Slashdot Mirror

The 235 decibel blasts from these sonic cannons enters the water about every ten seconds, 24 hours a day, for weeks or months on end, per exploration mission. 235 decibels is about a million times louder than standing next to a jet engine. It kills or injures nearby life almost immediately.

The US Navy recently increased sonar exercises without a proper assessment of the risks to marine mammals. The service and the Navy later estimated that the use of sonar during the five year plan will result in the death or injury of 650,000 marine animals. Their own study.

This isn't something you can compare to the noise that your neighbours make, it's essentially the shockwave from a powerful bomb that goes off every 10 seconds for weeks or months and travels hundreds of kilometers in every direction due to the increased conduction of the wave by the density of the fluid (water). This is one of the largest compression waves that humans can generate, and it "hemorrhages in and around the ears" and causes "organ damage and internal injuries similar to decompression sickness". If you intentionally wanted to kill every living mammal in the ocean, there are few things you could do that would accomplish it quicker or more effectively.

I'm not a US citizen, but you should Contact your Congressional Representative and tell them that this won't fly, immediately.

The 235 decibel blasts from these sonic cannons enters the water about every ten seconds, 24 hours a day, for weeks or months on end, per exploration mission. 235 decibels is about a million times louder than standing next to a jet engine. It kills or injures nearby life almost immediately.

The US Navy recently increased sonar exercises without a proper assessment of the risks to marine mammals. The service and the Navy later estimated that the use of sonar during the five year plan will result in the death or injury of 650,000 marine animals. Their own study.

This isn't something you can compare to the noise that your neighbours make, it's essentially the shockwave from a powerful bomb that travels hundreds of kilometers in every direction due to the increased conduction of the wave by the density of the fluid (water). This is one of the largest compression waves that humans can generate, and it "hemorrhages in and around the ears" and causes "organ damage and internal injuries similar to decompression sickness".

Oh, it's real. FTFA:

Toya accelerates, or pulses, to 29 mph, then glides down to 25 mph before pulsing again. The car uses no fuel when gliding.

This style of driving is as real as being able to drive 26 MPH to work. With stop and start traffic, which can slow you to an average of 4MPH despite bursts of 45, you can not do this. It is impossible in most US cities due to urban sprawl and poorly thought out streets.

It is possible in cities with decent ground streets like parts of Chicago and New Orleans. Where this is possible, you could also ride a bike or other human or solar powered vehicle and public transport also works. Finally, note that sprawl is still desirable as a protection against nuclear terrorism.

Low density, mixed business residential and leisure spaces built on grid street layouts should be encouraged.

Oh, for fuck sake - I'm dealing with someone who's too stupid to google ...

Bottled water and bacteria counts can be WAY over what's allowed in tap water:

1. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/00032 2090356.htm

   Bacterial counts in the four tap water samples varied only slightly, from 0.2 to 2.7 bacterial colonies per milliliter. In the bottled water, bacterial counts ranged from less than 0.01 to 4,900 colonies per milliliter. Six bottled waters had bacteria counts of 1,500 to 4,900 colonies per milliliter.

2. http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/News/content ?oid=oid:30865

   Even with widespread disinfection, consumer groups have raised numerous warnings about a host of different microorganisms and chemicals that have been found in bottled water. In a four-year scientific study, the NRDC tested more than 1,000 bottles of 103 brands of bottled water. The group concluded, "Although most bottled water tested was of good quality, some brands' quality was spotty." A third of the tested brands were found to contain contaminants such as arsenic and carcinogenic compounds in at least some samples at levels exceeding state or industry standards.

   Another area of potential concern is the fact that no agency calls for testing of bottled water after it leaves its initial packaging plant, leaving some to wonder what happens during months of storage and transport. To begin to examine this question, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment tested 80 samples of bottled water from retail stores and manufacturers. All 80 of the samples had detectable levels of chlorine, fluoride and sodium. Seventy-eight of the 80 contained nitrate (which can cause methemoglobinemia, or blue-baby syndrome), 12 had nitrite, 53 had chloroform, 33 contained bromodichloro-methane, 25 had arsenic and 15 tested positive for lead.

   Forty-six of the samples contained traces of some form of the carcinogen (and hormone disrupter) phthalate, while 12 of those exceeded federal safety levels for that chemical. According to Olson, phthalates may leach out of some plastic bottles into water. "Phthalates are not legally regulated in bottled water because of intense industry pressure," says Olson. Although Co-op America concludes that there is little evidence of a link between phthalate exposure from bottled water and any health problems, the group suggests using glass over plastic bottles as a precaution.

3. http://www.emagazine.com/view/?1125

   Further, while EPA rules specify that no confirmed E. coli or fecal coliform (bacteria that indicate possible contamination by fecal matter) contamination is allowed in tap water, the FDA merely set a minimum level for E. coli and fecal coliform presence in bottled water.

So, no contaminants from shit (human or other) allowed in tap water, just in bottled water.

Oh, except for the one between the fire hydrant and your home. You've dug that pipe out and cleaned it once or twice, right? No? And I'm glad there's a low risk of the flushing chemicals remaining in the water when it's re-connected.

The flushing chemical is just a higher concentration of what they normally use to treat the water - in my case, a surdose of chlorine. And you can eliminate it by simply letting the water stand for a bit. Easiest way - fill a jug, let it stand for an hour, then put it in the fridge.

And yes, I've dug up pipes from 50 years ago, they're fine inside. The deposits (mostly grit that got through the filters at the treatment plant - usually sand particles) are harmless to your health, unlike the

They are very happy squandering more and more money into bigger and bigger trucks so any proposition to do otherwise is viewed as communist. Also, there is an anglo-saxon cultural trait that sees the city as something sinful, bad, evil that should be fled at all cost, hence the popularity of suburbia.

In the same vein, here is a very good explanation of the whole idea of having livable cities.

CFS is not very well understood, but the CDC does have some criteria that can be used to diagnose CFS.

There is some recent research (International Journal of Epidemiology, 2004 Jul 15) that indicates that at least some folks with MCS may have a genetic predisposition -- certain genes help regulate how the body inactivates toxins, and a correlation was detected between folks with MCS and those with certain PON* and NAT* genotypes (or whatever -- I'm a geek, not a geneticist!). That gives a good explanation why some folks' bodies just can't deal with what the rest of us shrug off.

One explanation for the effect this has that you can find on the web is that with CFS, the immune system is hyperactive, so when you get exposed to something like a very fragrant shampoo :), your body kicks in, and it's like you have the flu -- lethargy, muscle and body pain, etc. If I'm remembering right, it's similar to how allergies work -- your body starts producing histamines to counter what it sees as an invader, but overdoes it, causing congestion/sneezing/headaches/etc., and causing some great financial results for the makers of Allegra, Sudafed, etc.

My wife got a skin rash last weekend from some fragrance-laced (saturated!) water that got spilled on a restroom countertop -- that's not hypochondria! And my toddler son gets hives (little red bumps on his skin) if he eats wheat products. (We've carefully done numerous experiments to prove, to my engineering satisfaction, that wheat is the key. This isn't a one-time occurrence, but a proven pattern.) I don't know of anyone who can use their brain, consciously or unconsciously, to make these kinds of physical manifestations occur.

So while I can't speak about whether your relatives are nuts :), I can say that there are at least some folks who aren't nuts, and there are at least some folks (but not very many) in the medical community that are working on helping these folks.

BTW, the Seabiscuit book author has CFS as well -- if she's a hypochondriac, she's managed to fool quite a lot of people.

The classic political "whitewash" concept (a P.R. cover-up) is referred to, when applied this way, as greenwashing. If you see an oil company--say, Exxon Mobil--describing how great they are for the environment, there may be an element of truth in it. The truth stops wherever there's no profit to be found. Pay attention to the distinction between the often vague, platitudinous words juxtaposed with the glorious images of unspoilt nature. They're visually trying to establish a connection between themselves and the nature they're--generally speaking--destroying irrevocably. A corporate-sponsored ad is not a good source for accurate information about that corporation...

They target PBS because they know the left-leaning viewers are unsettled about the spectre of environmental apocalypse--but not radical enough to really go nuts about it. A gentle greenwash will settle them down...

Granted, it would also be fallacious to assume the company has no environmental motive, just because they are a big, faceless corporation. There's no sense in either jumping to the negative conclusion, or breezily accepting the corporation's positive spin. But keep in mind, they're likely to say something like "we have invested over $2 million in environmental initiatives"--but a) that money is peanuts to Exxon, and insignificant contrasted to the money spent opposing the same initiatives; b) the phrase "environmental initiatives" is an amorphous or meaningless term; c) what exactly that "investment" would entail is vague; etc. etc. etc. Yes, my argument here is a straw man, but a fairly representative one.

To read more about greenwashing, check out these articles: These Greenwashers Don't Come Clean and Perception is Reality.

Ads that give us free stuff are basically good, but don't ever take them seriously.

The classic political "whitewash" concept (a P.R. cover-up) is referred to, when applied this way, as greenwashing. If you see an oil company--say, Exxon Mobil--describing how great they are for the environment, there may be an element of truth in it. The truth stops wherever there's no profit to be found. Pay attention to the distinction between the often vague, platitudinous words juxtaposed with the glorious images of unspoilt nature. They're visually trying to establish a connection between themselves and the nature they're--generally speaking--destroying irrevocably. A corporate-sponsored ad is not a good source for accurate information about that corporation...

They target PBS because they know the left-leaning viewers are unsettled about the spectre of environmental apocalypse--but not radical enough to really go nuts about it. A gentle greenwash will settle them down...

Granted, it would also be fallacious to assume the company has no environmental motive, just because they are a big, faceless corporation. There's no sense in either jumping to the negative conclusion, or breezily accepting the corporation's positive spin. But keep in mind, they're likely to say something like "we have invested over $2 million in environmental initiatives"--but a) that money is peanuts to Exxon, and insignificant contrasted to the money spent opposing the same initiatives; b) the phrase "environmental initiatives" is an amorphous or meaningless term; c) what exactly that "investment" would entail is vague; etc. etc. etc. Yes, my argument here is a straw man, but a fairly representative one.

To read more about greenwashing, check out these articles: These Greenwashers Don't Come Clean and Perception is Reality.

Ads that give us free stuff are basically good, but don't ever take them seriously.

Not if you listen to my Lecturer at University

Fuel cells are heavy in weight at the moment, and he argues that it is more efficient to burn the hydrogen in a combustion engine (note must be modified to gain extra efficiencies). Unfortunately I can't find to much information on his research, apart from link below

Still part of the problem is storing the hydrogen, as you need very heavy gas containers (heavier than your LPG tanks). But research is being done in storing the hydrogen in a phosphorous material to try and make system lighter and safer.

I am more interested in using Flywheels, as the are making flywheels that can store a crap load of energy per unit weight. You double speed you quadruple energy stored. Also having flywheels that can spin for a year, without being recharged. Also there is some rapid recharge times available for Flywheels. As new stronger materials become available the energy storage per unit weight will increase even more.

The problem with flywheels in car uses is that going over a pot hole could stuff the bearings, but they are overcoming this. The other problem is if the flywheel disintegrates, it could cause some big issues, but using new materials the will give properties that wont lead to total failure.

References:

Link EV batteries 1
Link EV batteries 2

Research into Hydrogen Power Car - Combustion

I agree with you -- we should be developing ways to inhabit the heavans -- but this technology is still awhile away -- and if we say that "well, we are destroying the environment, so let's get the hell out of here" we are kind of taking the wrong approach to the problem. What will we do? Go to another planet and proceed to exploit the environment and resources on it? No... not the solution. We could then quite possibly find ourselves screwed yet again. If we are going to solely depend on space technology to save our arses, that would be a very bad idea. Think redundancy here, people. =) Taking that analogy further, if we don't take care of the earth, it may well crash, leaving us with nothing... and we don't have a backup yet!

Okay, enough with the cheesy analogies. At the risk of sounding like someone who uses the shallow (if not logically unfounded) argument of "we have no business exploring space when there are starving people in China", I think that while extraterrestrial technology is important, we can't lose sight of the core problem here which is that we are destroying Earth. Rapidly. We are just evading the issue by running away to space. We have a much better chance of survival if we fix the environmental problems here at the same time as we work on tackling space; we are overrunning our planet exponentially at the moment, and if we don't do something quick I think we are going to start feeling the backlash.

And if you think that you can't make a difference; you're wrong, you can. Here are a couple of links:

• The environmental magazine
  
• EarthSave