Terry Woods said:
marksji...
you suggested that an investor could get more ROI from a CD.
I checked the ROI on CDs... The 5-Year, High-Yield CDs are paying 5.X%... max!
Actually what I said is that
IF the ROI is lower than that of a CD then
WHY should someone invest in the company? I made no comment about CD's beating 10%! What I did say was that 10% was not a very good ROI for something as risky as a business venture.
Terry Woods said:
But, I ask you this... if, on a quarterly basis, a company pays all of its' debts, including operating overhead (CODB)... and ends up with a profit of 0%... what immediate harm is there to the company?
There is NO immediate harm to the company. At the very least, the company is surviving!
True, there is no
immediate (or long term) harm to the company... so long as the investors don't demand their money back. My point is this: Lets say I decide to start a company and I determine that I'll need $10,000 to get everything setup (buy equipment, pay lawyers for the paperwork to do the setup, have operating capital, etc). Let's say I take $10,000 out of my own bank account and fund the company. Now lets say that from that $10,000 I receive a 0% return on investment because the company made no money. OK, for the first year sure, first two years maybe, after that??? At some point I've got to stop and say gee, $10,000 in a CD at 4% would have netted me $400 the first year... $10,400 the next year in a 4% CD would have netted me $416... Every company has someone's money invested in it; if there is no profit then there is no reason for that person or persons to keep their money invested in the company.
Terry Woods said:
Now, regarding your remark about Hydrogen being safer than we think...
First... Hydrogen is harmless only if the local concentration of Hydrogen is a lot lower than X-Moles per cubic-meter or something like that relative to the local concentration of Oxygen...
True, very true, I won't argue that point. Gasoline is the same, as is propane, butane, etc... we are not afraid of these gasses, so why hydrogen?
Terry Woods said:
Second... the Hindenburg.
Ahh, the classic example from the mis-informed public... The primary problem with the Hindenburg was
NOT the hydrogen though that was not understood until many years after the accident. Did some of the hydrogen burn? Yes, but most of it escaped harmlessly to atmosphere without ever burning. The primary fuel source was actually the coating used on the blimp material to contain the hydrogen inside the blimp. If you look it up you'll find this material is roughly the same material used in solid rocket boosters and burns rather nicely.
Terry Woods said:
Them marksji said...
"...the US Navy dumps their reactor waste at sea, but only in ultra-deep places. Don't know if its true or not, but it does make a certain amount of sense..."
So... do you have any idea what radiation destroys first when it comes to living matter? The first thing to go is DNA. After that, if the critter is still around, the cells go... then the organs, then the critter.
...
Nuclear waste is a VERY long-term, and SEVERELY consequential, by-product.
...
However, that is no excuse to do things that would prevent your grand-child from doing the same! After all... ain't nobody gonna live as long as they would like to!
First off I said I've been told, but do not know the validity of the statement, that the US Navy dumps its waste overboard.
Second I said it makes a certain amount of sense, not that it made absolute sense and that's what we should do. Which would you rater have? Emissions from coal power plants or nuclear waste? I'd pick nuclear waste every time as I know how to contain it for the long term (though expensive) and I have no idea how to contain the toxic waste from the coal plant.
I'll also point out that all DNA undergoes constant DNA mutations human or otherwise; its just part of how the world works. Radiation (sun, RF, nuclear waste) all cause this process to speed up.
Before you start to lecture about your kids and their kids and leaving a good world and all that remember that every light bulb you have on creates toxic waste, every time you drive a mile you create toxic waste, every product you've ever purchased that came in a plastic container created toxic waste...
We have lots of problems with waste, we have no solutions that eliminate the problems, we have some solutions that reduce the rate at which we create waste, we have some solutions that allow us to exchange one type of waste for another, but we don't have a consensus on what types of waste we want to deal with or in what quantities of each type we want to deal with so we keep using technology and ideas that are 100+ years old because they are already in use and no one is willing to change... This last part seems absurd to me.