In Europe: The great CFL rip-off.

[ian field]

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7g7eloF2nbh5oU1@mid.individual.net...

"ian field was probed by an alien " <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com


One trick I've found works well with incanscents is to wire a NTC inrush
limiting thermistor in the switch plate, you have to take some care over
the rating - salvaged thermistors from a scrap monitor rated between 60 -
80W work well with a 100W bulb.


** Classic bullshit story.

The only increased in lifetime obtained is at the EXPENSE of light output
from the reduced running voltage.

Just use a resistor of 50 to 100 ohms an get even more life.

It's not my problem that you're too thick to know what a NTC thermistor
does.

 

[ian field]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
newsMadnU9t6rZpEAPXnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

terryc wrote:

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:26:32 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

you asinine autistic bitch.

I don't see the relevance of that.

I think he is trying to chat you up.


That's the same way he used to talk to his inflatable sheep.

Free range rubber chicken.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

ian field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
newsMadnU9t6rZpEAPXnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

terryc wrote:

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:26:32 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

you asinine autistic bitch.

I don't see the relevance of that.

I think he is trying to chat you up.


That's the same way he used to talk to his inflatable sheep.

Free range rubber chicken.

Not true. He kept them in rubber cages.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

ian field wrote:

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7g7eloF2nbh5oU1@mid.individual.net...

"ian field was probed by an alien " <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com


One trick I've found works well with incanscents is to wire a NTC inrush
limiting thermistor in the switch plate, you have to take some care over
the rating - salvaged thermistors from a scrap monitor rated between 60 -
80W work well with a 100W bulb.


** Classic bullshit story.

The only increased in lifetime obtained is at the EXPENSE of light output
from the reduced running voltage.

Just use a resistor of 50 to 100 ohms an get even more life.


It's not my problem that you're too thick to know what a NTC thermistor
does.

What do you expect? They aren't in broken toasters or ultra cheap
'60s Japanese stereos, so he hasn't got a clue.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"ian field" <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:f8vnm.73120$I35.56774@newsfe24.ams2...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7g63bdF2n9766U1@mid.individual.net...

"keithr" <keithr@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a9dd356$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
On 2/09/2009 2:43 AM, ian field wrote:
"keithr"<keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a9cf1b0$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
David L. Jones wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"ian field"<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:B%Vmm.26315$6W1.14456@newsfe05.ams2...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/08/31/euro-chiefs-dim-view-of-eco-bulbs-115875-21636908/
Talk about a storm in a teacup.

Exactly.

I now have them in every fitting that will take them.

Same here.

Having said all that, I agree that CFLs are far from perfect. LEDs,
when
they sort out the high power problems, should adress those
issues nicely.

Yep.
Until then I like my CFL's. Not perfect, but more than good enough
for me
to replace every light in my house with them.

Dave.

If you like them, fine, but for many lights, eg closets, bathrooms
etc,
they just aren't used enough to make any real savings.

They're not saving me much - my living room has 2 light fittings and
the
CFLs are so poor that I've had to fit both with 2 way adapters for a
total
of 4 CFLs to get adequate light over my desk.

One important point the greenie weenies failed to factor in, is a much
greater number of people leave at least one CFL on over night because
the
cost is less, I leave the kitchen on 24/7 and I know many people who
leave
the kitchen and stairway and/or the loo on overnight.


CFLs are an excellent example of tokenism. Governments pushing their use
love them because they can claim to be doing something for the
environment at zero cost.

**Not quite. I recall reading that domestic lighting in the UK accounts
for around 20% of electricity consumption. CFLs could make quite a dent
in that figure. Dunno what the figure in Australia, but it's probably not
far off. Having said all that, here are a bunch of random thoughts I've
had that could impact on power consumption more readily:

* Raise the cost of electricity. I mean REALLY raise the cost. Hit people
in the hip pocket and they will change their wasteful ways.
* Mandate that ALL air conditioners meet certain energy efficiency
targets.


That's a laugh! - they've banned the most efficient refrigerant.

**R410? Nope.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

"ian field was probed by an alien " <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com


One trick I've found works well with incanscents is to wire a NTC inrush
limiting thermistor in the switch plate, you have to take some care over
the rating - salvaged thermistors from a scrap monitor rated between
60 - 80W work well with a 100W bulb.


** Classic bullshit story.

The only increased in lifetime obtained is at the EXPENSE of light output
from the reduced running voltage.

Just use a resistor of 50 to 100 ohms an get even more life.


It's not my problem that you're too thick to know what a NTC thermistor
does.

** Yawnnnnnnnnn....

Ian is a obvious congenital mental defective.

IF he ever had an intelligent thought, that thought would die from
loneliness.



..... Phil

 

[F Murtz]

ian field wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7g63bdF2n9766U1@mid.individual.net...
"keithr" <keithr@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a9dd356$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
On 2/09/2009 2:43 AM, ian field wrote:
"keithr"<keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a9cf1b0$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
David L. Jones wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"ian field"<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:B%Vmm.26315$6W1.14456@newsfe05.ams2...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/08/31/euro-chiefs-dim-view-of-eco-bulbs-115875-21636908/
Talk about a storm in a teacup.
Exactly.

I now have them in every fitting that will take them.
Same here.

Having said all that, I agree that CFLs are far from perfect. LEDs,
when
they sort out the high power problems, should adress those
issues nicely.
Yep.
Until then I like my CFL's. Not perfect, but more than good enough for
me
to replace every light in my house with them.

Dave.

If you like them, fine, but for many lights, eg closets, bathrooms etc,
they just aren't used enough to make any real savings.
They're not saving me much - my living room has 2 light fittings and the
CFLs are so poor that I've had to fit both with 2 way adapters for a
total
of 4 CFLs to get adequate light over my desk.

One important point the greenie weenies failed to factor in, is a much
greater number of people leave at least one CFL on over night because
the
cost is less, I leave the kitchen on 24/7 and I know many people who
leave
the kitchen and stairway and/or the loo on overnight.


CFLs are an excellent example of tokenism. Governments pushing their use
love them because they can claim to be doing something for the
environment at zero cost.
**Not quite. I recall reading that domestic lighting in the UK accounts
for around 20% of electricity consumption. CFLs could make quite a dent in
that figure. Dunno what the figure in Australia, but it's probably not far
off. Having said all that, here are a bunch of random thoughts I've had
that could impact on power consumption more readily:

* Raise the cost of electricity. I mean REALLY raise the cost. Hit people
in the hip pocket and they will change their wasteful ways.
* Mandate that ALL air conditioners meet certain energy efficiency
targets.


That's a laugh! - they've banned the most efficient refrigerant.


Whats wrong with propane butane mix?

It is not banned (except in some places sort of banned in cars)

 

[ian field]

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7g861hF2o0dl7U1@mid.individual.net...

"ian field was probed by an alien " <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com


One trick I've found works well with incanscents is to wire a NTC
inrush limiting thermistor in the switch plate, you have to take some
care over the rating - salvaged thermistors from a scrap monitor rated
between 60 - 80W work well with a 100W bulb.


** Classic bullshit story.

The only increased in lifetime obtained is at the EXPENSE of light
output from the reduced running voltage.

Just use a resistor of 50 to 100 ohms an get even more life.


It's not my problem that you're too thick to know what a NTC thermistor
does.


** Yawnnnnnnnnn....

Ian is a obvious congenital mental defective.

IF he ever had an intelligent thought, that thought would die from
loneliness.



.... Phil

As usual, Filthy doesn't have an intelligent answer and so resorts to a
string of insults.

 

[Phil Allison]

"ian field was probed by an alien "

One trick I've found works well with incanscents is to wire a NTC
inrush limiting thermistor in the switch plate, you have to take some
care over the rating - salvaged thermistors from a scrap monitor rated
between 60 - 80W work well with a 100W bulb.


** Classic bullshit story.

The only increased in lifetime obtained is at the EXPENSE of light
output from the reduced running voltage.

Just use a resistor of 50 to 100 ohms an get even more life.


It's not my problem that you're too thick to know what a NTC thermistor
does.


** Yawnnnnnnnnn....

Ian is a obvious congenital mental defective.

IF he ever had an intelligent thought, that thought would die from
loneliness.


As usual, Filthy doesn't have an intelligent answer ...

** All you posted was is STUPID INSULT

- F U C K W I T !!

You got a very clever one back.

Yawnnnnnnnn...


..... Phil

 

[Ross Herbert]

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:36:42 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
wrote:


:SNIP... perhaps when the
:Government finally realised that we have to go nuclear?
:
:Sylvia.

And when the beginning-to-end cost of a nuclear power station is taken into
account, how do the economics look? After 8-10 years of construction and 50
years of service life, and then adding the cost of
de-commissioning/mothballing/coccooning and guarding the site (not to mention
the waste dumped from the plant) for another 250,000 years or so, going nuclear
doesn't add up to anything like being economical. Sure, in operation, nuclear
generated electricity is clean, efficient and cheap, but the problems (which are
never factored into the economics of nuclear) are going to cost the public for
hundreds of generations to come.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Ross Herbert wrote:

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:36:42 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address
wrote:


:SNIP... perhaps when the
:Government finally realised that we have to go nuclear?
:
:Sylvia.

And when the beginning-to-end cost of a nuclear power station is taken into
account, how do the economics look? After 8-10 years of construction and 50
years of service life, and then adding the cost of
de-commissioning/mothballing/coccooning and guarding the site (not to mention
the waste dumped from the plant) for another 250,000 years or so, going nuclear
doesn't add up to anything like being economical. Sure, in operation, nuclear
generated electricity is clean, efficient and cheap, but the problems (which are
never factored into the economics of nuclear) are going to cost the public for
hundreds of generations to come.

The downstream costs of decomissioning and storage of waste are
routinely factored in. They don't actually amount to much because of the
time cost of money, which also means that errors in their estimation
don't have a large impact either.

The total life costs of a nuclear plant design that's built repeatedly
(instead of the past practice of designing every plant afresh) comes out
somewhat higher than coal in Australia, but cheaper than anything else.

Sylvia.

 

[Ross Herbert]

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:27:34 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
wrote:

:Ross Herbert wrote:
:> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:36:42 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
:> wrote:
:>
:>
:> :SNIP... perhaps when the
:> :Government finally realised that we have to go nuclear?
:> :
:> :Sylvia.
:>
:> And when the beginning-to-end cost of a nuclear power station is taken into
:> account, how do the economics look? After 8-10 years of construction and 50
:> years of service life, and then adding the cost of
:> de-commissioning/mothballing/coccooning and guarding the site (not to mention
:> the waste dumped from the plant) for another 250,000 years or so, going
nuclear
:> doesn't add up to anything like being economical. Sure, in operation, nuclear
:> generated electricity is clean, efficient and cheap, but the problems (which
are
:> never factored into the economics of nuclear) are going to cost the public
for
:> hundreds of generations to come.
:
:The downstream costs of decomissioning and storage of waste are
:routinely factored in. They don't actually amount to much because of the
:time cost of money, which also means that errors in their estimation
:don't have a large impact either.

Since the economics of actually taking apart a decommissioned nuclear power
station are simply too great the entire site has to be cordoned off and
monitored to prevent anyone actually going in there - for thousands of years.
Now I doubt very much that any private organisation is going to contract to do
this job at less than say $100/hr, 24/7, 365 days a year for 250,000 years, and
that is effectively what is required. It can't simply be covered up and
forgotten about without incurring a monetary cost long after the last kW/hr of
electricity has been produced. Even at this charge it would cost $876,000 per
year - long after the use by date has expired, for no monetary return. Of
course, succeeding governments could just keep it fenced it off and forget about
the public safety aspect and take pot luck against a legal suit.

No matter what the actual ongoing cost, there must be a real cost, and this is
hidden and passed on to the public via general government taxes and charges but
is never spelled out in the budget costing at the beginning of a nuclear
project.

:
:The total life costs of a nuclear plant design that's built repeatedly
instead of the past practice of designing every plant afresh) comes out
:somewhat higher than coal in Australia, but cheaper than anything else.
:
:Sylvia.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:0059a4f2$0$22253$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

Ross Herbert wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:36:42 +1000, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address
wrote:


:SNIP... perhaps when the :Government finally realised that we have to go
nuclear?
:
:Sylvia.

And when the beginning-to-end cost of a nuclear power station is taken
into
account, how do the economics look? After 8-10 years of construction and
50
years of service life, and then adding the cost of
de-commissioning/mothballing/coccooning and guarding the site (not to
mention
the waste dumped from the plant) for another 250,000 years or so, going
nuclear
doesn't add up to anything like being economical. Sure, in operation,
nuclear
generated electricity is clean, efficient and cheap, but the problems
(which are
never factored into the economics of nuclear) are going to cost the
public for
hundreds of generations to come.

The downstream costs of decomissioning and storage of waste are routinely
factored in.

**Cite please. I read about a UK reactor's de-commissioning costs which
started out at 46 BILLION Pounds, but have blown out to 73 Billion and are
expected to rise still further. The Poms have a fair bit of experience with
nukes and they can't calculate accurate costs. How can anyone else?

They don't actually amount to much because of the

time cost of money, which also means that errors in their estimation don't
have a large impact either.

**73 BILLION Quid is a fair chunk of change.

The total life costs of a nuclear plant design that's built repeatedly
(instead of the past practice of designing every plant afresh) comes out
somewhat higher than coal in Australia, but cheaper than anything else.

**Bollocks. You've been told this before and you repeatedly ignore it.
Geothermal energy holds the most promise for Australia. It works, it's safe,
low impact (environmentally) and will be viable for several thousand years.
Uranium nukes have cheap fuel for about 100 more years. Then costs rise
substantially. Geothermal costs will not.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson is a LIAR "

**Cite please. I read about a UK reactor's de-commissioning costs which
started out at 46 BILLION Pounds, but have blown out to 73 Billion and are
expected to rise still further.

** Proves the TW lying charlatan get all his FALSE info from web forums.

Hint:

The real figures are in millions, not billions.




...... Phil

 

[David L. Jones]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:0059a4f2$0$22253$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Ross Herbert wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:36:42 +1000, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address
wrote:


SNIP... perhaps when the :Government finally realised that we have
to go nuclear? Sylvia.

And when the beginning-to-end cost of a nuclear power station is
taken into
account, how do the economics look? After 8-10 years of
construction and 50
years of service life, and then adding the cost of
de-commissioning/mothballing/coccooning and guarding the site (not
to mention
the waste dumped from the plant) for another 250,000 years or so,
going nuclear
doesn't add up to anything like being economical. Sure, in
operation, nuclear
generated electricity is clean, efficient and cheap, but the
problems (which are
never factored into the economics of nuclear) are going to cost the
public for
hundreds of generations to come.

The downstream costs of decomissioning and storage of waste are
routinely factored in.

**Cite please. I read about a UK reactor's de-commissioning costs
which started out at 46 BILLION Pounds, but have blown out to 73
Billion and are expected to rise still further. The Poms have a fair
bit of experience with nukes and they can't calculate accurate costs.
How can anyone else?

That figure seems to be for all reactor sites in the UK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
and there are the ongoing costs as well.
Not exactly a smart long term move, huh?

They don't actually amount to much because of the
time cost of money, which also means that errors in their estimation
don't have a large impact either.

**73 BILLION Quid is a fair chunk of change.

Buys'em those new Trident missles they are after, that's for sure...

The total life costs of a nuclear plant design that's built
repeatedly (instead of the past practice of designing every plant
afresh) comes out somewhat higher than coal in Australia, but
cheaper than anything else.

**Bollocks. You've been told this before and you repeatedly ignore it.
Geothermal energy holds the most promise for Australia. It works,
it's safe, low impact (environmentally) and will be viable for
several thousand years.

There is a huge potential in geothermal for this country. Shame about the
ridiculously small funding going into it.

Uranium nukes have cheap fuel for about 100
more years. Then costs rise substantially.

That's what most don't realise. They foolishly think nuke power is a cheap
energy source forever, and that the waste is the only issue. It's the oil
trap all over again, expect a similar peak curve over time. And you've got
to mine the ugly stuff too, yuck. Oh, and those mine trucks need oil to move
all that rock - better switch to electric powered trucks... :->

Dave.

--
================================================
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com

 

[David L. Jones]

KR wrote:

On Sep 4, 3:43 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
"Trevor Wilson is a LIAR "

**Cite please. I read about a UK reactor's de-commissioning costs
which started out at 46 BILLION Pounds, but have blown out to 73
Billion and are expected to rise still further.

** Proves the TW lying charlatan get all his FALSE info from web
forums.

Hint:

The real figures are in millions, not billions.

..... Phil



That is typical of Trev. Plenty of bull, ignorance.

No, his figure is correct.
To de-commission all the current nuclear reactors in the UK will cost at
least $80B according to their official body:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4859980.stm
With 24 plants at present so that's over $3B per plant, at least. Hardly
chump change.
You have figures that prove otherwise?

And he's also right about people not being able to calculate the true cost,
it seems under-estimation is the rule rather than the exception when it
comes to nuclear de-commissioning.

Dave.

--
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com

 

[David L. Jones]

David L. Jones wrote:

KR wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:43 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
"Trevor Wilson is a LIAR "

**Cite please. I read about a UK reactor's de-commissioning costs
which started out at 46 BILLION Pounds, but have blown out to 73
Billion and are expected to rise still further.

** Proves the TW lying charlatan get all his FALSE info from web
forums.

Hint:

The real figures are in millions, not billions.

..... Phil



That is typical of Trev. Plenty of bull, ignorance.

No, his figure is correct.
To de-commission all the current nuclear reactors in the UK will cost
at least $80B according to their official body:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4859980.stm
With 24 plants at present so that's over $3B per plant, at least.
Hardly chump change.
You have figures that prove otherwise?

And he's also right about people not being able to calculate the true
cost, it seems under-estimation is the rule rather than the exception
when it comes to nuclear de-commissioning.

I love it how they quibbled over the $58M to set up the authority (NDA) to
oversee the clean-up!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/labour-under-fire-over-acircpound58m-setup-cost-of-nda-527321.html

And for those that doubt the figure is billions and not millions:
http://www.nda.gov.uk/stakeholders/newsletter/decom-costs.cfm
and that was the estimate in 2006
That is apparently for 20 sites on their clean-up list.

Dave.

--
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"KR" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:353339f4-7e88-43ee-99c0-192cd7df9159@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 3:43 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"Trevor Wilson is a LIAR "

**Cite please. I read about a UK reactor's de-commissioning costs which
started out at 46 BILLION Pounds, but have blown out to 73 Billion and
are
expected to rise still further.

** Proves the TW lying charlatan get all his FALSE info from web forums.

Hint:

The real figures are in millions, not billions.

..... Phil

That is typical of Trev. Plenty of bull, ignorance.

Believing in the man made "carbon pollution" scam proves his lunacy

**It's not my "belief". It the fucking science, you idiot. I suggest you
read the IPCC reports (in full) and get back to us. Before you do, see if
you can acquire a decent education in science. Without it, you will just
suck up the bullshit srpouted by religious nutters, like: George W Bush,
John Howard, Tony Abbott and all those other scientific illiterates. Proper
scientists are in no doubt. Religious zealots and fossil fuel apologists are
the only doubters.

However, here's some facts for you to digest:

* We know, beyond any doubt, that CO2 works as a 'greenhouse gas'. More CO2
= more greenhouse effect.
* CO2 levels and temperatures are closely linked and have been observed (via
proxy data acquisition) to be so for at least the last 600,000 years. IOW:
When CO2 levels rise, temperatures rise. When temperatures rise, so do CO2
levels.
* We are presently witnessing CO2 level rise which is occuring at a faster
rate than at any time in the last 600,000 years.
* We are presently witnessing a temperature rise which is occuring at a
faster rate than at any time in the last 600,000 years.
* Glaciers in places like Greenland are moving around 4 times faster than
they were 40 years ago.
* Sea level rise has accelerated from 1.8mm/PA to around 3.0mm/PA.

Have fun explaining away the data with your religious beliefs.

Go study some science and leave the adults to the real discussion.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

"David L. Jones is another LAIR "

KR wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:43 pm, "Phil Allison"
"Trevor Wilson is a LIAR "

**Cite please. I read about a UK reactor's de-commissioning costs
which started out at 46 BILLION Pounds, but have blown out to 73
Billion and are expected to rise still further.

** Proves the TW lying charlatan get all his FALSE info from web
forums.

Hint:

The real figures are in millions, not billions.


That is typical of Trev. Plenty of bull, ignorance.

No, his figure is correct.

** Like FUCKING HELL it is.

To de-commission all the current nuclear reactors in the UK will cost

** LEARN TO READ YOU FUCKING MORON !!!!!!!!!!!

" I read about a UK reactor's... "

One reactor !!!!!!!!!

FUCK HEAD !!!!!!!!!!!!





....... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson is a FUCKING LIAR "

That is typical of Trev. Plenty of bull, ignorance.

Believing in the man made "carbon pollution" scam proves his lunacy

**It's not my "belief".

** The TW charlatan is a mental defective.

But that is no excuse in law for his many CRIMES.

It the fucking science, you idiot.

** TW would not recognise real " science " if it BIT him on the end of his
tiny dick.

Wilson is a NOTORIOUS CRIMINAL LIAR.

The DIRECT BLOODY OPPOSITE of any of his demented claims is far more
likely to be true.





..... Phil