Nucular Iran?

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I have another hobby - ancient history.

It is amazing how Alexander the great conqured so many cities and kingdoms in a short time and left basically the same bueracrats and governing systems in place in each place.
He usually only replaced only one thing - the judicail system - with a variant on the Greek democracy.

And he was loved by all for it.

The Romans used the same type of principle 300-700 years later with great effect. They never tried to introduce their own religion - but built new temples for whatever existed when they arrived - so the stopped guerilla wars etc by not squashing the existing society and power structures.

I heard a military police person (UK I think) interviewed about the mess in Iraq. He asid they should have rebuilt the police force with a balance of the population that they were policing - more Kurdish cops in the police forces in the North, and more Sunnis in the South. But no - they replaced all Saddam''s men - and guess what? They have a battle like Vietnam and Ireland that can not ever be won.

Why must we repeat the same stoopidity over and over thru history when there are common sense examples of how to do it properly?

 

[Mr Majestyk]

I wonder how they managed to cascade all those Dyson Vacuum Cleaners. I didn''t know you could enrich uranium through their patented cyclonic action.

 

[perry]

Mr Majestyk

I wonder how they managed to cascade all those Dyson Vacuum Cleaners. I didn''t know you could enrich uranium through their patented cyclonic action.


Just be glad that it is not that simple. Uranium hexafloride is a highly corrosive gas and your vacuum cleaner would not last long.

The cyclonic action is not nearly high enough either for effetive enrichment.

The theory behind centrifugal isotopic separation dates to the very early 1900''s (1919?). In WW II during the Manhatten project the US tried to make it work for uranium and abandoned the efforts becasue they had gotten gas diffusion to work much better and much faster.

Centrifugal uranium enrichment was not perfected until well after WW II, and the current models use about 1/10 the energy of gas diffiusion - which is why the US is building a replacement centrifigual enrichment plant for the existing gas diffusion plant.

Note however that these are huge plants. Iran is taking about building 54000 centrifuges. Each one of those will be a machine about 1 meter wide by 2.5 meters long, and connected by piping and each machine wired to power a motor and sensors.

How many of these machines are required to enrich the fuel for a 1000 MW reactor. It depends on how efficient the centrifuges are. Yes, for the modest efficent centrifuges it could take about that many (50,000 + 10% spare for maintenance). But less for higher efficient centrifuges. I note that the same number of centrifuges could also produce enough weapons grade enriched uranium to fabricate about 30 bombs a year (27-36 depending on bomb design).

The Iranian people, their engineers, their scientest (and many other countries) are highly intellegent. I suspect that they will be building and using the more advanced - more efficient centrifuges which indicates a substanintial excess capacity for power plant fuel. What is that capacity for? Why on earth spend the kind of money it takes to build a fuel fabrication plant for 1 reactor with a second potentially on the drawing board (to put things into perspective, the US is planning to build 2 new enrichment plants to supply 103 existing reactors and have the potential for several dozen more - now these plants will have a lot more centrifuges than 54,000 - but a lot of the cost of building a plant is somewhat independent of the number of centrifuges you add. I also note that these plants are under IEAE jurisdiction and will be licensed to enrich only up to 10%). The only reasonable explaination - from several perspectives on this - is that the plant is really their for weapon production as you can easily hide a few bomb''s per year production in such a plant - especially since Iran is not letting inspectors into the plants.

All the world is likely to do is watch: If the UN worked the way it should - and if the NPT treaty was enforced the way it should be - Iran would have all international trade suspended, all international accounts frozen, all international air or ship travel stopped; and any country who violated those restrictions would face the same restrictions. They could chose to live in isolation - or they could chose to honor the treaty they signed and ratified and have all of those sanctions lifted. That is how UN enforcement of treaties was susposed to work (before force was authorized). Unfortunately, the nations of the world have never been willing to do that.

Those that count on Isreal are also in for a surprise. Iran learned the lessons of the Iraq raid very well. I''ll bet there will be 5 to 10 enrichment plants - not just one. No single isolated airstrike will be able to do much damage.

I do not always agree with the treaties of the world. But I do believe that a nation should be held accountable for the ones that they have signed and ratified (including the US). Most of these treaties actually have exit clauses. It is very rare for a country to announce that they are going to exit a treaty - within the clauses of the treaty.

I also believe that many treaties should be up for periodic review. Should the US and Russia be bound by treaties made for the cold war; or should they be abandoned or renegotiated based on the changed world.


Have a nice day.

Perry

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Yes, actually I knew that the Dysons wouldn''t work.

I am sure the Iranians are after enriched uranium sufficient for a bomb, and will probably seek to process spent nuclear fuel into plutonium as the N Koreans have done, or are doing now.

It is indeed a frightening prospect, and I see no ready solution. Sanctions have never been successful; there is always a way around them.

 

[sunkist]

**Can I please do a little off-topic insert in here? This is a very serious topic and I don''t want to distract you too much. But the correct spelling is NUCLEAR! That is the exact pronunciation too. It is not "nucular". And I''m not pointing this at Mr.Majestyk

, there''s a lot of people that make this mistake

It''s just a small pet-peeve. But, saying the word correctly makes you sound more intelligent!

**

Thanks!

 

[perry]

Sunkist:

I understand that some people are driven crazy by mispellings. I freely admit that I am not the best speller. I do my best. These forums do not have spell check - give some of us a break (and spell check has its limitations). In addition some people are time limited; and it takes time to write a good response - and I often do not have the time to go over it in detail to check spelling - if I''d even recognize it - punctuation - or sentance structure. Of course, I''m not the best at punctuation or sentance structure either.

As far as pronunciation goes... Hmmm.... I work in a nuclear power plant. Off hand - I''d say about half of the plant workers pronounce it Nu-Clear; and the other half Nuc-u-lar. That includes us engineers as well. No one at the plant pays attention to the different pronuciations (or at least I''ve never heard anyone make a point of it).

Of course, up here we have bubblers to drink from (the water fountain is down in the park or in the city square), drink "pop" and not soda or tonic, and other things.

On the other hand - these forums - and working at a nuclear plant are about communication. Trust me - we have very exacting standards on communication in a nuclear power plant. While we are encouraged to spell check things to look more professional - we are also told that it is more important to communicate the subject in a timely manner or method; and our principal reporting method for problems or issues is a written Corrective Action Process - and we get all kinds of people writting CAP''s on all kinds of things. Off hand, I''d say the people on the forum do a generally good job. No worse than what we actually see in a nuclear power plant.

For formal communications - of course we have people who are good at spelling and grammer review things and suggest changes to the author of the document (but note that those are suggestions: even the NRC would rather see the correct point made than a gramatically correct sentance that is not exactly clear).

For example, the characterization of specific criteria presents extremely interesting challenges to the philosphy of commonality and standardization. Thus, a large portion of the interface coordination communications necessitates that urgent consideration be applied to the evolution of specifications over a given time period. On the other hand, the incorporation of additional mission constraints adds overriding performance constaints to any descrete configuration mode. Similarly, a constant flow of effective information must utilize and be functionally interwoven with the total system rationale.

Overall. I have no problem with your pointing out correct spellings in certain cases - it helps keep us on track. I''d rather hope that you wound not get wound up about it though. My perspective is that there are a lot more impotant things out there to worry about; or to just have fun with.

Also, feel free to let us know what you think on the subject.

Perry

 

[perry]

I am sure the Iranians are after enriched uranium sufficient for a bomb, and will probably seek to process spent nuclear fuel into plutonium as the N Koreans have done, or are doing now.

I''d not be so sure of that. Reprocessing of reactor fuel is a highly dangerous occupation that produces massive quantities of extreemly hazardous liquid waste.

Enriched uranium can be safely handled with minor safety precautions (dress out in a cotton clean suit and wear normal gloves) as the radiation level from decay is rather low. You could actually sleep with it under your bed for a while and not have much happen.

I''m not sure how long it takes used reactor fuel to decay to the point of relative safety for handling. Fresh out of a reactor it would kill you before you can get close enough to even touch it (your body will hang arround for a bit - but you will be dead). Perhaps 20 years for relative safety - and then you get modest does with an hours exposure working within a few feet of it in a shielded container (I base this on the dry cask loading project that we have going on).

If a nation has a ready source of uranium ore - and it is likely that Iran does (Uranium is fairly common) then it is so much cleaner to just enrich uranium. No major radiaton headaches. No major waste headaches.

My understanding is that South Africa built its bombs that way (since dismantled); and that Argintena and Brazil were basing their shut down bomb production lines on enrichment.

There is also the fact that it is much easier to construct a bomb and make it work with U235 than with Plutonium. U235 is not quite as efficient, but it is an easier device to build. During the early stages of the Manhatten Project in WW II. A college professor and two physics graduate student worked out a workable design for a Uranium bomb in about 3 months flat (without knowing what is known today) at their college campus. The US never even tested the design. They just built it and dropped it once they had the material (the "Little Boy" bomb). The plutonium bomb took many years of research and experiments - and they had to test it to be sure it would work (the Trinity Test). Then they dropped it (the "Fat Man" bomb). Give me sufficient U235 enriched to the right level - and I (and about a million or two other people) couild build a workable bomb with less effort that it would take to buid an automobile engine. Making the plutonium bomb work ... would still be a modest research project (even with all that is now know and in the public domain).


It is indeed a frightening prospect, and I see no ready solution. Sanctions have never been successful; there is always a way around them.


Agreed.



Perry

 

[sunkist]

Perry,
I thank you for your understanding about my little insanity on this small topic. I too have my own mispellings and mistakes I make too, this is easily forgivable, especially on internet forums where we don't spell check. But being such a high profile word these days, I think it is important to at least know the correct spelling and pronunciation of the word. I admit, at my first post I had not read the post where Majestyk stated he did it on purpose, to mimic GWB. I guess this has struck a chord with Majestyk to some extent as well and somewhat proves my point? The thing is, nuclear weapons have been in the news a lot and I hear numerous people and politicians, many of whom I respect, mispronouncing and misspelling this word. Just because intelligent people mispronouce a word doesn't mean it is correct.

Anyways, I was just throwing that out there to add to the knowledge, since I assume that is why we are here. Or else it's just cause we're bored...

 

[rainbowtrout]

perry, you seem to be very knowledgeble about this and I have a question--

my mum does some work on the side for DC think tanks, and she was telling me that most of this is just posturing, since Iran is 5-6 years away from being able to make their own bombs, and that buying them is a bigger short-term threat.


ETA: so the question is, is that true and what do you think?

 

[perry]

Good Question Rainbow: How much is posturing? Can they buy a bomb?

I''ll answer the second one first: Buying a bomb.

There are of course roumers about missing atom bombs from the Soviet arsenal. If so - where have they likely gone - and could they be used. Could they have been - or will be - sold on the "black market" ?

There is also an assortment of missing atom bombs from mishaps and accedental losses.

There are a whole range of atomic weapons that have been produced at one time from literally ones that could be carried in a large backpack to the multi-megaton super bombs ment to destroy even the largest of cities.

The small portable bombs have very limited yield - and certain conventional bombs would pack as much or more power than those warheads (a large truckbomb for example).

Russia claims that they have accounted for all atomic bombs produced, and the claims of missing ones seem to center most often on the small portable "backpack" nukes.

However, one of the design issues with the "backpack" or other small nukes is that they need to be maintained periodically in order to remain functional. I do not know for sure what the time limit is - and can only speculate based on what the design issue probably is and how it was probably solved. I feel that it would be unlikely that a 10 year old backpack nuke would still be functionable (although I admit that my speculation may be wrong). Keep in mind that you are assembling a weapon at the limits of what can be done of minimum weight - and it doesn''t take much to change and it wont work. There is no room to add extra material or other materials.

I have heard no claims that the much larger nuclear warheads have gone missing. Most of the claims of the missing small nukes are 10 - 20 years old. Thus, I don''t think there is a problem from these.

Now Sadam, Quadafy, and others would probably have purchased one back then if they could have. Yet, it appears that they did not do so. I suspect because their really was not one for sale.

Is any current weapon state willing to sell a bomb? I suspose that theoretically N Korea may sell one of theirs - as they have sold every other weapon system they ever developed or produced. But, no one has any evidence that N Korea has done so - and they could only have a very limited number of weapons at this stage. You need a surplus in order to sell. I can''t immagine any other country being willing to sell. N Korea may have another problem though. They are producing their bombs from plutonium from reprocessing of reactor fuel. Working within the NPT and with IEAE support they constructed research reactors, from which they could get irradated fuel from to reprocess and separate the Plutonium. Here is a question... Does the N Korea bomb actually work? Probably - but would you buy a plutionium based bomb from someone who has not proven that they know how to build them?

Countries with plutonium based weapons are known to have tested them. N Korea has not (or maybe they did and it didn''t work). Isreal/S. Africa did conduct bomb test of small bombs [Isreal bombs are predominently plutonium based, S. Africa were Uranium based] - the VELA satilte report was real and very credible, and there was other supporting evidence: President Carter asked a very specific question for his "special commission" something along the line of "Was it even remotely possible that the VELA report was in error" and the commission could not consider any other data. Of course, everything has a possiblity of being in error - however remotely. Weapons scientest who are aware of all the data can prove to you that a test occured. It would have been very politically embarising for that to have come out - so the commission was in effect chartered in such a way so that it would demonstrate that the report might be in error - and thus the US would not have to respond.

The missing warheads from military mishaps and accidents were not recovered either dispite massive efforts by the military or because they are really - really deep in the ocean (like multiple miles down). I think we would know if someone successfully mounted a major deep sea search in one of the ocean treanches where these weapons are known to be lost in (I am sure that both the US and other''s watch for anyone working in these areas). Other weapons in shallower waters were either recovered or could not be located (for example - there is one that is lost in an area of very thick muck/clay bottom ocean - its probably 50 - 100 ft down there, somewhere: locating a needle in a haystack is easier - and the military tried very hard to find it). Again, I think the US and others watch for "search" activities in areas where atom bombs from various countries have gone missing.

Thus, I doubt that Iran will be able to purchase a nuke.


Now onto the first question: How far away is Iran from having the capability to produce a bomb.

Actually, there is almost certainly some posturing going on.

Iran has claimed that it has operated a cascade of centrifuges and produced reactor grade enriched uranium (about 3.5% enrichment. Natural uranium is 0.7% enrichement, Weapons grade is normally reported at 94% or higher enrichment).

This is almost certainly posturing. Experts ranging from Russia to the US (and countries in between) have all said: "we don''t believe it"

Iran has not allowed IEAE inspectors to watch - and have not handed over a sample of enriched Uranium Hexafloride for testing. They just claim they have done so.

The experts seem to feel that Iran did not have enough time from when they broke the seals on their 176 centrifuges - and the known design of those centrifuges (P-1) - and where Iran was in their working understanding of the cascading factors to have been able to solve the problems they would have and produce the 3.5% enrichment by now.

Iran has also said that it has been working on a better - more efficeint designed centrifuge (the P-2). If that is indeed the case, and they had those elsewhere (which is considered possble) - then it is possible for them to have achived the 3.5% enrichment - even with some problems.

So have they - or have they not. My guess is that they have not - and are claiming they have for political purposes. I.e. Posturing.

How far are they from being able to produce a bomb?

Of the desing centrifuge that Iran publicly has displayed to the IEAE - Iran would need about 1500 centrifuges operating for 1 year to produce enough material for one bomb. We know they have 176.

If they have operating P-2 centrifuges - those numbers go down substaintially. Perhaps 900 centrifuges to produce enough material for a bomb in one year.

So there are two problems:

1) How fast can Iran learn the cascading production factors to make the machines work well together?

2) How fast can Iran build centrifuges?


For question 1 - learning the cascading factors and the ins and outs of making the machines work well together and the entire process work efficiently. While the experts world wide don''t belive that Iran reached 3.5% in the time given - it also seems that they feel that it would only plausably have taken a few more months to do so. Thus, I guess that withing 6 months to 1 year - maximum Iran could master how to make a centrifug plant work well.

In the second case - how fast can they build cetrifuges. Nothing unusual here. Standard maching of parts and pieces in normal comercial facilities once you have a working set of drawings for the machine. Standard motor building technology (motors will run on 400 to 600 HZ for speed - but nothing unusual about how to do that - navigation equipment on ships and airplanes ran at 400 Hz for many decades).

My guess is that Iran could probably build 10 - 20,000 centrifuges a year withing their existing commercial production facilities without causing a noticable affect on the production of other goods within Iran.

So if Iran has started mass production of the centrifuges - and is building plants (normal commercial buildings) - they could have their 54,000 centrifuges within 3 years - and could have 1500 within a few months (and if they were willing to affect normal commercial production - they could probably do it in a year).

So my estimate is as follows - if Iran is mooving full speed ahead at a good steady pace: In 6 months they would have learned how to effectively run a cascade process and will have a 1500 - 3000 centrifuge plant ready to start operations. A year after that they will have at least sufficient material for at least one bomb if that is what they want (and perhaps sevearl as more machines come on line). The bomb design is probalby already done. Throw in a few delays for political reasons and statments - and they could easily have a bomb in less than 2 years.

On the other hand - if they take a more leasurely pace: 5 - 6 years is more likely.

The unknown here: how fast are they going to build their centrifuges. Perhaps they intend to wait until they have perfected a working P-2 design machine. Perhaps they have already perfected a P-2 design.

Perry

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Yes, I know it is "nuclear" not "nucular." I just figured if GWB can say "nucular" so can I. After all, he got to be president.

 

[rainbowtrout]

wow, good to know.

Um, perry---what do you do for a living?

 

[perry]

Um, perry---what do you do for a living?

Rainbow - and others...

I doubt that I can give a clear answer to that - as I doubt most people would understand what I actually do at my dayjob. Thus, I usually just say to people who ask: "I play with nuetrons." The locals all then go "Oh, you must work at the nuclear plant (or any of several designations for the plant)." "Yep" is my answer.

Few people ask more than that - a few ask my position. I''ve made no secret of it. Engineer (and I''ve been arround a while...).

So what does that have to do with bomb design and history, and enrichment plants. Not much, really. Power plants are not bomb factories - and I''m not even in reactor engineering. Of course you have to understand basic atomic reaction and decay theory (and control), and where enriched fuel comes from. But, bombs and their history has always been a hobbie of mine - and working in a nuclear plant gives you ready access to a lot of information and people that most people don''t have ready access to.

Here is one website that provides a potporri of news articles and reports in the open public domain (and it changes almost daily):

www.1nuclearplace.com/

Follow it for a while and you will be able to learn many things.

I do have access to other restriced sites at work that none of you will ever see unless you can pass the security screening and work at a nuclear facitily or the appropriate government agencies. None of what I have direct access to is really a secret - it''s just that the goal is to keep a lot of it restricted from easy access.

Part of my job - is to stay up to date with issues in the industry and the world. Thus, I typically spend 1/2 an hour per workday brousing sites like 1 nuclear place and the more restricted sites for various information. Do that for years in a row and you can learn a lot....

As far as what I actually do: You all know what a radiator is on a car - right. Powerplants have many types and sizes of various radiators (called Heat Exchangers). It''s my job to take care of most of the critical heat exchangers. For anyone who reads a primer on power plants or were in the navy on a ship with steam propulsion you will recognize terms like the Main Steam Condenser, Feedwater Heaters, Oil Coolers, etc. For those who work in industrial plants with large air compressors - they have intercoolers and aftercoolers (heat exchangers). All those and more are my responsibility. If you don''t understand what I do after this blurb - just think of it as "I play with nuetrons." Oh, I do get some minor amounts of radiation each year as a normal part of my job. It is very accurately measured. It normally is about the same amount as any of you would get from flying a round trip from the east cost to the west cost once.

Hope that helps.

Perry

 

[AGBF]

Date: 4/20/2006 11:06:19 PM
Author: perry
If you don't understand what I do after this blurb - just think of it as 'I play with nuetrons.'

Perry, your job sounds fascinating. (Actually, I do not know if your job sounds fascinating, since I still do not know what you actually do with the time other than the half hour per day spent browsing the 'net for scientific information, but your area of expertise sounds fascinating.) I suspect what I would like to have is not your job, but your education. (If someone could help me get through the math.) I am, and always have been, fascinated by the atom. Helping my daughter with chemistry has allowed me to see how much more has become known in the past 35 years since I studied science. Since science is not my field, I had just read an occasional front page article about a newly discovered sub-atomic particle from time to time. I hadn't had a picture of how much more is now known about the atom. There has been change since the discovery of nuclear fission and fusion!

 

[tulip928]

Date: 4/20/2006 8:09:45 PM
Author: Mr Majestyk
Yes, I know it is ''nuclear'' not ''nucular.'' I just figured if GWB can say ''nucular'' so can I. After all, he got to be president.

Jimmy Carter also prounounced it "nucular" and he got to be president, too.

 

[rainbowtrout]

I kept trying to do it yesterday and I couldn''t hear the difference

btw, there is a good chance they mispronounced it on purpose to appeal to people who like the pres to seem less than educated... (I''m not saying that if you say the word wrong you are an idiot, but that the perception can be that you are more "one of the people" and less of a rich Yalie)

 

[Mr Majestyk]

"Jimmy Carter also prounounced it "nucular" and he got to be president, too."

Yes, America is wonderful. Anyone can grow up to be president!

 

[perry]

Folks:

I think you are all missing a rather large point. I tried to allude to it before - but no one seems to have noticed.

When if comes to words - people usually prononce them they way they learned how to - what they were taught as "right." Add to that the wide ranges of local and international "dialect."

Jimmy Carter is effectively a Nuclear Engineer - a graduate of the US Navy Nuclear Propulsion School. That program was developed and run (and is still run) by a major US Engineering College. It is pure nuclear engineering without all the other classes a person has to take to graduate with a normal engineering degree from a normal college (to be a ballanced person). Every nuclear facility in the world will hire the people who graduated from that program (they are in high demand - and get paid very very well: at least as long as they haven''t done something stupid and lost their security clearance - like doing drugs or getting involved in other types of crime).

Within the nuclear field - no one cares how "nuclear" is pronounced. About half pronounce it one way - the other half the other way.

In the end - Dictionaries are susposed to reflect usage of words by people: which is why their are so many definitions - not control how a word is used.

Should someone at work start making a point about how the word is pronounced - they will either get educated or get tossed out. We have far more important things to do than worry about that.

People who work in nuclear facitilies tend to be of above average intellegence; and some of them are absolutely brilliant.

Be carefull of who or what group you are claiming to be not educated because of how they might pronounce a word.

Now there are different types of education; and some people have other words for people who imply that they are better (in some way) because of how they do something. That relates to people skills education.

America at its best is about recognizing that people can contribute at their level - and not worry about making distinctions over things that don''t matter. It is the core of the american value system and dream - that all will be treated relatively equally and have the same relative chance at success - or failure - based on what they do.

The only thing here that really matters is do we understand what the other person is saying no matter how they pronounce it.

If we do - then we have effective communication. Effective communication is far more important than exactly how a word is supposed to be pronunced (or what one group thinks is right), spelling, or grammer (and people from other parts of the world have entirely different spelling and grammer rules - which is why translations are so troublesome or funny at times).

Perry

 

[rainbowtrout]

Any linguist will heartily confirm what you just said, Perry. I still contend that Bush's pronunciation may be on purpose, since it does (obviously, from peoples reactions) have a "less educated" listener reception to it. This gives him that famous populist charisma he pulls off.

It of course has NOTHING to do with real education or intelligence or "correct" way to speak.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 4/22/2006 6:59:56 PM
Author: perry
The only thing here that really matters is do we understand what the other person is saying no matter how they pronounce it.


If we do - then we have effective communication. Effective communication is far more important than exactly how a word is supposed to be pronunced (or what one group thinks is right), spelling, or grammer (and people from other parts of the world have entirely different spelling and grammer rules - which is why translations are so troublesome or funny at times).

I am ambivalent about what you stated above, Perry. While I applaud the efforts of a foreigner to make himself understood in English and I would not disparage an uneducated person for his failure to have a large vocabulary, I think that the ability to use the English language well is a gift.

I love to read well written English. I also love to write it. Skillful writers who want to make characters appear folksy have to master the dialect used by those people; writing in an authentic dialect and an authentic "voice" are difficult for someone not raised in the culture about which he is writing. One has to master the English language in order to change it credibly.

Dictionaries must, of course, reflect changing usage. Not all change in language is for the better, however. Sometimes language becomes less precise and expressive-one might even say flaccid-when is is not getting sufficient exercise.

 

[perry]

Thanks.

Perhaps I overreacted a bit; but the implication I was getting from several people was that "look how uneducated" these people who "apparently'' mispronounce the word.

I maintian that none of the people mentioned are uneduacted, nor do I think they deliberately mispronounce it.

It hits home when it a word in your field of expertise and you know that even the experts in the field - who are highly educated - also pronounce it how some people percieve to be wrong.

Judging education - or the value of a person - based soley on their language is a real trap. People most often speak the language of how they were raised, or an environment that they hang out in. It normally has nothing to do with their education or intellegence. Some people use education to change the way they talk. It equally offends me those that think they have to use big words to show how "educated" they are.

Perry

 

[rainbowtrout]

Date: 4/23/2006 8:20:15 PM
Author: perry
Thanks.


Perhaps I overreacted a bit; but the implication I was getting from several people was that 'look how uneducated' these people who 'apparently' mispronounce the word.


I maintian that none of the people mentioned are uneduacted, nor do I think they deliberately mispronounce it.


It hits home when it a word in your field of expertise and you know that even the experts in the field - who are highly educated - also pronounce it how some people percieve to be wrong.


Judging education - or the value of a person - based soley on their language is a real trap. People most often speak the language of how they were raised, or an environment that they hang out in. It normally has nothing to do with their education or intellegence. Some people use education to change the way they talk. It equally offends me those that think they have to use big words to show how 'educated' they are.


Perry

I get where you are coming from, I really do. IMO the fact remains that, while it is wrong to do so, people DO judge others based on how they speak. Looking at the ridicule Bush endured in the media (and on this thread!) for his pronunciation (neutral as it may be) did make me conclude that that pronunciation has a different reception by listeners, right or wrong. Most people don't have the 'effective communication' view, even though it seems to be the only scientific way to measure communication (and a much less classist one).

So as a politician coming from his background and surrounded by advisors, I would not put it past Bush to choose to make his grammatical choices and pronunciation choices in order to influence the public's perception of him.

There is famous physicist named Wheeler that I heard speak on the radio once. Brilliant man--and as heavy a Texas drawl as you could ever hope to hear. The diversity of language is a blessing, not something to be immediately irradicated. This is how English became one of the richest languages on Earth--we have historically accepted linguistic change into the language. (unlike the French, who have one of the most ARCANE orthographies known to man due to their efforts to keep the language "pure")
I also think language politics can lead very easily into racism, but that's another story.

Anyway, point taken that it really isn't that impt how you pronounce the word.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

There''s good communication as well as poor. Usage, syntax, and grammar DO matter. It needn''t be flawless, but who wants to listen to "maulspeak:" I''m like you know and then he goes I''m like gonna buy some new shoes and she goes no and I''m like yeah that''s cool and.....

I don''t let my kids speak that way, and I tell co-workers to stop using "like" every third word. Just stop saying it.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Like, well, what''s really important here? The use of language, or, like, who the hell is gonna blow the s..t out of each other first?

I heard a respected scientist liberal the other day, who decided to, like change ship, like join the other side. Like now bleeding heart tree huggers are like supporting nucleare energy - wow, like, who ever thought that would happen, like?

They rekon Chernobyl is gonna kill a trillion people - but the definition is "cause of death" but like they rekon it is averaging 10 minutes off their lives, and like, who cares about the last 10 minutes - i mean i might piss my missus off by drifting off before she like finishes nagging me to death like?

 

[AGBF]

Date: 4/24/2006 6:38:34 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Like, well, what''s really important here? The use of language, or, like, who the hell is gonna blow the s..t out of each other first?

Why must one choose? In one of my favorite books the heroine is told that there are more important things than choosing what dress she is going to wear. She (very sensibly, in my opinion) replies, "Of course there are, but not, I think, when one is dressing for dinner."

If you can prove to me that an interest in good grammar will lead to the extinction of the planet, I will give your either/or scenario some thought.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

ei·ther-or (ē''THər-ôr'', ī''THər-)
n.
A strictly limited choice or division between only two options.

Date: 4/24/2006 7:14:15 AM
Author: AGBF

Why must one choose? In one of my favorite books the heroine is told that there are more important things than choosing what dress she is going to wear.

My answer is always "I prefer you without a dress"

or if I feel a little cheeky

, it would be "who needs dinner?"

Besides that is an even more unfair either - or question.

Every mature man knows that any answer will land him in trouble

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/24/2006 6:38:34 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Like, well, what's really important here? The use of language, or, like, who the hell is gonna blow the s..t out of each other first?

Like, doncha know - this is history on PS. When all else fails, call into question someone's diction, grammar or spelling.

Edited to add: good manners & good grammar do not make anyone "classy". Good manners like good grammar are to make someone comfortable - i.e. so you are understood.

 

[rainbowtrout]

I don''t think anyone was saying that speaking or writing with clear grammer and spelling is a bad thing; just that to judge people on it becomes a little silly and can cause one to make unfounded assumptions...

My comment about English had more to do with vocabulary acquisition, but grammer changes over time as well. If enough people said "like" as a gap filler, within a generation or two it could concievably change its grammatical role. I think in some pidgin dialects it already has, actually.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 4/24/2006 8:48:57 AM
Author: fire&ice
Like, doncha know - this is history on PS. When all else fails, call into question someone''s diction, grammar or spelling.

I do not agree with doing that (denigrating someone for his spelling or grammar), but I also do not believe that good grammar is a crime. I do not believe that we all must try to speak in the folksiest manner possible to show we are good ''ole boys. I think (as I said) that the ability to write and to speak well is a gift.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 4/24/2006 9:28:13 AM
Author: rainbowtrout
If enough people said 'like' as a gap filler, within a generation or two it could concievably change its grammatical role. I think in some pidgin dialects it already has, actually.

My daughter is a native speaker of that dialect. In it "like" is a synonym for "said".