Slashdot Mirror

Here you go.

Once again, Iceland takes the extreme per capita value. I think we may have the most per capita extremes per capita of any country! ;-)

So? Take a look at the page for the USA. There are FAR more entries than Cuba has in a top ten. Granted, a lot are possive things, but scroll down to the mortality section...there are about 4 or 5 pages worth! Cuba had a handfull...

One thing the USA will never be top for is charity, or economic aid is it's properly known. Another delusional bubble burst...

They're also hold multiple top positions for refugees...

Who's fault is that, cough cough economic/medical/imigration sanctions? All because the US funded Bay Of Pigs terrorist attacks failed to top Castro.

So? Take a look at the page for the USA. There are FAR more entries than Cuba has in a top ten. Granted, a lot are possive things, but scroll down to the mortality section...there are about 4 or 5 pages worth! Cuba had a handfull...

One thing the USA will never be top for is charity, or economic aid is it's properly known. Another delusional bubble burst...

They're also hold multiple top positions for refugees...

Who's fault is that, cough cough economic/medical/imigration sanctions? All because the US funded Bay Of Pigs terrorist attacks failed to top Castro.

By your own source, it doesn't look like Cuba's healthcare system is working. Cuba is in the top 5 for MOST of the mortality-rate categories, including many things that you'd never die of in the USA, Japan or Europe:

See http://www.nationmaster.com/country/cu/Top-Ranking s

They're also hold multiple top positions for refugees...

Churchill was also a Luddite, as he demanded the destruction of the first programmable, digital electronic computers

So, getting back OT, since they were built out of telephone exchange parts, they would be almost possible to encode very low quality mp3 (or AAC). With a 1000 characters per second speed, that's about 8kbps encoding. Hmmm, dig that crackle, man.

Um no, the US is 48th out of a list of 224, not as you say, 50th out of 50. Life expectancy at birth - Total population

Why is it Amercians automatically assume they are the best at everything? Sorry to pop that little bubble, but you aren't even close. The US scrapes in at number 50 in the world for life expectancy. In a list of 50.

Plus, the US health system is regarded as one of the worst in the free world. You acknoledge this yourself with "for those that can afford it". One thing I take issue with is the idea that doctors personally profit from what treatments they prescribe. Sure, doctors should be more trustworthy than car mechanics, but it's a dangerous set-up if you ask me.

Ironically, Cuba is seen as having one of the best health systems in the world. Go figure...

How much of an increase in violent crime do you need to see in the UK or Australia before it dawns on you that:

A) Banning guns is a very, very bad idea

Very bad example. Here's why. The murder rate in the United States is still four times higher than it is in either the UK or Australia, despite a higher overall violent crime rate in those countries. In other words, there is more violent crime in the UK and Australia, but less murder. Why do you think this is?

It's because of cases like this. Cases that would be a simple mugging in other countries pretty frequently turn into murders here with easy access to deadly weapons. This woman - and countless others like her every year - simply would not be dead today if these stupid kids (and the stupid adults supposedly supervising them) did not have access to such weapons. Your position is directly supporting the murder of people like Nicole Dufresne.

B) It's impossible

Bullshit. Go to Japan and try to buy a gun. Seriously. If you think gun control doesn't work, then you just don't have a very well-developed world view. It does work and it has been working in various countries for many years. In fact, I just did a quick Google search on gun murder in Japan and quickly came up with some numbers from 1996: 9,390 gun murders in the US vs. 15 in Japan. Japan's murder rate has not increased appreciably since then - they have around 1,300 total per year (about 1/8 the number of gun murders alone in this country) with a population about half that of the United States.

I would say banning guns would have a far greater effect on reducing the murder rate than banning violent video game sales to minors. But that does not mean I am against such a ban. I don't see why it has to be either/or. There is no reason, for example, that a 12 year old kid should be playing a game like Manhunt. No justifiable reason at all. I would argue that there's no reason for anybody to play that game, but if adults want to play it, that's up to them. Kids, though - I mean adults need to step in and say "no". Yes, it's the parents' responsibility, but a lot of people seem to use that fact as some sort of rationale for abdicating societal responsibility. It is not, for example, legal for 12 year olds to commit murder or even to drive a car simply because it's their parents' responsibility to make sure that they don't. There is still a law saying they cannot do it, as there should be.

Handguns should be illegal. M-rated game sales to minors should be illegal. End of story. This is not a question of "my rights online", it's a question of living in a free and safe society that does not endorse the sale of devices whose sole purpose is to kill other human beings or the sale of adult content to children who do not yet have the mental maturity to properly process it.

I realize Slashdot has more than a bit of a libertarian slant, but there is a difference between being a libertarian and being an anarchist. There are plenty of countries in the world that are freer than we are in the United States but nevertheless have successfully implemented these perfectly reasonable regulations regarding public safety.

from a chart of the top 50 nations for "Revenues per capita" (meaning how much they have in the budget to spend per citizen:
>>>>>
27. United States $6702.42 per person
28. Jersey $6666.22 per person
29. Man, Isle of $6531.01 per person
30. Austria $6472.72 per person
31. Cayman Islands $6324.22 per person
32. Israel $6294.41 per person
33. Qatar $6119.56 per person
34. Singapore $6053.90 per person
35. Guernsey $5882.62 per person
36. British Virgin Islands $5591.34 per person
37. Andorra $5567.60 per person
38. Canada $5545.35 per person

>>>>

OK, now I know you are a "free market" conservative, and everything, but I really think that even YOU can see that $6702 is more than $5545. But since you are what you are (hey, I used to be one myself), I am going to put a real fine point on this for you: the taxes in America, all totalled up and everything, are MORE per person that they are in Canada. Period.

Hello,

The fallacy of the "average income". This doesn't mean that people living in the US necessarily have a higher income than in other countries.

For example the poverty line is defined as an income lower than 50% of the *median* income. By that measure the US has the third highest level of population (17%) living below that line (source), just behind such countries as Mexico and Russia.

The US is very rich but it is also unequal. Inequality is a recipe for social unrest.

Sir, may I be the first one to tell you that you are an Awesomely Grand And Amazingly Unstable Libertarian Nut. You would be quite amusing but it appears that some of your hallucinations (they appear to you as "facts" such as 50% taxation accross the board in "most" developed nations) and "ideas" are being taken seriously by your fellow patients. Therefore I only ask you this: kindly take your delusions of government-less, market-is-divinely-infallable, dog-eat-dog, "freedom" society and try to make it work on an island, preferrably far away in the middle of an ocean so when the thing implodes explosively we wont get any half-eaten chunks of Libertarian Heros blowing our way. Thank you so very much in advance.

Parent is not a troll -- this is a reference to a classic running joke on Saturday Night Live, lampooning news coverage of General Francisco Franco's death in 1965.

Presumably this was intended as humorous commentary on Michael's bizarrely editorializing headline, which recasts an article about Google's narrowing lead in the search engine market as a story about its continued dominance -- not to mention stating the obvious.

1. Was the subject line necessary? How was I exhibiting paranoia?

2. I'll be charitable and assume that what you wrote isn't quite what you meant. Because, like, North America and Europe are both in the northern hemisphere. (But I can't work out what you meant to write.)

3. I did read the OP, before I posted. I couldn't see why you were banging on about the northern hemisphere, as failedlogic never mentioned it.

4. The OP was not blaming "it" (presumably climate change) on North America and Europe. He said the "the brunt of the pollution stems from North American and European industrialization". That doesn't preclude contributions to the problem from other regions, it only means that the majority comes from North America and Europe. (So who's being paranoid now?)

5. And the OP was correct - North America and Europe do produce the majority of CO2 emissions. Here's some data. Using just the top 25 emitters, Europe (including half of Russia's figure, probably an underestimate as most of its population is in Europe) emits 4.0 billion tonnes, North America 6.6 billion tonnes, China and India combined (and heck, throw Australia in too) 4.8 billion tonnes. (The rest of the countries in the top 25 emit 3.8 billion tonnes (with the other half of Russia's figure), so North America + Europe are responsible for 55% of the total.) Of course this is only a factor of 2 smaller than North America and Europe's combined output. It's a major contribution to global CO2 emissions, no question.

But the OPs point remains - that if China and India were to have something like Western lifestyles, then their CO2 emissions will go through the roof. You can argue that Western countries are more efficient in particular energy uses if you like, but the fact is that the US produces 20 tonnes of CO2 per person, while China produces less than 3. If China became as "efficient" as the US, then it would be emitting 7 times as much CO2 as it currently does! That's what the OP was talking about. (And to reiterate, that's why it's silly to have included Australia in your discussion. We already have first world patterns of energy use, so are not relevant to the problem of industrialising countries. Instead we are part of the problem of already industralised ones.)

No one need die.

In Europe, people live a pretty good lifestyle. Yet the average western European consumes approximately HALF the energy of the average American. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_usa_per_p er). The average British person uses *less than half* of what the average American uses. Life expectancy is just as good in western Europe. Healthcare is good. The quality of life is good. This shows it can be done and it won't result in a 3rd world country.

It's trivially easy for any healthy adult to drastically slash their energy usage - in winter, turn the heat down 2 deg C, in summer turn the AC up 2 deg C. Ride your bike to work instead of driving twice a week (or walk if you're close enough). That alone will make a huge difference in your personal energy usage, and it will improve your health too. Replace light bulbs as they blow with low energy replacements. Don't run the water continuously whilst brushing your teeth. Use a hand-powered lawnmower instead of a gas/electric one. Plant a tree if your yard is big enough. There are many things you can do on a personal level to make a serious dent in your energy usage.

According to this site, we have 4 murders per 100,000 people whereas the UK has 1 per 100,000.

According to this site, we have 5.7 murders per 100,000 people whereas the UK has 1.41 per 100,000, so the 1 to 4 ratio seems to be corroborated. This second site seems to be more of a pro-gun site and explains that many facts are distorted re: gun homicide vs. gun suicide as well as the fact that the homicide rate in Britain did not change much following their ban of guns. This site also mentions that Canada has less households w/ guns (29% vs. 39%) but they also do have about 1/3rd the murders. I don't know how that works out per capita though.

So. Basically you are simply wrong according to these sites. You only addressed one comment and that's all I really have time to address in your rebuttle.

So maybe my statement is wrong. Or maybe yours is. But it's difficult to find info that does not have an agenda behind it. My biggest complaint with your comment was that you make a blanket statement like that. "Gun control laws don't work".

And when I have some time, I'll look into the assault ban. It was my understanding that this was a ban on full auto guns. Semi auto were still legal I believe. I'd rather here your comments on why you don't think that technological solutions to the things that make people want to ban guns won't work...

I mean, hell, the idea that a hacker could take your gun and exploit the "biometrics identity thingy", kill someone and frame you for the murder would be a better argument then "what if there is blood on the handle".

I'd also appreciate an argument where you don't feel the government should have a record of all gun owners because in the event of a dictatorship these people would be easier to "round up".

I mean basically we can argue stats and causes and everything else and we'll never really know because even the researchers and police have a motivation to sometimes skew the stats.

Maybe you should look at a chart of age distribution for the U.S. and compare it to a chart of age distribution for the Congo. One of those charts looks like it could support old people while having a minimal impact on younger generations for as far as the eye can see, the other, not-so-much. And it only gets worse for other countries, like Italy. Judge for yourself.

Maybe you should look at a chart of age distribution for the U.S. and compare it to a chart of age distribution for the Congo. One of those charts looks like it could support old people while having a minimal impact on younger generations for as far as the eye can see, the other, not-so-much. And it only gets worse for other countries, like Italy. Judge for yourself.

If you're going to compare to the EU, let's go all the way. The EU has a declining birthrate and a large number of people on the verge of retirement. Their socialist systems will implode under their own weight.

The same is being said about our Social Security system, which btw, is the largest socialist program that is not identified as a socialist program. Socialism in the US?! Never!!

Let's also mention military might. The EU spends about $0.35/year on their military budget, and that's why when some asshole in Absurdistan starts massacring people, the EU sends a platoon of potato peelers and the US sends 20 battallions of armed and trained Marines.

I'd rather we followed the prime directive. We don't. But despite spending almost as much as the rest of the world does on military, we don't have a stellar record of policing the world.

I don't remember any of our marines showing up when Pol Pot butchered a million (give or take a few hundred thousand) Cambodians. Or when Idi Amin "Dada" wiped out half a million of his subjects. Where exactly where our marines when Juvénal Habyarimana was waging a genocidal war against the Tutsis? (Of course, after his death another 800,000 were slaughtered, so can't directly credit him with every death.) BTW, it was the French who stepped in to bring a fragile "peace" (a little too late for all the dead), but our marines were quite conspicuous by their absence during all this turmoil. Did our marines show up when Augusto Pinochet was busy imprisoning, torturing and executing 30,000 Chileans?

So yes, we send our Marines only to the Absurdistans that happen to have oil. See how our marines took care of the "Butcher of Baghdad"; but let us not dampen our euphoria by also mentioning the 17,500 to 100,000 we have managed to wipe out in the process of deposing Saddam Hussein.

BTW, it is not as if the EU is stingy when it comes to spending money on their military. France, Germany, the UK, and Italy are 4 of the top 7 countries when it comes to the military expenditures. France, Norway, Greece, UK, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Finland, all make it to the top 25 Military Expenditures per capita.

The EU socialist-lite system works because it depends on the charity of the American military.

For all the money we are pouring into the military complex, we'd better believe that we are doing it for charity, or we'll have to start asking some really disturbing questions. The EU may or may not collapse under the weight of their socialist systems. But one thing is certain - if current levels of military expenditures continue and 'boomers start to retire in 2010, then by 2015 the US budget will have little else to spend on other than the Defence, Soc. Sec, and medicare. No wriggle room.

By 2025 the proverbial shit will hit the fan. Don't take my or anyone else's word for it (such as the NYTimes, WashingtonPost or for that matter

If you're going to compare to the EU, let's go all the way. The EU has a declining birthrate and a large number of people on the verge of retirement. Their socialist systems will implode under their own weight.

The same is being said about our Social Security system, which btw, is the largest socialist program that is not identified as a socialist program. Socialism in the US?! Never!!

Let's also mention military might. The EU spends about $0.35/year on their military budget, and that's why when some asshole in Absurdistan starts massacring people, the EU sends a platoon of potato peelers and the US sends 20 battallions of armed and trained Marines.

I'd rather we followed the prime directive. We don't. But despite spending almost as much as the rest of the world does on military, we don't have a stellar record of policing the world.

I don't remember any of our marines showing up when Pol Pot butchered a million (give or take a few hundred thousand) Cambodians. Or when Idi Amin "Dada" wiped out half a million of his subjects. Where exactly where our marines when Juvénal Habyarimana was waging a genocidal war against the Tutsis? (Of course, after his death another 800,000 were slaughtered, so can't directly credit him with every death.) BTW, it was the French who stepped in to bring a fragile "peace" (a little too late for all the dead), but our marines were quite conspicuous by their absence during all this turmoil. Did our marines show up when Augusto Pinochet was busy imprisoning, torturing and executing 30,000 Chileans?

So yes, we send our Marines only to the Absurdistans that happen to have oil. See how our marines took care of the "Butcher of Baghdad"; but let us not dampen our euphoria by also mentioning the 17,500 to 100,000 we have managed to wipe out in the process of deposing Saddam Hussein.

BTW, it is not as if the EU is stingy when it comes to spending money on their military. France, Germany, the UK, and Italy are 4 of the top 7 countries when it comes to the military expenditures. France, Norway, Greece, UK, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Finland, all make it to the top 25 Military Expenditures per capita.

The EU socialist-lite system works because it depends on the charity of the American military.

For all the money we are pouring into the military complex, we'd better believe that we are doing it for charity, or we'll have to start asking some really disturbing questions. The EU may or may not collapse under the weight of their socialist systems. But one thing is certain - if current levels of military expenditures continue and 'boomers start to retire in 2010, then by 2015 the US budget will have little else to spend on other than the Defence, Soc. Sec, and medicare. No wriggle room.

By 2025 the proverbial shit will hit the fan. Don't take my or anyone else's word for it (such as the NYTimes, WashingtonPost or for that matter

BULLSHIT. The US gives out bugger all in foreign aid. It gives out a lot in foreign LOANS which it calls aid. And these loans go to the corrupt leaders that are doing what they are told, meanwhile the population have to pay them off for the rest of their lives. They turn the country practically into a hostage of the "donor" country.

Google for "third world debt". Loaning a country money instead of aid is anti-aid. It is the complete opposite of aid, and most first-world countries have stopped doing it; in fact many are now writing off these ill conceived loans. However, not only does the US continue to do it; it has the population feeling all warm and fuzzy about how generous their country is compared to everyone else. In reality, you only just make it into the top twenty of aid givers. Which is pretty embarassing considering you have the largest economy in the world by a long shot.

Of course, when it comes to arms spending, you are easily in the top five per capita; but if you look at raw spending, you are way way way out in front at $276.7 billion (1999). The next person in the list is China at $55.91 billion (2002). Yes, that's right, China only spends 20% of what the US spends on making war.

Yup, a nation of peace lovers and peace makers indeed. So you can forgive us when we question your motivies for whatever country is on the business plan next.

BULLSHIT. The US gives out bugger all in foreign aid. It gives out a lot in foreign LOANS which it calls aid. And these loans go to the corrupt leaders that are doing what they are told, meanwhile the population have to pay them off for the rest of their lives. They turn the country practically into a hostage of the "donor" country.

Google for "third world debt". Loaning a country money instead of aid is anti-aid. It is the complete opposite of aid, and most first-world countries have stopped doing it; in fact many are now writing off these ill conceived loans. However, not only does the US continue to do it; it has the population feeling all warm and fuzzy about how generous their country is compared to everyone else. In reality, you only just make it into the top twenty of aid givers. Which is pretty embarassing considering you have the largest economy in the world by a long shot.

Of course, when it comes to arms spending, you are easily in the top five per capita; but if you look at raw spending, you are way way way out in front at $276.7 billion (1999). The next person in the list is China at $55.91 billion (2002). Yes, that's right, China only spends 20% of what the US spends on making war.

Yup, a nation of peace lovers and peace makers indeed. So you can forgive us when we question your motivies for whatever country is on the business plan next.

BULLSHIT. The US gives out bugger all in foreign aid. It gives out a lot in foreign LOANS which it calls aid. And these loans go to the corrupt leaders that are doing what they are told, meanwhile the population have to pay them off for the rest of their lives. They turn the country practically into a hostage of the "donor" country.

Google for "third world debt". Loaning a country money instead of aid is anti-aid. It is the complete opposite of aid, and most first-world countries have stopped doing it; in fact many are now writing off these ill conceived loans. However, not only does the US continue to do it; it has the population feeling all warm and fuzzy about how generous their country is compared to everyone else. In reality, you only just make it into the top twenty of aid givers. Which is pretty embarassing considering you have the largest economy in the world by a long shot.

Of course, when it comes to arms spending, you are easily in the top five per capita; but if you look at raw spending, you are way way way out in front at $276.7 billion (1999). The next person in the list is China at $55.91 billion (2002). Yes, that's right, China only spends 20% of what the US spends on making war.

Yup, a nation of peace lovers and peace makers indeed. So you can forgive us when we question your motivies for whatever country is on the business plan next.

I have to wonder why you linked to that one rather than this one... Still, the US doesn't look too good. But as they say... reported crimes indicates willingness to report crimes just as much as the number that occur.

Not according to this. However, you have to look at how we define and punish rape as well. I mean, if I had the choice between honor killing and keeping my mouth shut, I know which one I'd pick. Also, given that American prisons are gay sex torture factories, I have to wonder how many of those incidents took place behind bars.

To any Canadians reading this: we know that you don't approve of our lifestyles or our choices, but you're still one of our best friends. Noone gets to you without fighting us first. Remember, though, that we're spending over $700 per person per year more than you to defend our two countries. Yes, you guys have managed to do some pretty neat things with your tax revenue, but we could probably use that money for some nifty projects of our own if we weren't using it for mutual defense.

And I'm still waiting for the "racism" card to be played by pro-unfair immigration advocates.

Foreign workers tend to be well educated, dedicated, and happy to be working

Uh. Most foreign workers are illegal immigrants with little education

Nice generalization, though. Americans seem pretty well educated check here.

American workers tend to be 'l33t h4x0rs' who think they don't make enough while being the first to head for the door at 4:30

American are the best programmers and Americans are some of the hardest working people on the planet.

Nice try.

And I'm still waiting for the "racism" card to be played by pro-unfair immigration advocates.

Foreign workers tend to be well educated, dedicated, and happy to be working

Uh. Most foreign workers are illegal immigrants with little education

Nice generalization, though. Americans seem pretty well educated check here.

American workers tend to be 'l33t h4x0rs' who think they don't make enough while being the first to head for the door at 4:30

American are the best programmers and Americans are some of the hardest working people on the planet.

Nice try.

coming from a country that executes children in prison while having the highest prison population in the western world

perhaps you are not ready for the whole "freedom thing" just yet

not mentioned before in this thread so I'll do it.

Per capita the US uses more than 12000 KWh per year, Japan ~7500 and Germany ~6000 (source) ). Same for oil: US per capita: 68 gallons, Japan: 42, Germany 33 (source: source). So we're comparing the three of the whealthiest and industrialized nations on Earth and one uses more than two times the energy. There's not a single reason for this depite the fact that the US wastes energy like noone else on this planet.

When atke into account that less than half of the US energy comes from Oil and that a not that small part comes from domestic sources, I guesstimate that by saving less than a third of the current energy usage the USA could become completly independent from foreign oil. And you would still use more energy than Japan for example.

This goal is reachable rather easy as you can see in Japan or Germany.

Sell your SUV, buy a Volkswagen/Audi TDI (will use less than half of your energy). Switch off your AC when you leave or when you don't need it. Change to energy saving light bulbs (will use less than 15% of your original energy usage). Throw away your old fridge and buy an energy saving new one (will use less than half of your old). Etc. pp.

It's doable. It's easy.

Bye egghat.

not mentioned before in this thread so I'll do it.

Per capita the US uses more than 12000 KWh per year, Japan ~7500 and Germany ~6000 (source) ). Same for oil: US per capita: 68 gallons, Japan: 42, Germany 33 (source: source). So we're comparing the three of the whealthiest and industrialized nations on Earth and one uses more than two times the energy. There's not a single reason for this depite the fact that the US wastes energy like noone else on this planet.

When atke into account that less than half of the US energy comes from Oil and that a not that small part comes from domestic sources, I guesstimate that by saving less than a third of the current energy usage the USA could become completly independent from foreign oil. And you would still use more energy than Japan for example.

This goal is reachable rather easy as you can see in Japan or Germany.

Sell your SUV, buy a Volkswagen/Audi TDI (will use less than half of your energy). Switch off your AC when you leave or when you don't need it. Change to energy saving light bulbs (will use less than 15% of your original energy usage). Throw away your old fridge and buy an energy saving new one (will use less than half of your old). Etc. pp.

It's doable. It's easy.

Bye egghat.

(Note: Americans are dumb is not an acceptable answer.)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_dur_of_edu _exp_all_stu

Americans are not dumb but they are not as educated as they should be. Unfortunately many of the Democratic policies depend on logic and looking at the facts. So then they are left with either having good policies such as separation of church and state or winning an election.
By the way I would not say this is a "big" loss. Look at Clinton or Reagan elections... you need some perspective.

America isn't the name of a continent. It's the name of a supercontinent that consists of two continents, North and South America. Look in the encyclopedia here. The relevant quote: "Neogene, Laurentia, in the form of North America, crashed into South America, forming the minor supercontinent America". Even now, in geographical terms, "America" is used to refer to North and South America.

Mexico is part of Central America dumbass. Canada and the US make up North America.

Actually, North America consists of three countries Canada, United States and Mexico; Bermuda, a territory of the UK; and Saint Pierre et Miquelon, a territory of France. Check your facts next time.

Biosphere II

According to Nationmaster.com the U.S. far out-spends India in education. Fact is, practicing medicine in the U.S. is far too expensive. My father in law talked my wife out of a career in medicine (he's a pathologist). He told her just about all his peers would choose a different path if they had a chance to do it again.

Why? Malpractice.

The problem in the U.S. is not that we don't have enough doctors. It's that we have too many lawyers.

CBC = Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is a crown corporation, and has no affiliation with the BBC.

Yes, I realize the article's about scientific names of organisms and Sonic's just a poor little old gene, but who reads the articles anyway? This guy at the U. Washington discovered a quickly changing version of the Hedgehog Gene (Hgg) and thus named it Sonic Hedgehog Gene. The amazing part is that Sega didn't sue. In fact, they were honored. And Sonic the Hedgehog (the Sega one) got to be on the cover of Cell magazine. non wikipedia reference here

Parts per million is a nice number.

Since the US used a little over a thousand million tons of coal in 2001*, that means roughly 1300 tons of uranium and 3200 tons of thorium were released directly into the atmosphere for your breathing pleasure that year.

Compare this to the Chernobyl accident, which released 50 tons of radioactive dust into the air. **

HTH, HAND! :)

* you can look it up here.
** source: http://www.eh.doe.gov/health/hstudies/chern_hes.ht ml

BZZZZZZZT! Nuclear bullshit warning! Nuclear bullshit warning! Nuclear bullshit warning! The previous post may have contained bullshit that could be hazardous to your health!

Sorry, to bum your high, but while plutonium is a bad thing it is by no means as toxic as everyone seems to think it is. If you read the encyclopedia entry on plutonium you find that the toxicity has been much exaggerated. The section on oral toxicity in the excerpt below is especially informative.

All isotopes and compounds of plutonium are toxic and radioactive. While plutonium is sometimes described in media reports as "the most toxic substance known to man", there is general agreement among experts in the field that this is incorrect. As of 2003, there has yet to be a single human death officially attributed to plutonium exposure. Naturally-occurring radium is about 200 times more radiotoxic than plutonium, and some organic toxins like botulism toxin are still more toxic. Botulism toxin, in particular, has a lethal dose in the hundreds of pg per kg, far less than the quantity of plutonium that poses a significant cancer risk. In addition, beta and gamma emitters (including the C-14 and K-40 in nearly all food) can cause cancer on casual contact, which alpha emitters cannot.

Orally, plutonium is less toxic than several common substances, including caffeine, acetominopnen, some vitamins, (pseudo)ephedrine, all narcotic pain killers (including codeine) and any number of plants and fungi. It is perhaps somewhat more toxic than absolute alcohol, but less so than tobacco and most illegal drugs (some such as LSD and marijuana are not or barely toxic). As such, it is debatable whether plutonium should even be classified as a poison. (emphasis mine)

That said, there is no doubt that plutonium may be extremely dangerous when handled incorrectly. The alpha radiation it emits does not penetrate the skin, but can irradiate internal organs when plutonium is inhaled or ingested; particularly at risk are the skeleton, which it is liable to be absorbed onto the surface of, and the liver, where it will collect and become concentrated. Extremely small particles of plutonium on the order of micrograms have a (small) chance to cause lung cancer if inhaled into the lungs.

Other substances including ricin, botulinum toxin and tetanus toxin are fatal in doses of (sometimes far) under one milligram, and others (the nerve agents, nutmeg by injection, the amanita toxin, the fugu toxin) are in the range of a few milligrams. As such, plutonium is not unusual in terms of toxicity, even by inhalation. In addition, those substances are fatal in hours to days, whereas plutonium (and other cancer-causing radioactives) give an increased chance of illness decades in the future. Considerably larger amounts may cause acute radiation poisoning and death if ingested or inhaled; however, so far, no human is known to have died because of inhaling or ingesting plutonium and many people have measurable amounts of plutonium in their bodies.

The chemical and radiological toxicity of plutonium should be distinguished from eachother and further, from the potential danger of a runaway fission reaction or "criticality". Many, both in the anti-nuclear movement and in the continuing green politics movement, refer to plutonium as the most dangerous substance known to man because of its use in nuclear power plants which are seen as inherently dangerous and its potential as a catalyst for nuclear weapons proliferation.

Possibly it is the confusion of these two issues that has led to sensational exaggerations of plutonium toxicity. A 1989 paper by Bernard L. Cohen states: Pu hazards are far better understood than [those from insecticides or food additives], and the one fatality per 300 years they may someday cause is truly trivial by comparis

The large maps show the nitrogen oxide levels roughly correspond with how much is emitted by the countries, which makes sense. NO2 emissions per capita

Have you EVER been outside the US? How many cars do you see in Europe that are MADE IN THE USA(not made by a US company) Here are the statistics: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ind_car_pro Granted: The US is of course one of the biggest producers of cars, but per capita, Europe or Japan got it beat by a big margin.

Well, if they use four times as much as, they'll use as much as the US - which has a fifth of the population. Very close, that.

Give me arguments why you think Fox news is unbiased and Murdoch is harmless. This guy has a track record in Australia and the UK of trying to interfere with local politics. And the debate was open in germany in the press (you can read that up ) when Murdoch for a short period of time took over the local TV station VOX.

Just look at Wikipedia for a good coverage on Ruperd Murdoch. Link here

I don't think we'll see action on this area until people start sending annonymous copyright takedown notices to the ISP's of members of congress, as well as the heads of major corporations, showing them the folly of giving others full control over your life and business without due process. Of course such a thing would be illegal and dangerous, and a person would have to be crazy to do such a thing. After all, laws are a social contract, which we must obey in order for society to function. In a society ravaged by terrorism like ours, sending mixed messages is the last thing we can afford.

I've had a quite a bit of trouble finding some stats like this in the past. It can be quite hard to find detailed statistical info. I suspect that it's a direct result of the general dumbing-down you tend to find in the media these days; stats are too hard for Joe Average so they don't get mentioned.

Then my girlfriend (who's very skilled in information-broking) showed me Nationmaster.com

Nationmaster has access to every stat you can imagine, easily allows you select what you're after, compare it to pretty much anything, make graphs, charts, correlations, you name it.

Without further ado, here's the graph for CO2 emissions. The USA is indeed way out there in the lead; China is second but is still 40% behind the US. When you compare on a per capita basis, the results are also quite interesting. Four oil producing nations take the first few places, the USA drops to number five, and China goes down to 79th position.

Looks like China might not be that bad after all...

I've had a quite a bit of trouble finding some stats like this in the past. It can be quite hard to find detailed statistical info. I suspect that it's a direct result of the general dumbing-down you tend to find in the media these days; stats are too hard for Joe Average so they don't get mentioned.

Then my girlfriend (who's very skilled in information-broking) showed me Nationmaster.com

Nationmaster has access to every stat you can imagine, easily allows you select what you're after, compare it to pretty much anything, make graphs, charts, correlations, you name it.

Without further ado, here's the graph for CO2 emissions. The USA is indeed way out there in the lead; China is second but is still 40% behind the US. When you compare on a per capita basis, the results are also quite interesting. Four oil producing nations take the first few places, the USA drops to number five, and China goes down to 79th position.

Looks like China might not be that bad after all...

I've had a quite a bit of trouble finding some stats like this in the past. It can be quite hard to find detailed statistical info. I suspect that it's a direct result of the general dumbing-down you tend to find in the media these days; stats are too hard for Joe Average so they don't get mentioned.

Then my girlfriend (who's very skilled in information-broking) showed me Nationmaster.com

Nationmaster has access to every stat you can imagine, easily allows you select what you're after, compare it to pretty much anything, make graphs, charts, correlations, you name it.

Without further ado, here's the graph for CO2 emissions. The USA is indeed way out there in the lead; China is second but is still 40% behind the US. When you compare on a per capita basis, the results are also quite interesting. Four oil producing nations take the first few places, the USA drops to number five, and China goes down to 79th position.

Looks like China might not be that bad after all...

So even John Kerry voted not to ratify Kyoto. Hell, even fathead Ted Kennedy did. Because it's not about "the environment", it's about shackling the economies of the west.

If I remember correctly the two countries. who did not (Russia just did) ratify the aggreement were USA and Australia. These countries were asked to reduce their CO2 emission by 7%, which is not an unreasonable figure considering the fact that these countries discharge the most (per capita). Especially since countries that emit less (eg. Germany & Denmark) woved to reduce their discharge with 21% (!).

The argument presented by the USA was, that the developing countries should also reduce their emission. An argument that, IMHO, does not make much sense as these countries emit very litte (eg. they would have to give up public transportation to reduce emissions, contrasted with the fact that it would only require americans to drop their SUVs).

And if you look deeper, you will see the huge trade concessions made to Russia (by EU member states) in order for them to sign.

I believe the "trade concessions" you talk of, namely allowing Russia to keep their discharge constant, was made in an attempt to get them to sign. It could also be argued that it was not an unreasonable compromise, as Russia has had a disastrous economy since the fall of the Iron Curtain, and is still struggling to regain it's footing.

BTW. This is not to be considered an critique of neither Republicans nor Democrats. This is an internal affair, and as I am not an US citizen I will keep out of it (although I have my opinions ;). It is however a critique of the twocountries that did not sign the Kyoto agreement.

Yes, and that may a key reason why the opinion polls are more variable this year than most. Polls try to measure "likely voters," but how do you identify "likely" in a high-turnout year? Hence the argument between Gallop and MoveOn.org. But there's still room for improvement. Check out this table of registered voter turnout. In the USA in 2000, it was 67.4%. Many nations have much igher turnout. Here's some turnout figures as a percent of population from wikipedia

Year Voting Age Pop. Turnout % Turnout
2000 205,815,000 105,586,274 51.30%
1996 196,511,000 96,456,345 49.08%
1992 189,529,000 104,405,155 55.09%
1988 182,778,000 91,594,693 50.11%

My point with this data is to underscore that if either party could get a third of its stay-at-homes in battleground states to turn out on Nov 2, they would sweep the battlegrounds. There is plenty of gold to be mined there.

Historically, Republicans have optained higher turnout than Democrats (sorry I couldn't easily google the numbers to support this). In any case, the Bush campaign is addressing the question "why do our people stay at home?" Maybe their voters are disgusted with both candidates. If so, maybe gay marriage or a similar issue will get them to the polls. Otherwise, try and make the race about the other guy; make him even more disgusting.

Historically, the demographic groups that vote Democratic tend to under-register and turn out less. Also, historically according to Charlie Cook late undecided voters eventually vote 2:1 or 3:1 against the incumbent. They also tend to come from the middle of the political spectrum; hence undecided. So Kerry has two ways to draw voters: one is to reach for the middle -- keep the undecideds from going to Bush -- if they merely stay undecided, he gets a big chunk of them. The other is to register and turn out his traditional demographic supporters.

Why don't the republicans reach for the middle, the undecideds? An excellent question. Their strategy is set by Karl Rove and he's the best in the business, so I'm confident it's their best bet. My guess is that going negative will repel some of the middle, but increase turnout of the base, while staying positive would do a little of the opposite. Rove must have weighed the two carefully and chosen what he thought would get the most votes.

uahaha, you're kidding right? The coalition of the willing had 47 members out of 200 something countries and with the exception of Great Britain and Australia all were either only paying lip service (Saudi Arabia, Japan and Germany payed for most of Gulf War I, this time Japan sent 50 soldiers after the fighting was over and called them back home as soon as it started again) or a joke (Albania? Azerbaijan? Those countries need peace keepers themselves). Public opinion in nearly all of those countries (especially your traditional allies i.e. UK, Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia) was always against this war with the exception of the UK which was supporting it the first few weeks their troops were actually in combat (I'm not sure about Australia, they could've been supporting it also but I think they weren't)

You simply shrug off every country except the one's with British origins. Whoever you get your info from is probably a racist. You have absolutely no evidence for claims like "oh they really didn't support war, they just said they did.". That is so ridiculous I am not gonna argue this point any further.

The part where it allows the government to postpone it infinitely.

For non-US citizens. As a US citizen, I am not worried about this. The same people who are standing out against this, the ACLU, are the people saying illegal immigrants should have the right to vote.

No, I come to the conclusion that Shiites and Southern Shiite Arabs want that. I miss numbers for all of Iraq.

Ok, I have you now dumb ass. Of the 95% Muslim population of Iraq, about 2/3 are Shia; they were oppressed by the Sunni-dominated Ba'ath Party that ruled Iraq. SOURCE. That is the end of that stupid argument.

No I think most want a stable Iraq and America out in that order, as fast as possible.

Well that's what we're doing dumb ass!!!

What I'd really like to see are numbers about people who think that the current situation is better than 2 years ago, worse than 2 years ago, worse than 2 years ago but acceptable in hope of a situation better than 2 years ago somewhere down the road.

Sounds good to me. Problem with polling on the street is that these street people are the same people looting abandoned US vehicles, hanging charred bodies from a bridge, throwing rocks at US troops. There is no accurate polling data on poverty in Iraq. It wasn't done. Saddam had no need for figures on the number of homeless people in Iraq, because he didn't care. The polling aught to be done through the mail, and I'm not even sure if they have a stable postal system yet.

It was a wise thinker who once said "Nothing can be sole or whole that has not been rent". If you're expecting world peace to occur all on it's own, you're an idiot.

I think you hated George Bush to begin with, he "stole" your election, imposed stricter drug laws, instated religious initiatives, and a few other convtroversial measures. I don't think these points you bring up are anything but propoganda used to try and sway public opinion, made by the democrats. Oh god, Reagan won the cold war by building nuclear weapons, and now George Bush is going to try and fix violence in the middle east? Oh god. We have to stop them.

I read they battled *Iraqi* insurgents. Not Syrians. Iraqis who probably got money and weapons from Syria but that's something different. I think there are foreign fighters but I also think foreign fighters only are a hardcore minority of insurgents.

Look, I'm glad you can be sensible for once. But I have to point out, the phrase "Iraqi insurgents" denotes NOTHING about where they were from, only that they are trying to destablize the Iraqi government. Would you agree that they are trying to destabilize the Iraqi government? It's good to know that you think the money and weapons are coming from Syria. They weapons may not be coming from Syria, but I'm sure Syria is very