank back by 1m or just the depth by 1m, the increase in the
hypotenuse length of each bank, and therefore the increase in any
friction against it, will be same.
However the area of a triangle, including an upturned one of the
cross-section of a ditch, is ...
1/2 * base * height
... which means that if you increase the depth by one metre, you will
not increase the cross-sectional area as much as you would by taking
each bank back by one metre, because in the former case you are
increasing the height by one metre, but in the latter the base by two.
is never triangular. The faster flowing water (on the outside of bends,
for instance) cuts a more vertical river bank, and that reduces the
friction and improves the flow volume. Making that more vertical
surface less vertical by cutting back the bank increases the friction
and slows the flow more than it did before.
Likewise, ditches are man-made and have almost vertical sides to carry
the most water away quickly. Unmanaged ones do develop angled banks,
but this is a feature of neglect not water erosion, and on the whole the bottom remains flat or at worst U shaped even then, not pointed.
There is nothing pseudo about that science. You are free to take a different view if you wish, but real life won't agree with you.
You are showing your ignorance, because a naturally moulded water course
is never triangular.
The faster flowing water (on the outside of bends, for instance) cuts a
more vertical river bank, and that reduces the friction and improves the
flow volume. Making that more vertical surface less vertical by cutting
back the bank increases the friction and slows the flow more than it did before.
There is nothing pseudo about that science. You are free to take a
different view if you wish, but real life won't agree with you.
Likewise, ditches are man-made and have almost vertical sides to carry
the most water away quickly. Unmanaged ones do develop angled banks,
but this is a feature of neglect not water erosion, and on the whole the
bottom remains flat or at worst U shaped even then, not pointed.
FFS, I've already told you that I've watched the fucking programme, so I *KNOW* that you're making this bullshit up as you go along:
www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/SomersetAfterTheFloods-Dredging.jpg
On 06/02/2022 11:11, Java Jive wrote:
Likewise, ditches are man-made and have almost vertical sides to carry
the most water away quickly. Unmanaged ones do develop angled banks,
but this is a feature of neglect not water erosion, and on the whole the >>> bottom remains flat or at worst U shaped even then, not pointed.
FFS, I've already told you that I've watched the fucking programme, so I
*KNOW* that you're making this bullshit up as you go along:
www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/SomersetAfterTheFloods-Dredging.jpg
And I have already told you that the EA approach to dredging doesn't
provide the best solution to getting floodwater away as quickly as possible. It was probably the quickest to implement and was better than doing nothing, I admit.
Just because you have a picture of *a* solution doesn't mean it is the
*best* solution. Just because you rely on a programme you have watched
(a programme no longer available to me on line) only confirms that the programme shows what was being done after the flood, not what could have
been done to prevent it in the first place.
FFS, I've already told you that I've watched the fucking programme, so
I *KNOW* that you're making this bullshit up as you go along:
www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/SomersetAfterTheFloods-Dredging.jpg
And I have already told you that the EA approach to dredging doesn't
provide the best solution to getting floodwater away as quickly as
possible. It was probably the quickest to implement and was better than doing nothing, I admit.
Just because you have a picture of *a* solution doesn't mean it is the
*best* solution.
The locals are not stupid. They recognise it isn't completely uselessJust because you have a picture of *a* solution doesn't mean it is the
*best* solution. Just because you rely on a programme you have watched
(a programme no longer available to me on line) only confirms that the
programme shows what was being done after the flood, not what could have
been done to prevent it in the first place.
What I've been trying to explain to you is that the dredging is not even
*a* solution let alone the best solution; it is being done merely to
pacify local residents politically rather than any actual good it will
do.
Let me remind you again of the Wikipedia article long-since linked
and again below:
"Hydrology
There were public calls for the rivers Parrett and Tone, in particular,
to be dredged. The Environment Agency was blamed for having failed to
dredge the major river channels of the Levels. It was said that as a consequence, rivers silt up and have reduced capacity to carry flooding waters when rainfall is heavier than average. The Environment Agency and others pointed out that it would be more effective to spend money on
delaying floodwaters upstream, and that increasing the capacity of
rivers by dredging would be of no significant use.[62][63] Senior hydrologists made clear that dredging does not offer a useful solution
to flooding on the Somerset Levels.[64]"
Previously, I've also explained to you that work in higher catchment
areas, such as planting woodland or blocking up the drains in former
peat bogs, is sometimes more effective than work at mid-levels to
improve water flows, which often have unwanted side-effects of increased flooding further downstream in centres of greater population density,
and this upstream work is also mentioned in the above quote.
I've also tried to encourage you to play around with the numbers
involved, hoping that doing so will give you a better feel for them, and thereby be more willing to accept the expert opinions linked.
Previously I suggested that had a once in a century event happened
before the EA became involved rather than soon after, you'd now be criticising the local drainage boards instead, and now I find this quote
from the second Wiki link:
"Controversy about the management of the drainage and flood protection
has previously involved the activities of IDBs.[34][35] However, IDBs
have been actively participating with the Parrett Catchment Partnership,
a partnership of 30 organisations that aims to create a consensus on how water is to be managed, in particular, looking at new ways to achieve sustainable benefits for all local stakeholders.[36]"
But to return to numbers ...
"6880 hectares of agricultural land" were flooded, so including the
areas covered by roads, buildings, existing watercourses, etc, probably around 7000 hectares would be a reasonable guesstimate as to the total flooded area. Some places were deeply flooded to well over a metre, but
then others at the fringes would have been under shallower water, so an average depth of 1m would seem a reasonable guesstimate for average
depth. A hectare is 10,000m2, so that gives us that around 70m m3 of
flood water were involved *BEYOND* what the rivers were taking away
which must have been constantly replaced by rainfall.
By contrast:
"During 2009 and 2010, work was undertaken to upgrade sluice gates, watercourses, and culverts to enable seasonal flooding of Southlake Moor during the winter diverting water from the Sowy River onto the moor. It
has the capacity to hold 1.2 million cubic metres (42×106 cu ft) as part
of a scheme by the Parrett Internal Drainage Board to restore ten
floodplains in Somerset. In spring, the water is drained away to enable
the land to be used as pasture during the summer.[37] The scheme is also
used to encourage water birds.[38]"
So that one huge scheme would only accommodate less than 2% of the
surplus water in 2014.
This rainfall report dates from 30/1/2014:
UK floods: January rain breaks records in parts of England https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25944823
You could note the graph misleadingly entitled "South's wettest January
since records began", but which actually shows rainfall for only the
South East and Central Southern England, and that it had been more than double the preceding 20-year average and was the highest since records
began. However, we're interested in the South West, which with three
days of the month still to go:
"Across south-west England and south Wales, the 222.6 mm (8.8in) of
rainfall up to midnight on Tuesday meant January 2014 was already the fifth-wettest on record."
The average rainfall in the levels is 700mm/yr, or 1.9mm/day, so 59.5mm
for any given 31 days such as January, but with three days to go the
area had already received 3.7 times that much, and more than twice the average rainfall for January.
That is why the Somerset levels flooded, a prolonged period of above
average rainfall which had already made the entire catchment waterlogged
and unable to absorb any more, followed by sustained heavy rainfall over
many days.
The locals are not stupid. They recognise it isn't completely useless
and is better than doing nothing.
On 07/02/2022 00:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
The locals are not stupid. They recognise it isn't completely useless
and is better than doing nothing.
There is this news report today, EA strikes again.
"The 250 yard stretch of the River Tone running through Taunton famous
with anglers for its wildlife has been stripped of its trees for flood-management"
On 06/02/2022 13:54, Java Jive wrote:
What I've been trying to explain to you is that the dredging is not even
*a* solution let alone the best solution; it is being done merely to
pacify local residents politically rather than any actual good it will
do.
The locals are not stupid. They recognise it isn't completely useless
and is better than doing nothing.
Let me remind you again of the Wikipedia article long-since linked
and again below:
"Hydrology
There were public calls for the rivers Parrett and Tone, in particular,
to be dredged. The Environment Agency was blamed for having failed to
dredge the major river channels of the Levels. It was said that as a
consequence, rivers silt up and have reduced capacity to carry flooding
waters when rainfall is heavier than average. The Environment Agency and
others pointed out that it would be more effective to spend money on
delaying floodwaters upstream, and that increasing the capacity of
rivers by dredging would be of no significant use.[62][63] Senior
hydrologists made clear that dredging does not offer a useful solution
to flooding on the Somerset Levels.[64]"
So this is a financial decision, not a recognition that before the EA
took over, until 2005 the local river management did maximise flow
capacity and did manage to clear previous floods in an acceptable
timescale as a result. But of course the EA couldn't admit that because
it would prove that the criticism is justified. Eric Pickles did once
admit it in an unguarded moment.
Previously, I've also explained to you that work in higher catchment
areas, such as planting woodland or blocking up the drains in former
peat bogs, is sometimes more effective than work at mid-levels to
improve water flows, which often have unwanted side-effects of increased
flooding further downstream in centres of greater population density,
and this upstream work is also mentioned in the above quote.
You obviously are not familiar with the local geography. The word
"Levels" is not used casually.
I've also tried to encourage you to play around with the numbers
involved, hoping that doing so will give you a better feel for them, and
thereby be more willing to accept the expert opinions linked.
I admit I haven't facts and figures for the four rivers across the
levels
but I have liaised with some of the former Bristol Avon Local
Flood Defence Committee, and have read the Bath Flood Protection Scheme design documentation which that Committee insist is required reading for anyone interested in flooding. The key feature was the to maintain a
designed flow rate, and the design made the river through the
residential area of Bath self-scouring, coupled with regular dredging downstream of Bath as far as the point where the river became tidal. My involvement was part of a co-ordinated effort to persuade the local
council that their suggestions for modifying the original design would
be disastrous. That effort did at least get the idea kicked into the
long grass, though it didn't achieve the aim of getting it cancelled completely.
I might be an amateur, but I am an informed amateur.
[snip details irrelevant to the Somerset Levels flooding of 2014]
Previously I suggested that had a once in a century event happened
before the EA became involved rather than soon after, you'd now be
criticising the local drainage boards instead, and now I find this quote
from the second Wiki link:
"Controversy about the management of the drainage and flood protection
has previously involved the activities of IDBs.[34][35] However, IDBs
have been actively participating with the Parrett Catchment Partnership,
a partnership of 30 organisations that aims to create a consensus on how
water is to be managed, in particular, looking at new ways to achieve
sustainable benefits for all local stakeholders.[36]"
Yes, but within the bounds of the EA brief rather than being in charge
of the decisions as they were previously.
But to return to numbers ...
"6880 hectares of agricultural land" were flooded, so including the
areas covered by roads, buildings, existing watercourses, etc, probably
around 7000 hectares would be a reasonable guesstimate as to the total
flooded area. Some places were deeply flooded to well over a metre, but
then others at the fringes would have been under shallower water, so an
average depth of 1m would seem a reasonable guesstimate for average
depth. A hectare is 10,000m2, so that gives us that around 70m m3 of
flood water were involved *BEYOND* what the rivers were taking away
which must have been constantly replaced by rainfall.
Yes, it was a particularly severe flood. The real issue is that the
rivers which were trying to clear it were silted up through EA neglect
and so it took 3 months to pump it away, along the silted up rivers.
By contrast:
"During 2009 and 2010, work was undertaken to upgrade sluice gates,
watercourses, and culverts to enable seasonal flooding of Southlake Moor
during the winter diverting water from the Sowy River onto the moor. It
has the capacity to hold 1.2 million cubic metres (42×106 cu ft) as part
of a scheme by the Parrett Internal Drainage Board to restore ten
floodplains in Somerset. In spring, the water is drained away to enable
the land to be used as pasture during the summer.[37] The scheme is also
used to encourage water birds.[38]"
Quote from the former Bristol Avon Local Flood Defence Committee: "One suggestion put forward was to create a 1,000,000 cubic metre reservoir upstream of Bath, yet a simple calculation shows that at projected peak
flow it will fill up in just 38 minutes, that is assuming it is empty!"
Your 1.2 million cubic metres would buy just over 45 minutes of extra
time in a flood scenario, assuming it was completely empty at the time.
So that one huge scheme would only accommodate less than 2% of the
surplus water in 2014.
This rainfall report dates from 30/1/2014:
UK floods: January rain breaks records in parts of England
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25944823
You could note the graph misleadingly entitled "South's wettest January
since records began", but which actually shows rainfall for only the
South East and Central Southern England, and that it had been more than
double the preceding 20-year average and was the highest since records
began. However, we're interested in the South West, which with three
days of the month still to go:
"Across south-west England and south Wales, the 222.6 mm (8.8in) of
rainfall up to midnight on Tuesday meant January 2014 was already the
fifth-wettest on record."
The average rainfall in the levels is 700mm/yr, or 1.9mm/day, so 59.5mm
for any given 31 days such as January, but with three days to go the
area had already received 3.7 times that much, and more than twice the
average rainfall for January.
That is why the Somerset levels flooded, a prolonged period of above
average rainfall which had already made the entire catchment waterlogged
and unable to absorb any more, followed by sustained heavy rainfall over
many days.
Yes the levels flood; they always will. Waterlogged ground is not rare.
That is why speed of drainage rather than storage ought to be the
priority. Unfortunately the EA steadfastly refuse to put money into
achieving that[1], whereas before they were put in control of what
happened the previously in charge organisation focused on achieving the highest possible Cubic Metres Per Minute throughput on each river.
[1] In Bath the EA have concluded that because Bath rarely floods, there
is no need to maintain the Bath Flood Protection Scheme. What on earth
do they suppose is preventing flooding in Bath?
It is also worth mentioning that the 1974 Bath Flood Protection Scheme contract contained a clause insisting that the planners would approve whatever was asked for without trying to modify the requirements,
because the man who designed the scheme knew that without that clause
some penny-pinching accountant would insist there must be a cheaper way
of doing it. The scheme designer died a few years ago, and already
there are moves by the ignorant to mess around with what he designed. I
live less than a mile from the Avon, so it matters to me.
On 07/02/2022 08:58, MB wrote:
On 07/02/2022 00:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
The locals are not stupid. They recognise it isn't completely useless
and is better than doing nothing.
There is this news report today, EA strikes again.
"The 250 yard stretch of the River Tone running through Taunton famous
with anglers for its wildlife has been stripped of its trees for flood-management"
Yes, exactly, as I've already mentioned, one faction's dredging
supposedly to prevent flooding is everyone else's wildlife habit
destruction.
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 12:02:09 +0000
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 07/02/2022 08:58, MB wrote:
On 07/02/2022 00:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
The locals are not stupid. They recognise it isn't completely useless
and is better than doing nothing.
There is this news report today, EA strikes again.
"The 250 yard stretch of the River Tone running through Taunton famous
with anglers for its wildlife has been stripped of its trees for
flood-management"
Yes, exactly, as I've already mentioned, one faction's dredging
supposedly to prevent flooding is everyone else's wildlife habit
destruction.
Southern Spain and West Coast America have huge storm drains.
We have less land surface to relinquish for those "once in a .." events.
But surely we have expertise to build them s that they can be covered
over with concrete "lids" supporting agriculture above them?
On the contrary, at least one of them was manifestly stupid enough to
suggest the EA were deliberately 'moving water about' onto the levels to
save other areas. Another has been stupid enough to invoke friction of
the water against the sides of a channel as a significant factor in the flooding! None seem capable of appreciating the sheer scale of the
weather event that hit them that year.
As I've already proven to you still quoted below, previously the local drainage boards had been similarly criticised for failing to prevent flooding,
I am familiar with the local geography. For one thing, it's very like
East Anglia where I was brought up.
it wasn't the Avon that flooded so disastrously over the levels,
so I fail to see its relevance to this discussion.
Until you do some work with numbers, you won't really appreciate the
scale of the event.
"Controversy about the management of the drainage and flood protection
has previously involved the activities of IDBs.[34][35]
But how long would it have taken to pump it away if the rivers had been dredged, as opposed to the length of time it took in practice? You have never shown any calculations concerning the capacity of the rivers with
and without dredging,
yet still refuse to accept the scientific opinions
of the professional hydrologists who might be expected to have done such calculations in support of their opinions.
Quote from the former Bristol Avon Local Flood Defence Committee: "One
suggestion put forward was to create a 1,000,000 cubic metre reservoir
upstream of Bath, yet a simple calculation shows that at projected peak
flow it will fill up in just 38 minutes, that is assuming it is empty!"
Your 1.2 million cubic metres would buy just over 45 minutes of extra
time in a flood scenario, assuming it was completely empty at the time.
Exactly, such a scheme can hold only a small fraction of the surplus water.
Dredging is extremely damaging ecologically and environmentally,
I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion.
On 07/02/2022 13:16, Java Jive wrote:
On the contrary, at least one of them was manifestly stupid enough to
suggest the EA were deliberately 'moving water about' onto the levels to
save other areas. Another has been stupid enough to invoke friction of
the water against the sides of a channel as a significant factor in the
flooding! None seem capable of appreciating the sheer scale of the
weather event that hit them that year.
Just because a few people make stupid remarks, you shouldn't apply the criticism to the whole population.
As I've already proven to you still quoted below, previously the local
drainage boards had been similarly criticised for failing to prevent
flooding,
The local drainage boards lost the ability to make their own decisions
in 2005. Have you any evidence of such criticisms before that date?
I am familiar with the local geography. For one thing, it's very like
East Anglia where I was brought up.
East Anglia is undulating, not flat (my mother lived there in the
1990s). Not a valid comparison.
I lived on the levels for a while in the 1970s, which gains a better appreciation of the area than someone visiting a girlfriend.
it wasn't the Avon that flooded so disastrously over the levels,
so I fail to see its relevance to this discussion.
Fluvial flood protection is the same regardless of the specific
location.
The key feature is the success of a policy to maximise then
maintain a designed flow rate through and away.
Until you do some work with numbers, you won't really appreciate the
scale of the event.
I do understand the scale of the event. The input exceeded the output,
but the output wasn't what it was prior to 2005. That is why the
floodwater stayed for so long, and *that* is the issue you are ignoring.
"Controversy about the management of the drainage and flood protection >>>> has previously involved the activities of IDBs.[34][35]
Those "[34][35]" references are about the situation in 2011, not
relevant to what would have been the position before 2005. Why rely on quotes that are not relevant?
But how long would it have taken to pump it away if the rivers had been
dredged, as opposed to the length of time it took in practice? You have
never shown any calculations concerning the capacity of the rivers with
and without dredging,
It does matter that the residents affected confirmed that the rivers
were much more silted up than they used to be. More silt means slower drainage and therefore it would have cleared the floodwater more quickly before the silt was allow to build up due to EA policy. It doesn't
matter how long exactly, it would have been less.
yet still refuse to accept the scientific opinions
of the professional hydrologists who might be expected to have done such
calculations in support of their opinions.
The objective of queue management is improving service time not making
room for longer queues. My experience of the "experts" is that they
haven't bothered with the calculations because the Government Guidelines
now focus on storage so that is all the new recruits look at. That and ecological benefits to the fauna and sod the inconvenience to the
residents.
Quote from the former Bristol Avon Local Flood Defence Committee: "One
suggestion put forward was to create a 1,000,000 cubic metre reservoir
upstream of Bath, yet a simple calculation shows that at projected peak
flow it will fill up in just 38 minutes, that is assuming it is empty!"
Your 1.2 million cubic metres would buy just over 45 minutes of extra
time in a flood scenario, assuming it was completely empty at the time.
Exactly, such a scheme can hold only a small fraction of the surplus
water.
I wasn't recommending it, I was quoting the people who understand flood management criticising people who don't and propose ineffective ideas.
Dredging is extremely damaging ecologically and environmentally,
Dredging for depth of the primary channel is not damaging.
The
"dredging" that the EA are doing and which you keep bringing to my
attention does have the effects you mention.
I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion.
Just because a few people make stupid remarks, you shouldn't apply the
criticism to the whole population.
Equally you should not assume that the whole population is cleverer than
the scientific professionals who are paid to investigate these issues.
As I've already proven to you still quoted below, previously the local
drainage boards had been similarly criticised for failing to prevent
flooding,
The local drainage boards lost the ability to make their own decisions
in 2005. Have you any evidence of such criticisms before that date?
On the contrary, the paragraph of the Wiki page previous to the one
already quoted begins ...
"Since 1990, the drainage boards have been charged with watching the
rhynes and keeping them clear, under the overall responsibility of the Environment Agency."
... so where is your evidence that anything concerning the above
arrangement changed in 2005?
I am familiar with the local geography. For one thing, it's very like
East Anglia where I was brought up.
East Anglia is undulating, not flat (my mother lived there in the
1990s). Not a valid comparison.
Stop this clueless bullshitting and making things up as you go along!
This as bad as telling me I didn't know the shape of ditches I'd seen
footage of being excavated just hours previously, or invoking magic frictional forces. The simple truth is that large areas of East Anglia
are completely flat. See, for example ...
Talking Landscapes - The Fens
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074m1n
I lived on the levels for a while in the 1970s, which gains a better
appreciation of the area than someone visiting a girlfriend.
No doubt, but it doesn't seem to help you understand the 2014 weather
events and the subsequent flooding.
Fluvial flood protection is the same regardless of the specific
location.
Self-contradiction: Then why are you trying to claim your special local knowledge is any better than mine???!!!
The key feature is the success of a policy to maximise then
maintain a designed flow rate through and away.
You seem strangely unable to prove this assertion against the scientific opinion of experts in the field who may be presumed to have actually
done the sums.
Until you do some work with numbers, you won't really appreciate the
scale of the event.
I do understand the scale of the event. The input exceeded the output,
but the output wasn't what it was prior to 2005. That is why the
floodwater stayed for so long, and *that* is the issue you are ignoring.
I'm not ignoring it, but until you come up with some convincing
*EVIDENCE* in the form of numbers, I'm going to side with the opinions
of the scientific professionals in the field whom I presume have worked
out the numbers that you insist on ignoring.
"Controversy about the management of the drainage and flood protection >>>>> has previously involved the activities of IDBs.[34][35]
Those "[34][35]" references are about the situation in 2011, not
relevant to what would have been the position before 2005. Why rely on
quotes that are not relevant?
Because the arrangements in 2011 seem to have been in place since the
1990s, and therefore it doesn't appear to be a valid claim that the
drainage boards were handling things better, or indeed any differently,
in 2005.
But how long would it have taken to pump it away if the rivers had been
dredged, as opposed to the length of time it took in practice? You have >>> never shown any calculations concerning the capacity of the rivers with
and without dredging,
It does matter that the residents affected confirmed that the rivers
were much more silted up than they used to be. More silt means slower
drainage and therefore it would have cleared the floodwater more quickly
before the silt was allow to build up due to EA policy. It doesn't
matter how long exactly, it would have been less.
But, as you have been told repeatedly, UNTIL YOU DO THE SUMS you don't
know HOW MUCH difference this actually made! For all you know, it was
as little as just a few millimetres in terms of the highest flood level,
and a day or two in drainage time.
Others who have done the sums
suggest that dredging in the area is not a cost effective solution, so
if you want to claim differently, you must show your working.
yet still refuse to accept the scientific opinions
of the professional hydrologists who might be expected to have done such >>> calculations in support of their opinions.
The objective of queue management is improving service time not making
room for longer queues. My experience of the "experts" is that they
haven't bothered with the calculations because the Government Guidelines
now focus on storage so that is all the new recruits look at. That and
ecological benefits to the fauna and sod the inconvenience to the
residents.
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?
Quote from the former Bristol Avon Local Flood Defence Committee: "One >>>> suggestion put forward was to create a 1,000,000 cubic metre reservoir >>>> upstream of Bath, yet a simple calculation shows that at projected peak >>>> flow it will fill up in just 38 minutes, that is assuming it is empty!" >>>> Your 1.2 million cubic metres would buy just over 45 minutes of extraExactly, such a scheme can hold only a small fraction of the surplus
time in a flood scenario, assuming it was completely empty at the time. >>>
water.
I wasn't recommending it, I was quoting the people who understand flood
management criticising people who don't and propose ineffective ideas.
Well it was your own beloved drainage boards who had implemented it, so
why are you blaming the EA?
Dredging is extremely damaging ecologically and environmentally,
Dredging for depth of the primary channel is not damaging.
Nonsense! Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?
The
"dredging" that the EA are doing and which you keep bringing to my
attention does have the effects you mention.
You can't just build a channel ever deeper without risk of its banks collapsing, so you'd have cut back the sides as well.
I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion.
I note the bit you snipped, so I'll reinstate it: "Until you can produce convincing numbers"
Where are they???!!!
I gave away all my old bottles of malts when I had to give up drinking
for health reasons. Alas.
My younger daughter looked at my collection and suggested she took some
away because I'd kill myself if I drank them all. I said "No"
She'll get 'em eventually, regardless. Why can't she enjoy them now?
she doesn't like whisky!
On 07/02/2022 17:30, Java Jive wrote:
Equally you should not assume that the whole population is cleverer than
the scientific professionals who are paid to investigate these issues.
That doesn't justify your error of judgement.
And I have dealt with your
so-called "experts" and they are not using expertise, they are following
the Government Guidelines.
As I've already proven to you still quoted below, previously the local >>>> drainage boards had been similarly criticised for failing to prevent
flooding,
The local drainage boards lost the ability to make their own decisions
in 2005. Have you any evidence of such criticisms before that date?
On the contrary, the paragraph of the Wiki page previous to the one
already quoted begins ...
"Since 1990, the drainage boards have been charged with watching the
rhynes and keeping them clear, under the overall responsibility of the
Environment Agency."
... so where is your evidence that anything concerning the above
arrangement changed in 2005?
From a letter dated 19 October 2010 from the spokesman for the former
Bristol Avon Local Flood Defence Committee as an official complaint to
the head of Bath Council trying to trace who took the funding for the
river improvements that should have been ring-fenced for river maintenance: "The statement is therefore a gross misrepresentation of the efforts of BALFDC over the years to protect and enhance the flood defences of Bath,
and maligns a Committee no longer able to defend its reputation because
it was dissolved on 1 April 2005 under Government Legislation."
Note the last line. *1 April 2005* was when all local autonomy was
removed. That letter will be in the council archives if you want to
read it yourself.
I am familiar with the local geography. For one thing, it's very like >>>> East Anglia where I was brought up.
East Anglia is undulating, not flat (my mother lived there in the
1990s). Not a valid comparison.
Stop this clueless bullshitting and making things up as you go along!
This as bad as telling me I didn't know the shape of ditches I'd seen
footage of being excavated just hours previously, or invoking magic
frictional forces. The simple truth is that large areas of East Anglia
are completely flat. See, for example ...
Talking Landscapes - The Fens
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074m1n
That is an item about THE FENS. There is a lot more to East Anglia than
that, and you were not specific.
Also, The Levels are reclaimed land,
not peat bogs.
I lived on the levels for a while in the 1970s, which gains a better
appreciation of the area than someone visiting a girlfriend.
No doubt, but it doesn't seem to help you understand the 2014 weather
events and the subsequent flooding.
Fluvial flood protection is the same regardless of the specific
location.
Self-contradiction: Then why are you trying to claim your special local
knowledge is any better than mine???!!!
Because you were insisting I didn't know what I was talking about. You
call out other people who claim things you disagree with, but you don't
like the same thing done to you, do you?
The key feature is the success of a policy to maximise then
maintain a designed flow rate through and away.
You seem strangely unable to prove this assertion against the scientific
opinion of experts in the field who may be presumed to have actually
done the sums.
They don't do the sums though. I have had arguments about it with their expert officials.
Until you do some work with numbers, you won't really appreciate the
scale of the event.
I do understand the scale of the event. The input exceeded the output, >>> but the output wasn't what it was prior to 2005. That is why the
floodwater stayed for so long, and *that* is the issue you are ignoring.
I'm not ignoring it, but until you come up with some convincing
*EVIDENCE* in the form of numbers, I'm going to side with the opinions
of the scientific professionals in the field whom I presume have worked
out the numbers that you insist on ignoring.
They don't do the sums though! I have had arguments about it with them. Across a table at meetings!
"Controversy about the management of the drainage and flood
protection
has previously involved the activities of IDBs.[34][35]
Those "[34][35]" references are about the situation in 2011, not
relevant to what would have been the position before 2005. Why rely on >>> quotes that are not relevant?
Because the arrangements in 2011 seem to have been in place since the
1990s, and therefore it doesn't appear to be a valid claim that the
drainage boards were handling things better, or indeed any differently,
in 2005.
That is an assumption. I bet you can't prove it. The 1990s were a very different river management arrangement then. It all changed in 2005, on
the 1st April to be precise, and it wasn't an April Fool joke.
But how long would it have taken to pump it away if the rivers had been >>>> dredged, as opposed to the length of time it took in practice? You
have
never shown any calculations concerning the capacity of the rivers with >>>> and without dredging,
It does matter that the residents affected confirmed that the rivers
were much more silted up than they used to be. More silt means slower
drainage and therefore it would have cleared the floodwater more quickly >>> before the silt was allow to build up due to EA policy. It doesn't
matter how long exactly, it would have been less.
But, as you have been told repeatedly, UNTIL YOU DO THE SUMS you don't
know HOW MUCH difference this actually made! For all you know, it was
as little as just a few millimetres in terms of the highest flood level,
and a day or two in drainage time.
The news coverage at the time by the residents of the area described
that the silt had accumulated to such an extent that it reduced the
largest river to half its carrying capacity. It would have made *weeks*
of difference, bearing mind that the floods took 3 months to get away. Original clearance capacity divided by 2 is the sum.
Others who have done the sums
suggest that dredging in the area is not a cost effective solution, so
if you want to claim differently, you must show your working.
That is money, NOT floodwater clearance. You don't listen, do you?
yet still refuse to accept the scientific opinions
of the professional hydrologists who might be expected to have done
such
calculations in support of their opinions.
They DON'T do the sums on flow though, only on the cost. I have had arguments about it with their expert officials.
The objective of queue management is improving service time not making
room for longer queues. My experience of the "experts" is that they
haven't bothered with the calculations because the Government Guidelines >>> now focus on storage so that is all the new recruits look at. That and
ecological benefits to the fauna and sod the inconvenience to the
residents.
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?
I have had arguments about it with their expert officials at minuted meetings. It will no doubt be in the EA archives somewhere.
If you can't be bothered to find it, it doesn't make it untrue.
Quote from the former Bristol Avon Local Flood Defence Committee: "One >>>>> suggestion put forward was to create a 1,000,000 cubic metre reservoir >>>>> upstream of Bath, yet a simple calculation shows that at projected
peak
flow it will fill up in just 38 minutes, that is assuming it is
empty!"
Your 1.2 million cubic metres would buy just over 45 minutes of extra >>>>> time in a flood scenario, assuming it was completely empty at the
time.
Exactly, such a scheme can hold only a small fraction of the surplus
water.
I wasn't recommending it, I was quoting the people who understand flood
management criticising people who don't and propose ineffective ideas.
Well it was your own beloved drainage boards who had implemented it, so
why are you blaming the EA?
Because the EA disbanded that Board on 1 April 2005, stole their savings
for river maintenance and sold off their dredger. Keep up!
Dredging is extremely damaging ecologically and environmentally,
Dredging for depth of the primary channel is not damaging.
Nonsense! Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?
Where is YOUR *EVIDENCE* that it is nonsense?
The Bristol Avon Local Flood Defence Committee let a contract to Lewin,
Fryer and Partners who sub-contracted the investigation to Bristol
University Hydrolab in response to a joint B&NES/Environment Agency
argument that de-silting was unnecessary. The final report produced in
March 2003 proved conclusively that the effectiveness of the flood
prevention scheme depended on silt clearance. Go and find it if you
want evidence. I know it is true, and I don't have to prove it to you
just to prevent you carrying on in ignorance.
The
"dredging" that the EA are doing and which you keep bringing to my
attention does have the effects you mention.
You can't just build a channel ever deeper without risk of its banks
collapsing, so you'd have cut back the sides as well.
Who said "ever deeper"? It is sufficient to keep the bottom between the existing banks flat and at the depth it originally was. The idea is not
to prevent flooding, it is to clear the flooding efficiently. It used to
be done, and it no longer is, because money was made more important than
the livelihoods of the residents.
It is no good you inventing problems and then quoting imaginary
consequences.
I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion.
I note the bit you snipped, so I'll reinstate it: "Until you can produce
convincing numbers"
Where are they???!!!
Use your intelligence. X/2 is less than X, regardless of the value of X.
It doesn't need numbers. My point is about flow not finance.
That is why I snipped it. The fact that you felt the need to add it back suggests that the intelligence I credited you with is in fact lacking,
and you merely copy what someone else has said. How sad!
On 07/02/2022 22:31, Indy Jess John wrote:Man made ditches are U shaped if they are designed to be drains. It is
On 07/02/2022 17:30, Java Jive wrote:
That doesn't justify your error of judgement.
I haven't made an error of judgement, but you've made several; here's a
list of the errors and falsehoods you have claimed so far:
Shape of ditches
'Magic' frictional forcesFriction exists between liquids and solids; that is why when you stir a
East Anglia not flatNot all of East Anglia is fenland, and there are parts which are not
Timing of the drainage boards coming under EA control1 April 2005 is documented. It was a Statutory Instrument which removed
Scientific denialism concerning hydrologyYour ignorance, not mine
These are professionals repeating Government Guidelines.And I have dealt with your
so-called "experts" and they are not using expertise, they are following
the Government Guidelines.
They are professionals giving professional opinions.
Your not likingThe Bristol University Hydrolab in response to a joint B&NES/Environment
those opinions doesn't mean they are wrong
His name was Mark Willetts, he attended representing the EnvironmentYou seem strangely unable to prove this assertion against the scientific >>> opinion of experts in the field who may be presumed to have actually
done the sums.
They don't do the sums though. I have had arguments about it with their
expert officials.
Another claim looking suspiciously like it's been plucked out of the
air. Who? What were his/her qualifications? What was his/her
professional or political position?
On 08/02/2022 14:29, Java Jive wrote:
On 07/02/2022 22:31, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 07/02/2022 17:30, Java Jive wrote:
That doesn't justify your error of judgement.
I haven't made an error of judgement, but you've made several; here's a
list of the errors and falsehoods you have claimed so far:
Shape of ditches
Man made ditches are U shaped if they are designed to be drains. It is
the shape that holds the greatest volume but remains stable
'Magic' frictional forces
Friction exists between liquids and solids; that is why when you stir a
cup of tea it doesn't keep rotating indefinitely. Everybody sees the
same thing, so it isn't magic. The amount of friction depends on the
abutting surfaces, but it is never zero at any temperature above
absolute zero.
East Anglia not flat
Not all of East Anglia is fenland, and there are parts which are not
flat. Buy an OS map and look at the contour lines.
Timing of the drainage boards coming under EA control
1 April 2005 is documented. It was a Statutory Instrument which removed
the autonomy of ALL the drainage boards. It was a Statutory Instrument which amended Schedule 3 to the Land Drainage Act 1991 and it is on the gov.uk website if you really want to find it. I know the number, but I
am not going to do your research for you.
Scientific denialism concerning hydrology
Your ignorance, not mine
You seem strangely unable to prove this assertion against the
scientific
opinion of experts in the field who may be presumed to have actually
done the sums.
They don't do the sums though. I have had arguments about it with their >>> expert officials.
Another claim looking suspiciously like it's been plucked out of the
air. Who? What were his/her qualifications? What was his/her
professional or political position?
His name was Mark Willetts, he attended representing the Environment
Agency and he covered the Somerset area. I didn't get his business card
so I can't answer the rest of your "doubting Thomas" nosiness.
At that point I came to the conclusion that your knowledge is based
solely on what you have seen or read elsewhere and you have no PERSONAL understanding of what is relevant and what is not, so you always assume everybody who doesn't agree with your quotes is wrong. I can't see the
point in arguing with a parrot who is just going to say the same things
over again because you don't know what is right and what is wrong so you can't understand reality.
I will just add:
-Wikipedia is not God. I have previously registered for and obtained (in
July 2010 if you want to check) Wikipedia's authority to add or amend anything in Wikipedia, so in theory I can make articles say whatever I
want to change them to. I don't do that with anything that is not
established fact, but there are complaints in Wikipedia that things have
been altered, so not everybody is so honest.
-And I quote the definition of dredging from the US Waterways authority
(I looked at the UK version but they are only concerned with
applications for licences to dredge not the definition of it, so the US
one will have to do):
"Dredging is the removal of sediments and debris from the bottom of
lakes, rivers, harbors, and other water bodies. It is a routine
necessity in waterways around the world because sedimentation — the
natural process of sand and silt washing downstream - gradually fills channels and harbors."
Just note that it says "bottom" *not* "sides". Proper dredging is from a floating platform so that the sides are not disturbed. Your description
of dredging doesn't fit that description.
*GOODBYE PARROT*.
I have established that you are ignorant but will
reply despite that, and I will ignore your inevitable retort which will
be quotes of others untouched by your own thought processes.
So I am taking you up on your own offer:
"I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion."
The reply which I predicted to happen, no doubt parroting the things you
have read which prove your pre-conceived ideas, and which I have snipped unread, as I said I would.
I have met Obsessives before.
It doesn't bother me that you think that. I am happy that my work with
"BSc CEng MIET" is accurate.
I am not doing much tonight, so I am happy to waste your time typing
stuff I don't read.
I am not doing much tonight, so I am happy to waste your time typing
stuff I don't read.
Indy Jess John wrote:
I am not doing much tonight, so I am happy to waste your time typing
stuff I don't read.
Neither am I, so I'm happy to waste your time indulging your pathetic childishness.
Java Jive wrote:
Indy Jess John wrote:
I am not doing much tonight, so I am happy to waste your time typing
stuff I don't read.
Neither am I, so I'm happy to waste your time indulging your pathetic
childishness.
Do you ever sit back and consider how many bees, in how many bonnets you
get worked-up about, and whether all the repetition achieves anything?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 129:35:17 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,299 |
