Slashdot Mirror

What is cause for concern are the number of critical tipping points we seem to be hitting. Specifically:

• Melting permafrost to release billions of tons of methane - as the northern reaches thaw, trapped methane and carbon dioxide is released. The methane is of particular consequence since it is a much stronger greenhouse gas and persists much longer than CO2 does. As more permafrost outgases, the temperature rises and bakes even more of the frozen north. There is even bi-partisan acknowledgment and concern over the problem. Alaska is literally melting
• Loss of polar sea ice changes albedo - warming sea waters melt ice faster, as the surface of the earth in that region changes from reflective white to darker colors more heat is retained, in turn melting more ice.
• Global warming to speed up as carbon levels show sharp rise - this is BIG news. Why? Because there's no corresponding relative increase from human emissions or other known sources. The implications are that we've tipped a balance with CO2 and triggered a feedback loop. Even if we ceased all industrial activity today, the natural source might continue until the planet is again uninhabitable for oxygen-breathers.
• Those paranoid wackos at NASA have also noticed problems if the ocean currents shift which some reports say has already begun.

It's not that things might get a bit warmer (or colder), or that a "few people" in low-lying areas might have to move (actually, it's 53% of the U.S. population according to the census). What's really scary is that we are changing the atmosphere on a scale that may not recover for thousands of years if ever, and which has no guarantees of being suitable for higher life.

No, not shocked. And what I said was definitely not scientific, merely anecdotal.

However, it is worth noting that I really ought not to be able to notice significant changes to the climate within the span of my lifetime. And yet I find, very commonly (and again anecdotally - compare and contrast your own experiences) that the typical man-on-the-street view is that 'something is definitely up'. Don't you find that? Nearly everyone I talk to about the weather, at some point, shakes their head and expresses some concern about how it 'used to be' vs how it is now. And that's only in the cities. In the lower arctic circle, where they are watching the glaciers retreat and the permafrost declining, and it is screwing with their hunting, what must they be saying? Have you noticed mountaintop snowcaps disappearing?

What I find disingenuous about the old argument - the one that says 'earth has always changed' - is that it seems dismissive. Even if we aren't causing one iota of climate change, it is readily apparant that the Earth's weather is changing rapidly; shouldn't we be alarmed, even if we are not the cause of it? Saying "its natural" doesn't exactly make me feel better!

As a former contributor to Greenpeace, in my "youthful days", I would agree wholeheartedly with your assessment that the environmental movement is primarily responsible for propagating irrational fear of nuclear power. The depth of their irrationality on the subject was made plain to me by their active opposition to the small radioisotope thermal power sources on deep space missions such as Galileo and Cassini. The most extreme environmentalists made claims like "millions would die" in the case of an accident. They seem to fear anything nuclear as the superstitious fear demons, and their fear spreads as a contagion. Of course, the Russians didn't help much with their miserly approach to safeguards; the very word "Chernobyl" entered the lexicon as a synonym for something like "hot radioactive wasteland".

Beyond the particular elements of Jimmy Carter's energy policies, what I admire about him most was he was the last President to take on a clear public leadership role in favor of energy independence. Carter's 1977 address to the nation on his National Energy Plan was unprecedented. Carter did much to open Federal Lands for oil and natural gas exploration and production. Like you, tjstork, I suspect that in the 1970's Carter would have supported drilling in the ANWR, if that had been an issue at the time. However, he is on record now as being opposed, due to global warming concerns (which I share). Although, as you point out, the Three Mile Island disaster was a major setback, I think the political symbolism of Ronald Reagan removing the solar panels from the White House marked the end to Carter's dream of energy independence for our country.

Interestingly, supplemental solar power was restored to the White House 23 years after it was first removed. In a world where the Future Shock-wave rolled over us long ago, 23 years is a long, long time. As it is with the environmentalists, so it is with the Lords of Industry; neither can be counted on to be rational players. A laissez-faire approach to markets cannot lead to an ultimate solution to our energy woes. Ultimately, Adam Smith's metaphorical "Invisible Hand" comes to grasp the throat of the common man. I believe more in the wisdom first explored by John Maynard Keynes, that the government's intervention in the market can be beneficial, not only to protect the public from the excesses of an unfettered market, but also to provide a guiding hand in rational long-term policy. Had we continued in the spirit of Jimmy Carter 23 years ago, striving towards national energy independence, then the guiding hand of government could have been gentle. Tax incentives, increased research funding for energy alternatives, small business initiatives, and reliable government support for pilot programs that promised future economic returns would have brought us far beyond where we are today. But now, 23 years later, even the basic task of maintaining a sufficient and affordable future energy supply is more akin in magnitude to President Kennedy's 1961 challenge to put a man on the moon, and can only be envisioned if we roll back the disastrous and irresponsible fiscal policies implemented by the current administration in the last five years.

Let us all come together and hope that the FCC doesn't try to regulate that which we pay for.

Don't hold your breath. Most people want more controls.

Lots of misinformation on this one...

Here's rebuttle from a (biased the other direction) source:
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/knik/story/7153327p -7062460c.html

To paraphrase the story, speakers in the Senate (and the House for that matter) quite often don't know what they are talking about and frequently engage in hyperbole. There's a shocker.

Yeah, it's off topic. Misinformation needs to be stopped, irrespecive of the cost.

Given the choice between an unlimited source of oil and an effective means of eliminating nuclear waste I'd take the latter any day.

Oil is and always will be polluting. Given an effective way to eliminate or deal with nuclear waste and cheap, efficient, safe nuclear reactors nuclear is definitely the way to go in the long run.

There are two technologies that I think will be cruicial for this to happen:

1) Micro-sized nuclear power plants like this one need to be tested and then widely deployed. They are completely safe from melt down, and incredibly cost effective. My town of 50,000 could reduce it's energy costs by about 80% by installing one.

2) Tritium-D needs to be used to replace or augment batteries in electric cars. A very small amount of Tritium-D, which is safe to use and is already used in consumer products like night sights on guns, could power an electric car for 10 - 20 years. It may not entirely replace gasoline for all operating conditions, but could take the MPG into the 100 - 200 range.

Unfortunately, neither of these will happen anytime soon. Not for the reasons listed in this story, but because doing so would take money and power from the top levels of our government, and that will not be allowed to happen.

The fact that our average car gets 15 MPG right now is attrocious. And these low MPG's are actually encouraged by the government. As evidence see the IRS code for a Section 179 deduction, which requires the vehicle to be over 6,000 Lbs, regardless of the industry the vehicle is used in. I'm a self-employed web designer / software engineer, and I used the Section 179 deduction last year. I would have much rather purchased a Hybrid Civic or Prius, but could only get the deduction by purchasing a Ford F-150 (or similarly sized gas guzzler).

Thanks for nothing politicians (wastes of skin).

Lets really use the rights we've been given and start naming names. The driver is Erwin Jamie Petterson Jr., and the people that his car rammed into, after crossing the centerline, were Robert and Donna Weiser. As a point order, let me declare my bias: I know the Weiser family.

The DA in the case is attempting to prove "an extreme indifference to the value of human life" in order to get murder 2 to stick. See the Anchorage Daily News for more at http://www.adn.com/front/story/5332477p-5270490c.h tml

Alaska law expressly prohibits a TV in view of the driver of a motor vehicle, but somehow a DVD monitor and a playstation 2 console on the front dashboard of pickup truck are sufficiently different from a TV so as the alleged crime cannot be prosecuted from that angle.

The question is this; how is it that in every state in the US, you can be summarily arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI/SWI) for the simple act of sitting behind the wheel of a vehicle with the means to operate (read keys) after having 2-3 beers, BUT, a DVD, Playstation, and Monitor banking in to the stickshift of a 5000 lb truck traveling at 65 mph gets you only a cross-eyed look?

This guy should have the right to have his movies, and whatever else he wants in the front of his truck. He should be allowed to drive with a completely opaque windshield if he wants, IMHO. BUT it should be clear and unavoidable, that he also has the right to be held accountable for the consequences of his actions. Hit someone, in mid afternoon light, while they are in their lane...that's on you. Or at least it should be.

Here's an article on the proposed Toshiba plant. Seems like a sound idea, especially for remote places where you have to spend a lot of fuel just to haul the fuel there.

Toshiba have announced a "meltdown-proof" reactor.

See the stories here and here.

The articles state that the reactor core is small enough that it will never be able to get out of control and melt down. You feed in liquid water and out comes steam to power your electricity generation turbines.

Essentially what they are doing is building a set and forget reactor core that will power a small-scale reactor for 30 years. When you're done, you put it in a hole and fill the hole with concrete. Removes the chance of meltdown and the problems of waste disposal.

Minor correction (responding to myself):

The mini reactor thing was about 6-8 months ago, the village hadn't started actually using the mini-reactor, they were just talking about it. A quick google shows this article, but I didn't see anything more recent about it (I didn't look very hard though, someone else may want to hunt around a little harder on this).

Yeah, and someone else had the same great idea:
a bit of a google search turns up this.

> fscking up the sun...

Feh. If Terra was 100% Plutonium, it could neither make Sol fart in your general direction nor empty either of her nostrils at your hind quarters like a 12th century Frenchman.

> expensive to hoist

Ah! Uh, railguns perhaps? Oh, or what about that laser rocket? Seems to me that sending the payload up and leaving the propulsion on the ground may be a better solution; I mean, we already know how to build sweet-assed nuclear plants. Why take the uranium with you?

Best description anyone can find

A small nuclear device should do. Assuming you can't get Pitr's, try contacting Toshiba about the one discussed in this story

• We didn't do it, the Iraqis did. This is a variation of the "Slashdot speaks with one voice" fallacy. It misses the point. When looting happens in L.A., we're very good at distinguishing the looters as being separate from the general public. When it happens in Baghdad, we lump the looters and the victims together and say "well, the Iraqi people are looting their own history." Most Iraqis were not a part of the looting. An invading army is responsible for maintaining law and order, and protecting the general population from its own miscreants. This is stipulated by the same Geneva Convention that we pay attention to only when it suits us. We came in, posted guards around the oil ministry, sent guys with chisels to chip away at the infamous "Bush Is Criminal" mosaic on the floor of the Al-Rashid hotel, and left the rest of the city wallow in anarchy. We sure have our priorities straight.
  
• So Iraqi treasures were lost- big deal, the place is a dump anyway! I've heard this one a lot. It's an argument from ignorance. Western civilization began in Iraq, and their museums had stuff that we can all trace our origins to. This is like saying the Kennedy assassination might have been a big story in Dallas but not in the rest of the country.
  

Ad tattoos?