Just wondering..

[Dario Greggio (in giro)]

James Newton wrote:

> We need perspective: Look at how many people have died (or will die) due to
> our dependence on fossile fuels then compare that to the actual number of
> people who died (or will die) from Chernobyl.

I love this one!
I agree completely.


--
Ciao, Dario
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David VanHorn-2]

> A (maybe minor) problem is the word 'we'. How long will *you* live to
> make sure nothing happens to the stuff? A few hundered years ago your
> nation did not even exist as anyhthing resembling the current USA.

Subject of the book "Deep Time", an interesting read.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Herbert Graf-2]

On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 19:46 +0100, Dario Greggio wrote:
> James Newton wrote:
>
> > We need perspective: Look at how many people have died (or will die) due to
> > our dependence on fossile fuels then compare that to the actual number of
> > people who died (or will die) from Chernobyl.
>
> I love this one!
> I agree completely.

Unfortunately this sort of "odd things to be concerned about" happens
with humanity over and over again.

People are terrified of dying on their next flight, yet driving to the
bank in your car is many times more dangerous.

People are obsessed with the possibility that their cell phone is
emitting RF, yet have no problem using their cordless phones and think
nothing of standing in front of their microwave ovens while it's pumping
1kW of RF into your food.

There are many more examples, but I don't think I should bore people any
further...

As I often say: people, in general, are dumb, or at the very least,
uninformed, and disturbingly aren't bothered by the fact they are
uninformed.

TTYL
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David VanHorn-2]

> People are obsessed with the possibility that their cell phone is
> emitting RF, yet have no problem using their cordless phones and think
> nothing of standing in front of their microwave ovens while it's pumping
> 1kW of RF into your food.

But worried about the magnetic field from their electric blanket.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Chris Smolinski]

>  > People are obsessed with the possibility that their cell phone is
>>  emitting RF, yet have no problem using their cordless phones and think
>>  nothing of standing in front of their microwave ovens while it's pumping
>>  1kW of RF into your food.
>
>But worried about the magnetic field from their electric blanket.

And convinced that magnetic bracelets can cure arthritis, as well as
soften water and improve gas mileage.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David VanHorn-2]

> And convinced that magnetic bracelets can cure arthritis, as well as
> soften water and improve gas mileage.

Right, as long as you don't put the magnets on the "wrong way".

:)
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Bob Axtell]

James Newton wrote:

> Wouter, I don't understand the difference between naturally occurring veins
> of radioactive ore being exposed by some natural or unnatural upheaval and
> that same sort of exposure happening to spent fuel rods.
>
> Shit happens. At least with Yukka Mt. we will know were it is and can react
> if there does happen to be a problem in the future. Mother nature could
> belch up a load of yellow cake in Utah or Arizona tomorrow and no one would
> even know it was dangerous. (where is your radiation detector?)
> http://www.mesauranium.com/s/Home.asp 
>
> We mine the ore out of the ground, refine it, use it, and then stress
> ourselves to death about putting it back? How exactly are we worse off than
> we were before we dug it up and purified it? Why not just dilute the heck
> out of it and spray it into the air? Or dump it in the ocean? Or, here is a
> radical idea, put it back where we got it from in the first place?
>
> My guess is that more people die from air pollution due to coal fired
> electrical generation plants every year than would die from radiation
> poisoning if we just chopped the fuel rods up really fine and fed it to the
> population along with the Mercury and PCB's in their fish sticks.
>
> And yes, I'm being purposely shocking and "over the top" but I'm hoping it
> makes the point: Radiation is but one of many hazards that we all live with.
> We have cut ourselves off from an alternative source of electricity that
> might well be much less hazardous in the long run because of an unjustified
> fear of that one type of hazard.
>
> We need perspective: Look at how many people have died (or will die) due to
> our dependence on fossile fuels then compare that to the actual number of
> people who died (or will die) from Chernobyl.
>
> I live and work downwind from an active nuke power plant. Odds are, I will
> die of a heart attack, cancer, stroke or auto accident.
> http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds_dying.jpg How much could another nuke
> plant reduce my odds of lung cancer?
>
> --
> James.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
> wouter van ooijen
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 23:49
> To: 'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'
> Subject: RE: [OT] Just wondering..
>
>  
>>> How can I change yours?
>>>      
>> Give a rational technical (not political or emotional)
>> argument about the risks of burying reprocessed nuclear waste
>> in geologically stable rock.
>>    
>
> Give me a good argument and I'll change mine :)
>
> Actually not 'a' good argument, but good arguments to refute all my
> doubts at fears.
>
> A problem with the 'geological stable' idea is the same as with stocks:
> results from the past are no guarantee for the future. When you see a
> coin turn heads up four times in a row I guess you will bet your life
> that it will be heads the fifth time, no?
>
> And another problem is that it geological stability is not enough. How
> about political/sociological stability? I am not sure the USA will be a
> peace-loving country (or even *one * country at all) in a few hundered
> years.
>
>  

It is unlikely that the USA will survive the present financial crisis
unscathed. It _certainly_ will be long gone
within 100 years.

Here is what I believe will happen shortly (within 25 years):

1. Mexico will become part of a North American Union, together with the
USA and (probably)
Canada and /or Honduras..

2. Gold will again circulate as the article of exchange, as paper money
systems will be replaced.

3. At least 4 major US cities will be destroyed by nuclear explosions,
killing millions of people.

4. Except for a few electric vehicles, automobiles will be powered by
coal gas  (carbon monoxide),
as coal will emerge as the energy source of choice. Oil will completely
go away as a source of fuel
(but will be used as lubricants).
 
5. Despite its obvious advantages, nuclear generation of electricity
will NOT return to common usage
because the power plants cannot be protected from terrorists.

--Bob Axtell

> Wouter van Ooijen
>
> -- -------------------------------------------
> Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
> consultancy, development, PICmicro products
> docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
>  
>  
>
>  

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

On Feb 26, 2008, at 12:48 AM, wouter van ooijen wrote:

>> How can I change yours?
>
> Give a rational technical (not political or emotional)
> argument about the risks of burying reprocessed nuclear waste
> in geologically stable rock.

Give me a good argument and I'll change mine :)

Actually not 'a' good argument, but good arguments to refute all my
doubts at fears.

A problem with the 'geological stable' idea is the same as with stocks:
results from the past are no guarantee for the future. When you see a
coin turn heads up four times in a row I guess you will bet your life
that it will be heads the fifth time, no?

And another problem is that it geological stability is not enough. How
about political/sociological stability? I am not sure the USA will be a
peace-loving country (or even *one * country at all) in a few hundered
years.

Wouter van Ooijen


Wow  #1 The U.S. is not peace loving now. #2 You bet your life every  
day that the area you live in is geologically stable.  You bet the  
neighbor is not going to go "postal".  If you drive, you bet the  
driver next to you will not die in their sleep in the next 10  
seconds.  The only difference with nuke stuff is that glimmering  
boogie men rise out of abandoned caves, turn your family into ketchup  
slobbering vampires and make geiger counters vibrate off the table.

CC

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu



--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David VanHorn-2]

> Wow  #1 The U.S. is not peace loving now. #2 You bet your life every
> day that the area you live in is geologically stable.  You bet the
> neighbor is not going to go "postal".  If you drive, you bet the
> driver next to you will not die in their sleep in the next 10
> seconds.  The only difference with nuke stuff is that glimmering
> boogie men rise out of abandoned caves, turn your family into ketchup
> slobbering vampires and make geiger counters vibrate off the table.

And Hot Frogs on the Loose!

http://www.frogsonice.com/froggy/songs/hot-frogs.shtml

A favorite singer of mine.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Wouter van Ooijen]

[now on a much lower level of seriousness]

 > Wow  #1 The U.S. is not peace loving now.

I agree, but that's beside this discussion.

>#2 You bet your life every  
> day that the area you live in is geologically stable.

True, but that's my life and my bet. I dpo't want *you* to bet with my
life, much less with my ofspring's life.

> You bet the neighbor is not going to go "postal".

No problem, they don't have guns :)

BTW: I am reading the novel, but I enjoy it less than the Tiffany
series.

> If you drive, you bet the driver next to you will not die
> in their sleep in the next 10 seconds.

I think that scentence needs rewording.

> The only difference with nuke stuff is that glimmering  
> boogie men rise out of abandoned caves, turn your family into
> ketchup slobbering vampires and make geiger counters vibrate off the
table.

Is this the piclist or Pratchett?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[sergio masci-2]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, James Newton wrote:

> Wouter, I don't understand the difference between naturally occurring veins
> of radioactive ore being exposed by some natural or unnatural upheaval and
> that same sort of exposure happening to spent fuel rods.
>
> Shit happens. At least with Yukka Mt. we will know were it is and can react
> if there does happen to be a problem in the future. Mother nature could
> belch up a load of yellow cake in Utah or Arizona tomorrow and no one would
> even know it was dangerous. (where is your radiation detector?)
> http://www.mesauranium.com/s/Home.asp 
>
> We mine the ore out of the ground, refine it, use it, and then stress
> ourselves to death about putting it back? How exactly are we worse off than
> we were before we dug it up and purified it? Why not just dilute the heck
> out of it and spray it into the air? Or dump it in the ocean? Or, here is a
> radical idea, put it back where we got it from in the first place?
>
> My guess is that more people die from air pollution due to coal fired
> electrical generation plants every year than would die from radiation
> poisoning if we just chopped the fuel rods up really fine and fed it to the
> population along with the Mercury and PCB's in their fish sticks.
>
> And yes, I'm being purposely shocking and "over the top" but I'm hoping it
> makes the point: Radiation is but one of many hazards that we all live with.
> We have cut ourselves off from an alternative source of electricity that
> might well be much less hazardous in the long run because of an unjustified
> fear of that one type of hazard.
>
> We need perspective: Look at how many people have died (or will die) due to
> our dependence on fossile fuels then compare that to the actual number of
> people who died (or will die) from Chernobyl.
>
> I live and work downwind from an active nuke power plant. Odds are, I will
> die of a heart attack, cancer, stroke or auto accident.
> http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds_dying.jpg How much could another nuke
> plant reduce my odds of lung cancer?
>

If you really stop and think about it, the reason people don't want
nuclear power plants has nothing to do with the danger of radition. It's
to do with trust. We don't trust the people in charge to do the right
thing by US.

We don't trust them to put OUR interests before THEIR own prockets, we
don't trust them to be competent at their own jobs and we certainly don't
trust them to keep us safe.

Regards
Sergio
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Byron Jeff]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:06:25PM -0500, Cedric Chang wrote:

>
> > On Feb 26, 2008, at 12:48 AM, wouter van ooijen wrote:
> >
> > >> How can I change yours?
> > >
> > > Give a rational technical (not political or emotional)
> > > argument about the risks of burying reprocessed nuclear waste
> > > in geologically stable rock.
> >
> > Give me a good argument and I'll change mine :)
> >
> > Actually not 'a' good argument, but good arguments to refute all my
> > doubts at fears.
> >
> > A problem with the 'geological stable' idea is the same as with stocks:
> > results from the past are no guarantee for the future. When you see a
> > coin turn heads up four times in a row I guess you will bet your life
> > that it will be heads the fifth time, no?
>

But rock formation stability is not stocks nor coin flips. The first is often
controlled by peoples emotions while the second are independantly random
events. When an area is nowhere near a fault line and the research shows
that it hasn't changed in 2 million years, there's no obvious reason to
think that conditions would change anytime soon.


> >
> > And another problem is that it geological stability is not enough. How
> > about political/sociological stability? I am not sure the USA will be a
> > peace-loving country (or even *one * country at all) in a few hundered
> > years.

The point is Wouter that radioactive material is on the surface. Anyone
with the inclination can mine it, refine it, and use it for nefarious
purposes. The whole point of Yucca Mountain is to bury the waste (which
because of reprocessing isn't suitable for weaponry anyway) deep enough
that it would be very difficult for anyone to access, even if they had a
desire to do so.

>
>
> Wow  #1 The U.S. is not peace loving now. #2 You bet your life every
> day that the area you live in is geologically stable.  You bet the
> neighbor is not going to go "postal".  If you drive, you bet the
> driver next to you will not die in their sleep in the next 10
> seconds.  The only difference with nuke stuff is that glimmering
> boogie men rise out of abandoned caves, turn your family into ketchup
> slobbering vampires and make geiger counters vibrate off the table.

Funny, but very true. There are many more risky behaviours that ordinary
folks engage in on a dialy basis. It's the same type of fear that many
people have of flying though from a safety standpoint it is unmatched in
the transportation industry. They happily hop into their cars when cars
cause 90+% of the travel fatalities per year.

Yucca Mountain is designed to add no more than 15 milliRems per year
exposure to the surrounding population for the first 10,000 years of use
according to http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/yucca/about.html and a dose of 350
milliRems per year for up to 1,000,000 years.

It's all about relative risk. If we wanted absolute risk freedom, then
there isn't one single place in the universe that you can free safe.

BAJ
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Eoin Ross]

Not where I commute in the US Wouter !! :D

How the heck people don't see a big SUV with its headlights on beside them - I don't know. I was going to get a motorbike and reduce my carbon footprint... but these morons make it more life threatening than sensible!

Back on topic...

I'm don't know what capacity the US has for renewable, storable generation (About the only type I know of is hydroelectric - maybe geothermal) ...
but to me it just plain makes sense to use all the renewables you can - wind, etc and only use the fossil fuel when necessary.

I can see this working in NZ due to smaller population, good geothermal and hydroelectric resources, and a decent amount of wind.

When we get down to it though - for every $1 spent on efficiency, you save about $4-5 in generation costs from all the information I've read.

Eoin.

(Trying to scrape enough money/time together to put in solar collectors on my house)

>>> wouter@... 26 Feb 08 16:46:29 >>>
[now on a much lower level of seriousness]<snip>

> If you drive, you bet the driver next to you will not die
> in their sleep in the next 10 seconds.

I think that scentence needs rewording.

<snip>

Wouter van Ooijen


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

> But rock formation stability is not stocks nor coin flips.
> The first is often
> controlled by peoples emotions while the second are
> independantly random
> events. When an area is nowhere near a fault line and the
> research shows
> that it hasn't changed in 2 million years, there's no
> obvious reason to
> think that conditions would change anytime soon.

Murphy does not do "obvious reason" well.


> that it would be very difficult for anyone to access, even
> if they had a
> desire to do so.

Person. Desire.
Mechanisms need not (and probably wont) be directly people
related. Which is not to conjure random bogey men but to
note probability.

> Funny, but very true. There are many more risky behaviours
> that ordinary
> folks engage in on a dialy basis. It's the same type of
> fear that many
> people have of flying though from a safety standpoint it
> is unmatched in
> the transportation industry. They happily hop into their
> cars when cars
> cause 90+% of the travel fatalities per year.

I am uncomfortable at a gut level with the 'flying is the
safest trip you can take' arguments.

At a minimum I think that trip distance is a poor metric.
I'm not even too happy with trip time.
I'd begin to think we were all eating apples if you talked
about fatalities per journey. That should compare favourably
enough with car travel, I'd hope. No?

I'm a resigned & realistic but happy enough flyer. I place
my life in the hands of people who are well paid and well
trained and who should be competent, but whose peers have
time after time after time demonstrated the ability to kill
people in the most stupid and thoughtless ways imaginable.

I stood in the connecting link to my last internal flight in
China on a cold morning after snow had been cleared from the
taxiways and carefully examined the wing that i could see
for ice. If I'd seen any I'd not have flown. Trouble due to
this is rare, but it happens.


        Russell




--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Xiaofan Chen]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 5:46 AM, wouter van ooijen <wouter@...> wrote:
> [now on a much lower level of seriousness]

But very well said.
>  > Wow  #1 The U.S. is not peace loving now.
>
> I agree, but that's beside this discussion.

It is hard to define what is peace loving. Some say that
war is a way to get peace. But anyway, this is beside the
discussion.

> >#2 You bet your life every
> > day that the area you live in is geologically stable.
>
> True, but that's my life and my bet. I dpo't want *you* to bet with my
> life, much less with my ofspring's life.

Well said.

> > You bet the neighbor is not going to go "postal".
>
> No problem, they don't have guns :)

And that is a big difference. That is one of the things in US
I will never understand.

Xiaofan
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

What is your favourite way to travel and how safe do you think it is ?

I can't think of a better metric than deaths per enjoyment mile .  
The lower the D/EM , the better.
enjoyment mile is one mile times an enjoyment factor.

I like to travel by skis, snowmobile, scooter, inflatable raft ( in  
river ) , bicycle.  Driving is fun in rural areas or city streets,  
boring and alarming in commuter traffic.   I hate commercial flying  
( boring ).

CC
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Herbert Graf-2]

On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 20:56 -0700, Cedric Chang wrote:

> What is your favourite way to travel and how safe do you think it is ?
>
> I can't think of a better metric than deaths per enjoyment mile .  
> The lower the D/EM , the better.
> enjoyment mile is one mile times an enjoyment factor.
>
> I like to travel by skis, snowmobile, scooter, inflatable raft ( in  
> river ) , bicycle.  Driving is fun in rural areas or city streets,  
> boring and alarming in commuter traffic.   I hate commercial flying  
> ( boring ).

Hehe, well there right there is a problem, everyone will have a
different "enjoyment factor". For me commercial flying is still fun!

TTYL
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[James Newtons Massmind]

I like trains.

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
Cedric Chang
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 19:57
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: [OT]: the EM Enjoyment mile

What is your favourite way to travel and how safe do you think it is ?

I can't think of a better metric than deaths per enjoyment mile .  
The lower the D/EM , the better.
enjoyment mile is one mile times an enjoyment factor.

I like to travel by skis, snowmobile, scooter, inflatable raft ( in  
river ) , bicycle.  Driving is fun in rural areas or city streets,  
boring and alarming in commuter traffic.   I hate commercial flying  
( boring ).

CC
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

>
> On Feb 26, 2008, at 5:02 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 5:46 AM, wouter van ooijen <wouter@...>  
> wrote:
>> [now on a much lower level of seriousness]
>
> But very well said.
>>> Wow  #1 The U.S. is not peace loving now.
>>
>> I agree, but that's beside this discussion.
>
> It is hard to define what is peace loving. Some say that
> war is a way to get peace. But anyway, this is beside the
> discussion.
>
>>> #2 You bet your life every
>>> day that the area you live in is geologically stable.
>>
>> True, but that's my life and my bet. I dpo't want *you* to bet  
>> with my
>> life, much less with my ofspring's life.

You bet my my life with your supposedly better energy sources which I  
say are inferior and more life threatening.  No emotions, just  
measurements. Your emotions versus my facts. You conjure bogeymen and  
I suffer for it. You bet my life by procreating.  More rats on the  
ship mean it is more likely to sink ( Julian Simon not-
withstanding ). I don't have an investment in nukes, or solar or coal  
or oil ( to name a few ).  I just look at the statistics and place my  
bet.  Someone who insists that a geo-stable area will explode  
tomorrow has no use for science.  I put my chips on the table based  
on science.  And by "science" , I do mean peer reviewed science ;  
free of pressure from jingo movies by Algore.  I don't think it makes  
sense to "just do something" if I don't have enough facts.  In the  
case of energy, I feel that there are plenty of facts.

> Well said.
>
>>> You bet the neighbor is not going to go "postal".
>>
>> No problem, they don't have guns :)

"Postal " has nothing to do with guns.  Guns are conveniences,  
nothing more.  "Postals" can kill with cars, bats, clubs, knives,  
taxes, jingoism, etc.
>
> And that is a big difference. That is one of the things in US
> I will never understand.

Not a big difference internally. Guns are used to kill very few  
people in the U.S.  More die in auto wrecks and medically shorten  
lives due to misapplied use of stolen funds.  Externally, U.S.  
imperialism wracks up big numbers via guns, sanctions, and real big  
guns ( bombs, etc. )  I personally used to like guns, used to like  
shooting at cans and squirrels.  I lost interest but I am happy to  
live in a neighborhood where I know the people who live to the north  
of me are "packing".  I know where to go if someone goes "postal" and  
attacks me.  I go north.
>
> Xiaofan
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
>
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

>
>> If you drive, you bet the driver next to you will not die
>> in their sleep in the next 10 seconds.
>
> I think that scentence needs rewording.
>
I am open to editing.... what do you suggest ?
"if you drive"   I wanted to qualify that you are not likely to die  
on the highway if you don't drive or ride.
" you are ..... next 10 seconds"  I was thinking back to my  
grandfather who died peacefully in his sleep,
not like the 40 screaming passengers he was driving a bus for.

>
> Wouter van Ooijen
>
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist



--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist