Slashdot Mirror

can I really trust Monsanto when saying "no known danger"?

No, you can't.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/monsanto-roundup-ready-miscarriages_n_827135.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html

Who knows how many more undiscovered serious long term effects GMO use causes. I'm not a person who generally subscribes to FUD, but until we get more comprehensive regulation on GMO I have am afraid to serve it to my family.

can I really trust Monsanto when saying "no known danger"?

No, you can't.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/monsanto-roundup-ready-miscarriages_n_827135.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html

Who knows how many more undiscovered serious long term effects GMO use causes. I'm not a person who generally subscribes to FUD, but until we get more comprehensive regulation on GMO I have am afraid to serve it to my family.

GMO food presents health risks. I'm not decided on the short-term effect of GMO use/consumption, but there have been several recent studies that have shown major concerns on the long term effects which are freaky scary.

http://www.grist.org/article/gm-oh-no
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/monsanto-roundup-ready-miscarriages_n_827135.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/gmo-pesticides-linked-to-birth-defects-disruption-of-male-hormones-cancer.html

It's clear GMO isn't regulated nearly enough or with enough restrictions.

Am I the only one who noticed that the Tea Party was co-opted and neutralized by the Republican party?

That's because you're ignorant and apparently blind to front page news. The Tea Party has made far more effort to stay true to its philosophy than say "hope and change" Obama has. It just so happens that they're a bit outnumbered at the moment, having to fight not only Democrats, but also their own party.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/patriot-act-extension-passes-senate_n_867736.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110516/ts_csm/382261_1

In the US, they would have shot the guinea pigs.

I wish I were joking.

In the US the humans living there would be lucky if it were only the guinea pigs getting shot.

Jose Guerena Killed: Arizona Cops Shoot Former Marine In Botched Pot Raid

In the US, they would have shot the guinea pigs.

I wish I were joking.

In the US the humans living there would be lucky if it were only the guinea pigs getting shot.

Jose Guerena Killed: Arizona Cops Shoot Former Marine In Botched Pot Raid

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/patriot-act-extension-passes-senate_n_867736.html

Seems like he's trying to get our freedoms back to me.

You're an idiot.. you can rent movies/use Netflix on a rooted or non-rooted Android. Just like you can use Netflix on a non-jail broken iPhone.

The issue is the studios and the license for the Movie Market. Just like Netflix doesn't *always* have the same movies.. they get added and removed as the license agreements with the studios change/expire, etc.

Just read this article here for a freakin idea of how the studios control the show:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/netflix-loses-dexter-californication_n_839577.html

Wait what? I recall seeing them being sold all over Estonia's markets. Locals really liked eating them too.
Or is this another case of hysterical "they are a few percent more radioactive then mushrooms in [another country], HORROR!".

By the same school of thought, no one should live above sea level. Too radioactive. Not talking about percentages, several TIMES more radioactive. HORROR.
Seriously, I had a flatmate in university who was from Mexico City. He really didn't glow in the dark. Or have two heads.

To spice things up, here is a nice photo of mushrooms from Lithuania on sale, fresh from wikipedia: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Mashrooms_on_varena_roadside.jpg

Finally, according to huffington post's recent article on the issue, after a lot of scaremongering, the reality sets in:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/01/radioactive-boars-mushrooms-chernobyl_n_843498.html

"About 2 percent of the 50,000 boars hunted are above the legal radioactivity limit, Reddemann said. And the government's radiation protection office says some mushrooms have registered up to 20 times the legal cesium limit.

Eating 200 grams of mushrooms tested seven times above the legal cesium limit, for example, would amount to the same exposure as the altitude radiation taken in during a 2,000-mile flight, according to Germany's Office for Radiation Protection."

So please, whatever you do, DO NOT FLY. And people who fly frequently are true hazards to everyone, as they irradiate us all in addition to clearly dying from radiation poisoning! /sarcasm

I applaud your caution, but I lost about 50 pounds following that sort of advice, and feel a lot better, and have kept it off easily. His book is probably the most scientifically based one out there... YMMV.
"Eat to Live: The Revolutionary Formula for Fast and Sustained Weight Loss"
http://books.google.com/books?id=CX8huSU0n8AC

Getting a good blender and making green smoothies helped a lot too.
http://greensmoothierevolution.com/

Dr. Fuhrman's approach can cure most type 2 diabetes too, but I doubt you will believe that either: :-)
"Dr. Fuhrman Cures Diabetes - But Drug Companies Object "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46_GInjBeQU

But that is more and more common knowledge, except among most doctors and CEOs of drug companies:
http://www.rawfor30days.com/index4.html

His approach can also reverse most heart disease... Although others can do that too, as well. Just Google on reverse heart disease.

Is Dr. Fuhrman's approach perfect? No, I think it could be improved in a couple of ways. For example, I think he is a bit low on Vitamin D and quite a bit low on iodine. Others on that:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation
http://www.iodine4health.com/

Iodine especially is a potentially big issue because if you eliminate salt and dairy as he suggests, those are two major sources of iodine in the US diet, and you need to replace that with a multivitamin or eating seaweed or other things. If you were under his care, he would no doubt check for that, but for someone following his advice from a book (myself included) it is easy to mess up on iodine. I brought that to his attention through his forum but he was somewhat dismissive of it, sadly.

I also think Dr. Fuhrman could prioritize his approach a bit better, and also that there may be issues about metabolic types and individual biochemistry that may come into play. It's also not clear if salt is quite as bad as he says it is.

In general, I think he has done a great job, but no one knows everything about such a complex topic. And his active practice probably also limits his time for additional study. I also agree with you that financial conflicts (he sells branded food products, even though he gives some of the proceeds to nutritional research) muddy the water. But that is also a big issue in our society in general, and we need something like some mix of a gift economy or basic income or 3D printing and/or great central planning to move beyond it.

But overall, he's probably one of the best out there, after having read tons of stuff by different people in my own quest for health for myself and my family.

Dr. Andrew Weil has better holistic advice, but not quite so good nutrition advice. He is also more knowledgeable on herbal remedies:
http://www.drweil.com/

Dr. Mark Hyman probably has better overall advice about autism:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html

We are in the midst of a revolution in nutritional knowledge and the connection to health, but sadly most people are in denial about it. And there are, as you say, so many vested interests and conflicts of interest that it is hard to know who to trust.

But as I quote here from Marcia Angell, the problem may be even worse in mainstream science:

I don't recall them officially adding "... well, you can be a little evil if it means a competitive advantage."

Well, not officially. But you can't help but look at some of their behavior and realize that a little evilness doesn't hurt the bottom line.

proceeds to grandstand against how it must be anonymous and basically mislead the public in it's entirety?

Except according to some members of Anonymous, it actually was some members of Anonymous who did it. Frankly, I don't think you can blame them at all for blaming Anonymous, it happened while Anonymous was attacking them, that alone would be enough to make them the prime suspect.

Of course, that doesn't mean Sony wasn't running an incompetently administered network, I'm just pointing out that it's entirely reasonable for them to point the finger at Anonymous.

Ah, yes, it's not like people have been living in the area and using well water for a couple hundred years. Yet now, they can light their tap water on fire and somehow this study does not count because no one tested the water beforehand.

Would there have been a reason to test the water BEFORE you could light it on fire? And what might be the cause now, after a hundred years of prior use, that the water is flammable?

This is not something confined to the PA-NY border; it happens wherever fracking goes on, yet we are supposed to believe that this particular case is confined to one bad operator? The gas industry needs to seriously review the precautions they are supposed to be taking and see if they are truly being responsible corporate citizens.

As Kevin Grandia wrote last year:

In 2005, at the urging of Vice President Cheney, fracking fluids were exempted from the Clean Water Act after the companies that own the patents on the process raised concerns about disclosing proprietary formulas - if they had to meet the Act's standards they would have to reveal the chemical composition which competitors could then steal. Fair enough, but this also exempts these companies from having to meet the strict regulations that protect the nation's freshwater supply.

Environmentalists have a bad name because the industries that are doing all the damage find character assassination easier than actually cleaning up their mess.

Rigggght.... It's all a big conspiracy against environmentalists perpetrated by the big bad corporations. Environmentalists have never done anything to damage their own character

it depends.

if you think corp intel should be released in the manning model, we have no argument. and i look forward to, for example, more wikileaks data of the type on the bank of america shenanigans

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/13/bank-of-america-leak-anonymous-wikileaks_n_835185.html

but if you think military or diplomatic intel should be released in the manning model, then yes, you're a fucking moron, and there is no possibility to respect your opinion, because you lack the cognitive ability to understand the dangers with releasing publicly this kind of info

Seriously? Dan Rather is your big bogeyman from one mistake that he apologized and quit over vs hours and hours PER DAY OF COMPLETE DISINFORMATION on Fox?

Hannity and the rest weren't birthers? Err, they played up the hysteria quite well. I love how guys like you excuse them from playing up both sides. They'll legitimize it and then wash their hands of it when it gets too hot to handle. Here's Hannity loudly and childishly demanding the birth certificate. Conservative pundit Lou Dobbs went full retard with the birther nonsense that his boss had to make him stop. Sure Dobbs isn't Fox, but he's the conservative voice of CNN. These are two well known pundits. Here's conservative darling and occasional fox news commentator Sarah Palin legitimizing the issue.

And its not just the birther crap. Its the other conspiracy theories. A few years ago it was "Iraq is out to get us with WMD." Now its Obama wants our guns. Healthcare is going to send us to death panels, etc. Whatever gets the GOP base excited. Yet, they're all conspiracy theories. See, once you live in a bubble of disinformation its easy to start believing that the president isnt an American.

The real issue isn't bloggers vs mainstream press but learning how to recognize the ownership and bias of the established media outlets. Fox is a great example because its such a shitty and biased network that it perfectly illustrates why people should be skeptical of the media. The problem is that most people skeptical of the media do so because they think its liberal and see Fox as the alternative, when it reality, the news is fairly even-handed and pro-corporate, and its Fox that's the ideological nightmare.

Child porn will allow legislators to pass cyber-hunting laws against _everyone_ while posing as heroes.

Thwarting off Chinese and Russian cyber attacks involves _real work_. You have to be _real good_ and not some chubby guy in an office who just collects IP numbers from fools who download the eventual (unavoidable) jailbait pic.

Funny that I saw a CNN piece the other day on Interpol and they seemed to do real work on real human trafficking (hookers and illegal immigrants, basically). The FBI's cyber division seems to go after a bunch of largely irrelavant shit (piracy, child porn - what child porn?, poker (?), DMCA, PS3 hacking blah blah blah).

This is so American. Have you seen William's and Kate's marriage today? If that was in America, I don't think they would let the crowd even see it, or maybe they would take the opportunity to harass six-year-old girls!

Copyright Law Is Killing Science
Christians are Killing Science
Funding Cuts are Killing Science
Patents are Killing Science
Junk Science is Killing Science
Conservatives are Killing Science
Publishing is Killing Science
Public Education is Killing Science
Corporations are Killing Science
Capitalism is Killing Science
Immigration is Killing Science
Feminism is Killing Science (!)
Political Correctness is Killing Science
Networks are Killing Science
Too Many Scientists are Killing Science
Too Few Scientists are Killing Science

SCIENCE IS DEAD

According to this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/11/top-jobs-for-grads-nace-2_n_847505.html engineering jobs are doing quite well. This http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2008/tc20081113_488542.htm seems to suggest it might even be sexy!

It seems the first article in the main post talks about STEM but doesn't provide any real evidence but may be talking about an article noting the brain drain of the finance world and that the percentage of MIT grads going into finance increased. It was not the majority. This isn't a bad thing. I am a software engineer with a BS in computer science and an MS in computer engineering. I worked on financial software, device drivers, internet advertising software, remote control car embedded software, and wireless meshing software. STEM can take you into all sorts of industries. I don't know why this is a bad thing and I don't think that was what the President was saying.

The author says, "First, American culture has always realized this 'stuff' is important." I find that hard to believe. When I was in school, there were almost no computer science majors. My graduation had 3 CS majors walk with me with over 10,000 students enrolled at the university. Other STEM majors did a bit better but the reality is that our society looks down on STEM folks. It is considered weird and odd. Hollywood uses this stereotype often because the public believes it. We are geeks, nerds, dorks, etc. STEM really does need better PR since keeping the world running doesn't seem to matter much anymore.

The second article attacks pure science jobs. Most folks that major in STEM probably do not go on to pure research jobs. Why is this a bad thing? Many folks become engineers and use the research to create other things. They compare school teachers to scientists even though many are both. Many "pure" researches are college professors. "The women I know who are university professors, by and large, are unmarried and childless. By the time they get tenure, they are on the verge of infertility. " My wife is a university professor and we have two kids thank you. I know several other professional female mathematicians who married and had kids. It seems they these folks get married at the same rate as most other folks and have kids at about the same rate too. Also, the author ignores that the PhD can go into public school teaching and will be paid extra for having the degree. They can leave college and go into the private sector. Some do both. My wife programmed for a while and then came back to teaching because she liked teaching a lot more.

"men tend to lack perspective and are unable to step back and ask the question 'is this peer group worth impressing?' " That is an incredibly sexist statement. Does the author have any proof that women do not do the same? As far as I can tell the sentence should be changed to "people sometimes lack perspective..."

"When Albert goes to graduate school to get his PhD, his choice will have the same logical foundation as John Hinckley's attempt to impress Jodie Foster by shooting Ronald Reagan. " The author compares getting a PhD to being a stalker. This is why STEM needs better PR! Americans see most PhDs as potential stalkers who are just trying to impress the other potential stalkers. Maybe someone gets a PhD because they are actually really interested in the field and really want to study it for its own sake. Maybe someone cares about something other than money. Maybe there is more to life satisfaction than just making more money. Do you want a job that pays 20% more that you will hate or a job that you will love? Perhaps the PhD candidate is actually smarter enough to do what he/she loves.

"What about women? Don't they want to impress their peers? Yes, but they are more discriminating about choosin

And the crowd rightfully booed. News for Nerds? Not... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/20/robot-throw-first-pitch-phillies_n_851732.html

Are you implying Hollywood can't think of original content?
What would ever make you think of that?

Arthur
Bill And Ted 3
Annie (3rd remake!)
Footloose (Did we really need this movie again?)
True Grit
The Three Musketeers THIS TIME IN 3D!
and much more!

For the google-impaired:

GMO corn linked to organ damage.

The jury's still out on aspartame, however it does give me an enormous headache if I consume any at all. It's also a substance which does not exist in any significant quantity in food provided by nature, so your body may or may not be able to handle it. If yours does, that's "seems to work here", not "no problem". Let me know in 20 years how well it worked for you.

Finally, belittling the idea of "GMO++Frankenfood" is idiotic. There are plenty of good, logical reasons to be very cautious and do long term testing, which has never been done. Maybe you enjoy being used as a lab rat, but not everyone is willing to stake their future quality of life on "being a good consumer" for Monsanto.

'You see enemy soldiers not only brutalizing American civilians, but outright murdering a mother in front of her children and callously tossing corpses around,'

Oh, so pretty much what the US military does in many parts of the world every day. Making this game pernicious propaganda intended to demonise a universal enemy—"foreigners = bad guys"—along with its tag team of TV and Hollywood.

And it works very effectively: You quickly end up with Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, an astonishing rate of civilian massacre by flying robots piloted by laughing good ole boys, trophy killings for sport, and all the rest of the bloody, horrible theatre perpetrated by the world's most dangerous rogue state.

Ya know, I really think we outta give credit where credit is due, and I don't see how these young 'uns will ever be able to top the level of worthless in Cuecat. I mean get VCs to pay for scanners to be passed out so folks can go to the trouble of hooking it up, installing a buggy driver that spied on you AND all for the "privilege" of scanning AN AD so you could be hit with ads on your PC? that is sheer genius levels of worthless right there pal, I don't see FB or any of these kids being able to top THAT nuclear powered failure!

I think the bigger question than "what happens when this bubble bursts" is the much more fundamental question of "What do you do when you don't have a use for people anymore?" Because as it is we are ALL playing IQ musical chairs with less seats for a bigger population every. single. day. and the next to go WILL be the entire service industry. what then?

You think MickeyD's bitches about having to pay minimum wage now, which frankly in America one can't live on and actually keep from going under, what do you think they will do when they can replace the ENTIRE workforce with machines? hell there really isn't anything that can't be done in your average fast food joint that assembly line automation couldn't do better, more accurately, and 24/7 without breaks, the only thing keeping them with humans is cost, but what happens when the robot is cheaper? you can't expect to hire everyone part time at $6 an hour when gas is $6 a gallon and a bag of groceries costs them $60, so what then?

I'd say you have a good 60% of the population that are working C and D level jobs that WILL be either shipped overseas where there is no working regs and you can run sweatshops and pollute the entire area, what are we gonna do with them? Execute them? lock them up? make up bullshit jobs (BTW currently government employs MORE than manufacturing, farming, fishing, forestry, mining and utilities combined source here) so now what?

So I'd say that is the bigger question we are facing. If the top 25% have everything while the bottom 75% starve society will collapse, crime will be rampant as they try to survive, yet at the same time we simply don't need the labor of more and more people on this planet. What do we do with these jobless masses? Blowing more bubbles doesn't change it, neither does pushing the "education!" meme that politicians keep harping about while ignoring that more and more that graduate from all these colleges and trade schools have nothing to show but debt they can't pay, because in the end machines will do it better.

And before anyone pops in with the capitalist meme of "wages will go down and they'll balance!" I'd like to point to what the race to the bottom gets us, aka the the Halliburton clause where more and more of our precious water is being contaminated and being rendered unfit for use by those that want to make money NOW and screw later. Meanwhile the super rich just got a giant tax break thanks to outright bribery, so trying to beat the third world at who can be the most polluted and corrupt probably ain't the right way to go, that is unless you like the idea of paying $10 for a bottle of drinkable water and having your kids wear masks just to go outside.

Well, I was wrong. I inverted a stat, the "medical loss ratio", that is required under the new law to be 85% spent on actual healthcare, to say that the other 15% is profit. It's not - it includes operating the insurer as well as profit. And indeed the insurers reported only a few percent as their profit margin. However, even in 2009 (the worst year for the economy in many generations) their profits were continuing a steep rise that has continued for a decade. In 2010 their profits continued their steep rise. And now under the HCR law, they're cooking the books to keep more profits by labeling operating costs as "medical expenses".

These insurers process $TRILLIONS in medical costs. Their profit margins are counted against the vast American medical expenses that are counted as their costs. So a few percent profit margin is a huge profit, and has gotten only huger. In fact, by portraying their profits in the shadow of the medical expenses, they're incented to allow and even encourage medical expenses to grow, so their profits (and waste in operating costs) look smaller. Now they're directly incented to do so by the law they lobbied hard to get specified to their satisfaction.

This is the point: there's huge and growing profit in running a health insurance corp. You said there isn't, but you're wrong. My stated rebuttal was flawed, but the point we're actually arguing about is still not what you say. It takes a little more than just a google to understand how they're playing and winning this game.

Chernobyl may have been responsible for the rise in thyroid cancer in the US. Note that we were lied to during that crisis to preserve profit. Is it any wonder that we assume that our government is lying to us about the danger now?

Seriously? How about "from nuclear testing in Nevada"? There is no way anything from Chernobyl in any significant quantities could reach 180 degrees around the globe.

How about 2-fold asthma death increase over 10 year span and other diseases caused by air pollution, that could be almost eliminated by nuclear/electric power?

Chernobyl may have been responsible for the rise in thyroid cancer in the US. Note that we were lied to during that crisis to preserve profit. Is it any wonder that we assume that our government is lying to us about the danger now?

Seriously? How about "from nuclear testing in Nevada"? There is no way anything from Chernobyl in any significant quantities could reach 180 degrees around the globe.

How about 2-fold asthma death increase over 10 year span and other diseases caused by air pollution, that could be almost eliminated by nuclear/electric power?

Not to mention that it wasn't designed to take the earthquake (it did though, maybe. Maybe not.) or the tsunami (it didn't).

We have a winner! Have the rest of you all forgotten about monsanto korn that causes kidney failure? We need to rewrite the blinkenlights thingie, targeting would-be "genetic engineers" (with nature being the machine not for der fingerpoken, etc).

At least the problems with nuclear are local-ish.

Localish ? 2000 km away, we could not anymore eat fish from the lake during a while.

Chernobyl may have been responsible for the rise in thyroid cancer in the US. Note that we were lied to during that crisis to preserve profit. Is it any wonder that we assume that our government is lying to us about the danger now?

Death threats against Democrats are given the "aw, shucks" treatment.

References, please. When did this happen? Who specifically said it was "aw, shucks" for a Democrat to receive death threats?

Because I remember the news media spending weeks chiding Republicans and Tea Party members for an "extreme tone", while the same news media was much less interested in actual death threats made against Republicans.

It was big news that Sarah Palin's campaign used marks to indicate cities on a map, and the news media endlessly discussed how serious it is that Sarah Palin used words like "target" and "reload" when talking about election plans. It wasn't news at all that Democrat ads have used bullseyes, or even put a crosshairs with reticle over a Republican. That crosshairs looks like a rifle scope to me.

I remember that it was big news when a Republican shouted "You lie!" at President Obama, but it was not big news when a Wisconsin Democrat shouted "You're f***king dead!" at a Wisconsin Republican. (Nobody thinks it was a sincere threat of murder, but it still seems like a poor example of the more civil "new tone" talked about in recent months.)

Are you telling me that the same news media that was all over the Republican "extreme tone" downplayed actual death threats against Democrats?

Citation needed.

Disclaimer: I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat; I am a minarchist libertarian. I am not a fan of extremist rhetoric on either side, I am not a fan of death threats, and I am not a fan of double standards.

steveha

An excellent point! His bafflingly naive viewpoint and almost child-like understanding of the tools he hamfistedely rails against are validated because he's associated with an Internet startup that was bought out. And what a sturdy metric for argument cogency it is - only the best and brightest are chosen to be benefactors of the almighty corporate capital, and said corporate overlords will never overpay or make a bad investment!

Truthfully, I don't know who the fuck this guy is, and I'd never heard of "Milo.com" prior to your mentioning. His website looks dull and unremarkable, and appears - on the surface - to be a mediocre portal knockoff of Google's "Find Local" services. He may be a goddamn genius for all I know, but if he is, he should definitely work on sounding like less of a complete fucking retard when he chooses to drag out tired, cliche flamebait - or at the least, avoid making points indicating how completely oblivious he is to the capabilities of the platform he's rambling about.

Exactly, imagine if a teacher decided to do a sex toy demonstration with 18+ yr old students.

Yes to an extent. They have scaled back their presence in China considerably in order to no longer fall under the laws there. Now factor in that China is a much bigger potential market than France.

A quick reminder-- Amazon quickly and voluntarily pulled the plug on Wikileaks after a talking basset hound pressured them to do so.

I have my own little boycott against Amazon going and I invite you to join it. There are plenty of great places to buy things online. Give them a shot.

Okay, you're talking about Obama's proposal that got no traction with the rest of the party:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/16/obama-budget-proposal-dra_n_823995.html

Has that been it? Anything that they're actually proposing as a party? I did a quick google, and maybe I missed it. While as I stated, it takes two sides to disagree, it takes as many to come to a compromise.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the brinksmanship being played (I'm personally liable to be out of work if they don't pass something). But I'll confess to not having payed close attention to it since that's how political negotiations typically work (or not).

Here you go, it cites its sources, in case you don't trust the tertiary source.

It's funny how tea partiers take govt money like Mary Rakovich taking Medicare and Joe Miller's wife getting unemployment when he campaigned saying unemployment insurance was unconstitutional.

Sources: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1010/30/se.02.html

What would you say to critics who might say that that smacks of hypocrisy, that Conservative activists who want to do away with programs like that are also benefiting from programs like that? RAKOVICH: Thank God that it was there [...]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alaskadispatchcom/joe-millers-wife-took-une_b_751529.html

U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller confirmed Monday night that his wife -- once hired to work as a part-time clerk for the same Alaska court in which he was serving as a U.S. magistrate judge -- went on unemployment after she left the job.

Stick your dumbass Yankee whining up your arse. One word for you: Halliburton.

There is a remedy, it's a lawsuit. See eBay v. Craigslist

Put whatever you like in a contract, it's still going to take a court to enforce it.

Worse Than Chernobyl: When the Fukushima Meltdown Hits Groundwater

by Tom Burnett

Fukushima is going to dwarf Chenobyl.The Japanese government has had a level 7 nuclear disaster going for almost a week but won’t admit it.

The disaster is occurring the opposite way than Chernobyl, which exploded and stopped the reaction. At Fukushima, the reactions are getting worse. I suspect three nuclear piles are in meltdown and we will probably get some of it.

If reactor 3 is in meltdown, the concrete under the containment looks like lava. But Fukushima is not far off the water table. When that molten mass of self-sustaining nuclear material gets to the water table it won’t simply cool down. It will explode – not a nuclear explosion, but probably enough to involve the rest of the reactors and fuel rods at the facility.

Pouring concrete on a critical reactor makes no sense – it will simply explode and release more radioactive particulate matter. The concrete will melt and the problem will get worse. Chernobyl was different – a critical reactor exploded and stopped the reaction. At Fukushima, the reactor cores are still melting down. The ONLY way to stop that is to detonate a ~10 kiloton fission device inside each reactor containment vessel and hope to vaporize the cores. That’s probably a bad solution.

A nuclear meltdown is a self-sustaining reaction. Nothing can stop it except stopping the reaction. And that would require a nuclear weapon. In fact, it would require one in each containment vessel to merely stop what is going on now. But it will be messy.

Fukushima was waiting to happen because of the placement of the emergency generators. If they had not all failed at once by being inundated by a tsunami, Fukushima would not have happened as it did – although it WOULD still have been a nuclear disaster.Every containment in the world is built to withstand a Magnitude 6.9 earthquake; the Japanese chose to ignore the fact thata similar earthquake had hit that same general area in 1896.

Anyway, here is the information that the US doesn’t seem to want released. And here is a chart that might help with perspective.

Making matters worse is the MOX in reactor 3. MOX is the street name for ‘mixed oxide fuel‘ which uses ~9% plutonium along with a uranium compound to fuel reactors. This is why it can be used.

The problem is that you don’t want to play with this stuff. A nuclear reactor means bring fissile material to a point at which it is hot enough to boil water (in a light-water reactor) and not enough to melt and go supercritical (China syndrome or aChernobyl incident). You simply cannot let it get away from you because if it does, you can’t stop it.

The Japanese are still talking about days or weeks to clean this up. That’s not true. They cannot clean it up. And no one will live in that area again for dozens or maybe hundreds of years.

© 2011 Hawaii News Daily

Dr. Tom Burnett is a frequent contributor to the Hawaii News Daily.

Re: Germany http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/04/germany-the-worlds-first-major-renewable-energy-economy http://www.buildings.com/ArticleDetails/tabid/3334/ArticleID/11755/Default.aspx http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/26/germany-nuclear-power-protest_n_841023.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/03/23/tech-germany-nuclear.html

Please state why you think a 9.0 earthquake was a strong possibility - especially when expert geologists didn't think this particular fault was capable of more than an 8.5-8.6 or so prior to this -

Because plenty of other geologists said they should have been looking farther back than 1896 to plan their worst case scenario:

In postulating the maximum-sized earthquake and tsunami that the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex might face, TEPCO's engineers decided not to factor in quakes earlier than 1896. That meant the experts excluded a major quake that occurred more than 1,000 years ago â" a tremor followed by a powerful tsunami that hit many of the same locations as the recent disaster.

The warning from the 2001 report about the 3,000-year history would prove to be most telling: "The recurrence interval for a large-scale tsunami is 800 to 1,100 years. More than 1,100 years have passed since the Jogan tsunami, and, given the reoccurrence interval, the possibility of a large tsunami striking the Sendai plain is high."

Shorter storyline: Japan's nuclear industry downplayed the risks and ignored outside experts not on their payroll. Funny how often that happens...

It's not just Republicans doing this.

Look at HuffPo's website: http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/

Type in the address of your neighbor, see what political groups they contribute to. They used this to pull a list of Prop 8 contributors in California, to intimidate them.

I could make some sort of argument about anonymity and free speech, I guess, but apparently these things only matter when it's the other guys doing these acts.

... we tax corporations like GE first? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/25/ges-us-tax-bill-zero_n_840472.html

Here is a nice article about using spent fuel in a system that designed to use spent fuel.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/the-irradiated-elephant-i_b_837412.html

Are we crowdsourcing EVERYTHING nowadays? Even Hedge Fund stock prediction. My goodness!

like this one Hedge Fund Bets $40 Million That Twitter Can Predict The Stock Market

Since you obviously don't have cable there under your rock, this Huffington Post article may help your understanding. You could also try the risky gambit of hunting up a video clip on the interweb, but be warned: the goggles, they do nothing!