survivors 1975-77

"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

"Ophelia" wrote in message
...

"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
Steve Terry wrote:

A friend used to run his Peugeot 405 1.9 diesel on up to 100% cooking
oil
no problem at all, lots of 1990's Peugeots still around.

I've seen people buy cooking oil by the gallon and pour it into the
tank while still *IN* the supermarket carpark.

A couple of years ago i was in Brighton Marina Asdas and the guy in
front
at the checkout had a trolley with 20 bottles of 3 litre cooking oil.
I said to him "You have a serious chip addiction" ;-)

Not rocket science to figure out what he was up to

My son does this too

He's addicted to Chips too!!

It's an epidemic

lol

I blame McCain's, who are working on developing more addictive chips
made from GM potatoes with human DNA added, (not kidding)

Good grief!!! I am pleased to say I never use frozen chips and now I could
never be persuaded!

Steve Terry wrote:
"Ophelia" wrote in message
...
"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...
In the original, they were fighting over half a dozen potatoes,
and brewing alcohol to fuel cars
Bleeding daft, even in 1975 there's enough stored resources
to keep the remaining 1% of the population supplied for years
By year 2, and in many cases (depending on storage conditions) within
months, any petrol or diesel stored without preservatives (which fuel
supplies in ordinary petrol stations and tankers don't have) will
deteriorate to the point where it won't run a car or generator.


I had a motorcycle stored in my shed which i hadn't used in 5 years,
i didn't expect it to run with the old petrol in the tank but it did!
I would guess low compression engines would happily run on old petrol,
if not it could still be used years later to supplement the combustibility
of diesel oil.

A good idea would be to tap into the strategic reserve fuel pipes
that run alongside the grand union canal, as the pipes are air tight,
that fuel should last years


Good idea but who would know that? and how would they do it without it
being like those pipelines in Uganda where they just crack it open and
put a bucket under.

Steve Terry wrote:
"sirblob2" wrote in message
...
clcking in at what must be 27 hours, this uk tv series certainly isnt
for the anti sofa brigade.. its bloody great thats what it be.
i havent seen the remake, thou i heard it be arsefest.


But it was so implausible, what had happed to all the countries
stored resources?
At least the remake arsefest got it right about raiding supermarket
warehouses to get supplies, and using pumps in petrol stations
to bring up fuel

In the original, they were fighting over half a dozen potatoes,
and brewing alcohol to fuel cars
Bleeding daft, even in 1975 there's enough stored resources
to keep the remaining 1% of the population supplied for years

Steve Terry





In many respects this is what *would* happen, people would try to stay
as they were pre disaster, few would think like a survivalist straight away.

In article , Ophelia wrote:
The problem is really in the nature and progression of the emergency. In
Survivors the die-off was supposed to have been very rapid, over a couple of
weeks as I remember, and anything from 99% - 99.99% depending on which
episode and which character's lines the figures appear in. That leaves a lot
of resources for a small number of survivors. In a more likely scenario a
progressively building emergency would have seen a rapid decline in stocks
of both fuel and food due to panic buying and failure of the manufacturing
and transport facilities, because of people off work sick or too afraid to
go to work and become exposed, and perhaps problems with power supplies due
to the same causes. The survivors would then have to have been a bit more
inventive in where they got their supplies, though of course there are
alternatives.

Without maintenance, roads would become unusable in a few years, if they
really were empty to begin with as some seem to hope. Most modern technology
would become unusable within the lifetime of the generation that could still
remember what it was for, and hardly anybody would know how to fix it, even if
spare parts and workshop facilities could be found. How many people know how
to repair machinery or electronics now? In fact much of today's technology
isn't even designed for repair anyway - you just throw it away and a big
factory somewhere in the far east keeps churning out new ones.

The next generation, the ones born into a world without running water,
electricity, shops, or any manufacturing industry, would have to learn how to
be farmers, but without the advantage of medieval children whose parents had
centuries of experience behind them. These children's parents mostly wouldn't
have a clue, and with no schools and everybody scavenging and fighting for
food, nobody would have had the time or the expertise to teach them to read.

The disease that had reduced the population to a small fraction of its former
value would be nothing compared with the secondary cull resulting from the
offspring of a mostly ignorant throwaway society suddenly having to rely on
their own resources. You can't work things out from first principles if you
don't even know what the first principles are.

I think humanity would survive, but not very many of us at first, and it would
take centuries before we attained anything resembling the technology-based
society we have today.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:05:29 +0100, "Col"

They are hydrocarbons, chemically speaking they are pretty inert,
all they really do is burn.

The problem seems to be with oxidation of the fuel.

If you store it in a completely full container, surely it can't oxidise ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

"Sofa - Spud" wrote in message
...



Good idea but who would know that? and how would they do it without it
being like those pipelines in Uganda where they just crack it open and put
a bucket under.

Or those gas pipelines in Nigeria where they just fill massive
balloons of gas, and make off with it!
Unfortunately this has led to some, ahem, 'incidents'....

Col

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:11:08 +0100, Mark Carver
wrote:

Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:05:29 +0100, "Col"

They are hydrocarbons, chemically speaking they are pretty inert,
all they really do is burn.

The problem seems to be with oxidation of the fuel.

If you store it in a completely full container, surely it can't oxidise ?

That sounds logical, however, I have no specialised knowledge.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...


I think humanity would survive, but not very many of us at first, and it
would
take centuries before we attained anything resembling the technology-based
society we have today.

You wonder what might happen though, if we were reduced to the
technological levels of medieval times. Would history follow a similar
path and eventually there would be another industrial revolution,
ultimately leading to a similar technology based society as we have today.
Perhaps it wouldn't as all the easily accessible coal has long since
been worked out, the technology to deep mine simply wouldn't exist.
Maybe the industrial revolution was a 'one shot only' chance and
if we were ever reduced to a technological level less than that
we could never get back and we'd be forevever living like medieval
peasants at a subsistance level.

Col

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.myzen.co.uk...
In article , Ophelia wrote:
The problem is really in the nature and progression of the emergency. In
Survivors the die-off was supposed to have been very rapid, over a couple of
weeks as I remember, and anything from 99% - 99.99% depending on which
episode and which character's lines the figures appear in. That leaves a lot
of resources for a small number of survivors. In a more likely scenario a
progressively building emergency would have seen a rapid decline in stocks
of both fuel and food due to panic buying and failure of the manufacturing
and transport facilities, because of people off work sick or too afraid to
go to work and become exposed, and perhaps problems with power supplies due
to the same causes. The survivors would then have to have been a bit more
inventive in where they got their supplies, though of course there are
alternatives.

Without maintenance, roads would become unusable in a few years, if they
really were empty to begin with as some seem to hope. Most modern technology
would become unusable within the lifetime of the generation that could still
remember what it was for, and hardly anybody would know how to fix it, even if
spare parts and workshop facilities could be found. How many people know how
to repair machinery or electronics now? In fact much of today's technology
isn't even designed for repair anyway - you just throw it away and a big
factory somewhere in the far east keeps churning out new ones.

The next generation, the ones born into a world without running water,
electricity, shops, or any manufacturing industry, would have to learn how to
be farmers, but without the advantage of medieval children whose parents had
centuries of experience behind them. These children's parents mostly wouldn't
have a clue, and with no schools and everybody scavenging and fighting for
food, nobody would have had the time or the expertise to teach them to read.

The disease that had reduced the population to a small fraction of its former
value would be nothing compared with the secondary cull resulting from the
offspring of a mostly ignorant throwaway society suddenly having to rely on
their own resources. You can't work things out from first principles if you
don't even know what the first principles are.

I think humanity would survive, but not very many of us at first, and it would
take centuries before we attained anything resembling the technology-based
society we have today.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/



Rats, mice, and religious fundamentalism are likely to benefit the most.

I predict a return to sun worship and human sacrifice within 2 generations.



michael adams

....

Heyyup David has decided to join and post himself