Slashdot Mirror

They are called containement units because they can contain a fucking meltdown. They are strong enough to resist a kamikaze attack from a jet fighter. There is no way small explosives could breach them.

Something that was a bit of a surprise about a nuclear war between Pakistan and India seems to be important here as well. Nuclear war between India an Pakistan would lift quite a lot of soot into the troposphere because of all the combustible material in cities. It turns out that solar heating of that soot causes the heated air parcels to rise into the stratosphere. That means that the soot does not fall out right away and is spread over the globe, blocking sunlight and cooling the planet enough to cause crop failure and famine around the world. http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/47829/story.htm

This same mechanism is playing a similar though smaller role here by causing stronger updrafts. Interesting confirmation.

I have written, semi-privately, on specifically: Medical testing, patent law, and human ownership of genes. It was about 75 pages, 150+ sources, 8 revision (hopefully with no errors).

It was for a senior uni case study concerning a few major happenings about 1.5 years ago. I was urged to publish, but after I stepped back and realized what exactly I had written, I thought otherwise. I petitioned that the school keep it internal and not release potentially disastrous critiques of many companies, organizations, and governmental law.

Why dont you take a look at Bayer Cropscience Rice disaster...Oh wait. That wasnt in the news here in the USA.

governments have [...] other expenses than just spending (eg, destruction of currency).

Bah, that's so demonde... nowadays governments just sell their currency to the Chinese.

Reptiles have perfectly good immune systems: in the case of alligators, they're better than human ones. However, since reptiles are cold-blooded, the seasonal temperature variation means reptiles have suppressed immune function during cold periods, so they'd be predisposed to higher mortality from disease after a meteorite strike or extensive volcanic activity puts enough debris in the atmosphere to reduce the Earth's temperature.
The Black Death spread across Europe and the Mideast in less than 4 years -- individual diseases can move very quickly. The idea that the rise of a class of disease vectors, biting insects, might've gradually led to higher mortality, is interesting, and something I'd never read about.

Admittedly I do have a somewhat emotional involvement in the situation (I suppose according to the GP's logic I should worried about cancer myself now :-P), but there is evidence that the amount of pollution these companies produce can and do seriously affect the health of individuals who live around them. I provided the links as an illustration of this, so you may want to go back and follow them. I'll even provide you with another, just to drive home my point. As far as having no reason to suspect it wasn't natural, you can't seriously ask me to believe that lead levels like that are normal. Why do you think they don't use lead paint anymore? There is far, far more evidence pointing to pollution causing (some, not all) cancer than there is for any kind of traumatic psychological events that the GP is blathering about.

I'm not anti-nuke. With all of the desalination we'll need to do in the future, it really makes the most sense. However ocean based wind farms are a great idea and we really ought to pursue that too, since land cost is well, rather irrelevant, as is noise.

There's a great offshore wind project in the Netherlands we would be well served to emulate. California is between a rock and a hard place since they're net power importers and (due to smog regs) the only conventional power plants they can build are natural gas powered, which sets us up for another Enron, only this time in the CNG market.

Air travel accounts of less then 10% of oil use in the transportation sector.

True, but it will probably be hardest to eliminate liquid fuels from air travel because of weight issues.

Most oil is used for cars and trucks. Displacing that oil use is a huge step.

No argument, and I fully expect that to happen.

I have a lot of faith in commercial ventures exploring other options (i.e. Virgin Fuels).

Sounds like those folks are just another biofuels company. Maybe they'll push butanol instead of ethanol.

It is really going on. Here is one of many links that pop up if you google "indonesia carpool jockey".

Of course, a real study of the thickness of the ice sheet shows that it's actually GROWING, an average of 5.4 cm per year. If you only look at the edges, yes they're losing 2 cm per year. Of course, the vast majority of the ice sheet is in the center, and it's GROWING by 6.4 cm per year.

Selective data is oft-used on the pro-AGW side; when a basic flaw in the underlying data is discovered, rather than doing the proper scientific thing - which is to step back, re-examine the data, your process, and your conclusions - the modus operandi seems to be to slander the source, label, attack, and whine.

So I assume we can wait for you to take the ESA to task for their latest measurements showing that Greenland is NOT melting away, since it does not fit the current AGW claims?

Not a denier, just one who's keeping an open mind, looking at the data critically...

>

Read more at:

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid /43163/story.htm

(yes, this is off topic for the overall article... but I felt it was important enough to post this rather than use my moderation points)

"Remember how bad Freon and CFCs were? They were going to destroy the ozone layer."

Remember how we had that big hole in the Ozone that kept growing when we were using Freon and CFCs? And then we stopped using them and the ozone hole got smaller?
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid /27493/newsDate/4-Oct-2004/story.htm

Yah...

Well, if you are curious, here is a link about how renewables fit on the chart in Germany: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid /40568/story.htm. Yes that is 11.8% of the electric power supply. Renewables are cheaper and better. You just have to do them at scale, and doing them at scale is much easier than for nuclear power.

You may also be interested in this link: http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=2 7013. Again, it is hard to see getting a new nuclear reactor even approved in a decade, but renewables are set to surpase nuclear power in about 18 years.

This is also where the smart money is: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/technology/14val ley.html.

So, while there are some who have not thought this through very well, who look to nuclear power as an answer to global warming, there is little likelihood that nuclear power can contribute anything of significance to that effort and would really only waste time and money. Look to France for good math, good wine and good friends, but watch Germany for engineering trends. Wait, germans make good friends too though it is spooky how many hits I get from there on my blog. Hey, good physics, good beer, you know the stuff.... You're just wrong about ULIRGs....

I really do think Europe is just crying out for goodies like this ...and not at ...higher price than the rest of the world

Thank the socialist European Union for the higher taxes that leads to the higher prices. Your tax money is spent on french farmers producing millions of litres of surplus wine which is then converted into biofuel. Yes, win to fuel. Your tax euros at work!

There is no way to know that those same species wouldn't have died out from an Ice Age, volcano eruptions, meteor strikes, or global warming if man wasn't around.

What do you mean by this comment? Of course there's no way to know. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to stop it? Your argument is like saying we shouldn't swerve to avoid the old lady we are about to hit with our car, because if we weren't there she might have got hit by another car anyway (or had a heart attack). Either way, the fact that it's possible they may have died anyway doesn't absolve us of responsibility to act. Your argument is ludicrous.

In terms of probability, you can definately say that the probability is low that we would have had the same kind of die off without man around. We are currently undergoing a mass extinction, the kind that the world hasn't seen since the extinction of the dinosaurs, which was most likely the result of a meteor. What is the probability that we would have had another such strike if man hadn 't been around, resulting in a similar die off this century? Approximately zero. As far as I know, humans haven't prevented any asteroid or meteor strikes. Since that's the only thing that has caused similar mass extinctions to the one we have now, I can say with definity that you are wrong, that odds are these species wouldn't have died out without man around.

Instead of making up these bogus arguments so you can continue your irresponsible lifestyle, do some research. You might learn something and become a better person.

Plenty of folk are interested in banning on the beaches and the parks

There are entire cities that have banned smoking unless you own your own house. I guess some people are addicted to banning smoking.

The used power would be charged from the diesel while cruising, it's not "free". Case in point - idling at a light yesterday I watched my average MPG for that trip drop 1.5MPG just from the 2minute idle. This on a 15mile trip. That was from 47MPG downwards BTW so it's not like I was running around stomping on it. I'd imagine that idling overnight uses more fuel than you realize since idling in traffic is knocking my MPG down a noticable amount on a more effecient engine. I'd bet that if I turned the engine off at each light and then cranked it up to leave I'd add noticable MPG - yes recharging my cranking battery from the engine. As an aside - the A/C knocks off about 5MPG it seems, still testing.

Accelerating from a light is where the diesel is LEAST effecient (just like gas), even doing it slowly it's not unusual to see single digit MPG until you're up to at least 15-25MPH. Now, suppose that the car was powered by electric up to a reasonable cruising speed and *then* the diesel kicked in - just as it does today with gas engines. To think there would be no MPG gain is silly, Diesels may be more effecient than gas engines but that doesn't mean there are no ineffeciencies to be overcome. Manufacturers are already looking into diesel hybrids and I'll bet we see them so argue against them all you want but there are gains to be had despite the added weight. One of the reasons it's not already here is the perception that diesels are smelly and if you've ever visited a pump to fill one you can understand why not everyone might want it in their driveway. http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,66949,00 .html Hrm, 20%+ more effecient than a comparable diesel in OEM testing, still think there are *no* gains to be had?? I told you earlier the OEMs were looking at it and more than one is.... http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid /27514/story.htm

As for plugging in, sure why not? Prius owners are already modifying their cars to allow this and I'd be willing to do so too. A drive to work for me could almost be done fully electric in a modified car except for some sprints at highway speeds where a diesel could kick in at it's most effecient. Probably not a high powered fun ride but for commuting I wouldn't care. As it is I came close to purchasing a hybrid but went diesel for the added room\comfort and MPG that was somewhat close city and often better highway. Getting the best of both worlds would be fine by me!

/* The alternative is to throw up your hands and give up. */

The working alternative is MAD. I.e. if anyone attacks US we will have enough time to respond.

The "missle shield" is unworkable - well, it does it's job of fooling taxpayers into funding Raythenon, but so far it can't even intercept test missles with known trajectory. And even if we somehow manage to make it "work", it will still be useless against, say, a torpedo with nuke hitting any of our coastal cities. Or against a hijacked airliner with nuke. Or against a nuke delivered by car.

At the same time customs don't have enough resources to scan all the cargo coming into US, because huge amounts of money are spent on unworkable pork barrel projects like this "missle shield".

Actually, while there aren't many oil-powered power plants in the US, some do exist, mainly in the East. See articles for details:

I'll grant that a lot of power, particularly in the Western US, is generated by natural gas.

One of the main reasons that oil-fired plants aren't popular is that they have a lot of pollutants, such as mercury. Many oil producing countries find it cheaper to use oil for their power plants.

The first outbreak was around New Year of this year. Please see:

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid /29315/newsDate/2-Feb-2005/story.htm

This isn't new. But for them to have dug up bodies from the 1918 outbreak is unprecedented. I think that it might be a bad idea to resurrect these old vermin.

That is, publishing the genomic structures of these extinct creatures may provide a blueprint for murder.

Michael

You can read an article on his denial here: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid /32513/story.htm

Here's an idea, why not scrap your fucking SUVs and Hummers and buy efficient vehicles instead? Or at least just quit whining? You have it fucking good.

No you stop whining! Isn't your country a democracy? Why don't you vote to abolish the gasoline tax next election if you don't like it? Here in the US we never voted for high gas taxes, which is why our gas is so much cheaper than yours.

There isn't too much to be said for European ingenuity either. If American gas prices were as high as yours, we'd have developed alternative fuels long ago. Even at the current prices, ethanol is starting to be competitive, and many cars can already run on it (E85). Last time i was over there, the only thing for sale was unleaded. At astronomical prices.

Too many Europeans have a defeatist mentality. Why doesn't France have a hydrogen economy already in place? They have had dirty cheap nuclear energy for decades, but nobody bothered to use it to produce hydrogen. They just roll over and pay OPEC plus a 200% tax bonus to the government like there was no alternative.

Instead of taking advantage of the high prices to start alternative fuel businesses and getting rich, people over there force themselves to conserve, pay taxes though the nose, drive around in ridiculous looking mini cars which probably cost more than Lincoln Navigators (after tax of course), and generally accept their declining standard of living while blaming everybody else for their problems.

And to add insult to injury, unlike France, the rest of Europe is busily decommissioning their nuclear plants and replacing them with natural gas, coal and oil, while complaining all day long about those vulgar and selfish Americans.

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid /14002/newsDate/11-Jan-2002/story.htm

Not terribly informing, except for the first bit: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/3/22/112743/ 617 I snippet on costs involved, etc: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid /27514/story.htm Sounds like a good alternative for now, given that you're using biodiesel or SVO.

As I understood TFA, one of the driving forces for this is the Kyoto treaty that has the goal of nations reducing their CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2012. The US is not ratifying the treaty but several Kyoto participants including Japan are far from meeting their goals.

Research that I have seen in the past shows that often the environmental cost of creating a new car or appliance is higher than using the old one, even if it's less efficient. The major benefit I can see from Japan's standpoint is that many of the parts and products would be produced offshore. The energy consumption and pollution would be elsewhere but Japan would reap the energy and environmental benefits of the churn--assuming they can dump their old stuff offshore.

Are there any plans to submit seeds for preservation?

Planet Ark

The people in Hong Kong will thal you very much.

Not only has Singapore partially lifted it's chewing gum ban under pressure from the US, but Ireland, who were thinking of taxing chewing gum, now seems like it won't; and a little bird tells me that the pressure not to do so came from the US Government, apparently the top of the US government (yeah, him). Insane huh?

More info, not sure of the facts though. Sounds a lot like a one-man theory.

Canary Island Mega Tsunami

Megatsunami

Planet Ark

Oh, and it seems I was wrong about the name of the island. It should be La Palma. I fail at geography.

Just curious where you got those numbers from, 42000 homes seemed a little high to me... assuming you meant the windmill on Lakeshore and the one at Pickering NPP I googled the following info:

- The one on Lakeshore produces 0.75MW, enough for 250 homes.

- Pickering produces 1.8MW, enough for 600 homes.

- Ontario's energy peaks at 25 000MW.

Links:
http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_06.26.03/city/e nviro.html
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid /12137/story.htm

Also, having been on an earlier Australian sub (Oberon class), late model Australian submarine (Colins class), British submarine and several US subs, I might be tempted to say no other nation in the world can compete with the technology in the US subs.

Here's why...

Got to love those California environmental regulations!

save disney? are you joking?

They re-tell stolen stories. They create little original work, for instance; nemo; atlantis) not to mention it robes timeless popular tales then defends them as disney's own creation. They use child labour to make garbage for hyper-consumers in the west (for instance, from a little googling: "A Haitian worker earns only 7 cents for every pair of Disney Pocahontas pajamas she sews, which sells at Wal-Mart for $11.97. These wages amount to one-half of one percent of the sale price of these pajamas.")

disney also plans on undermining poor sustanance fishermen in HongKong, dredging up toxic material in order to build a themepark.

Fuck Disney their immoral greedmongers -- They'll never get a single dime from me.

>> You dont need nuclear weapons for that. Look at Japan. Heck even cuba doesnt have nuclear weapons. They all manage to stand up to US "bullying". And now after being nuclear power also, successive Indian govts vie (with pakistan) to be "better friend" of US rather than saying anything against their "bullying tactics".

Japan is virtually a colony of the west. Their constitution (whose drafting was overseen by the US) does not allow their military an offensive role, so they depend on the US for their external security. They have a colonial mindset where everything American and Western is preferred and many of their women prefer caucasian men
Cuba only survives because Castro has been extremely quiet after the fall of the Soviet Union and the US has bigger things to worry about.

>> There were many reports pointing the lack of safety in Indian nuclear power plants including some official/semiofficial agency report.
You mean like this, this, this, this, this or this?

Krishna

The World's First Glowing Transgenic Fish Display at the Biotaiwan Exhibition in Taipei

Texas = slow :)