Slashdot Mirror
A Supervolcano Beneath Mt. St. Helens?
We've discussed the supervolcano beneath Yellowstone a few times here (not going to blow, 2004; going to blow, 2008). Now scientists are pondering whether a large area of conductive material beneath Mt. St. Helens might contain enough magma that the area could be classed a supervolcano. The jury is still out on this one. Reader nhytefall sends us a New Scientist progress report. "Magma can be detected with a technique called magnetotellurics, which builds up a picture of what lies underground by measuring fluctuations in electric and magnetic fields at the surface. The fields fluctuate in response to electric currents traveling below the surface, induced by lightning storms and other phenomena. The currents are stronger when magma is present, since it is a better conductor than solid rock. ... [M]easurements revealed a column of conductive material that extends downward from the volcano. About 15 km below the surface, the relatively narrow column appears to connect to a much bigger zone of conductive material. This larger zone was first identified in the 1980s by another magnetotelluric survey, and was found to extend all the way to beneath Mount Rainier 70 km to the north-east, and Mount Adams 50 km to the east. It was thought to be a zone of wet sediment, water being a good electrical conductor. ... [Some researchers] now think the conductive material is more likely to be a semi-molten mixture. Its conductivity is not high enough for it to be pure magma.. so it is more likely to be a mixture of solid and molten rock."
Might there be a volcano under Mt. St. Helens?
Stimulus? bwahaha. Earlier this week, Caterpillar (bulldozers and stuff) announced 66 more employees would be laid off, on top of the 400 or so in the last 9 months. This is noteworthy because they (and Barack Obama) had previously stated that the stimulus would prevent this from happening. Maybe if that money was spent on repairing roads and bridges (never forget minnesota!).
So far, the stimulus money has only had one effect: raising interest rates. 46% (or more) of government spending is borrowed money. People with money to lend are getting vocal about the US being a credit risk (Hillary Clinton and Tim Geithner both made trips to China to beg them to keep loaning money). This has resulted in a spike in interest rates which makes it more expensive to refinance mortgages (the one bright spot in our economy) or buy a house.
I'm in the process of buying a house right now and that translates to $10,000 being thrown around my community, mostly to small businesses. Plus I'll be spending another few thousand on furniture and appliances (which will be made in the US if at all possible).
The economy will recover when housing prices deflate to their true value, consumers start buying houses again, and zombie companies (Citibank, BoA, Chrysler, GM) are allowed to fail.
The stimulus should have consisted of an $8000 tax credit for house purchases (to everyone, not just new home owners), ban credit default swaps, ban interest only mortgages, ban option-arm mortgages, and have fannie mae/freddy mac (if not all banks) require 10% downpayment on all mortgages. Get rid of the speculation, get rid of the gambling, get rid of the liar loans.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Either you completely misread my post, or you're deliberately twisting my words. Given your posting history, the first seems more likely. The facts in this case completely support the "liberal," "left-wing" position, in either case ... which is usually the way to bet.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
What happened was that I did not realize that both posts were from you. So yes, I misinterpreted what was being said.
Just love the straw-man argument. More! The more I hear the more I will know how to defend against.
Just out of curiosity, though, why do you consider Libertarians to be "nutjobs"? You have a problem with free markets, or the Constitution? After all, those are the two big things Libertarians stand for.
And... how would "following his own advice" be inconvenient. Assuming I were a libertarian, the fact is that I live neither in a hurricane zone, OR below sea level. Nor in a coastal area subject to typhoons or tsunamis. Nor in an area that is prone to earthquakes, or lava flows. Hmmm... seems that I am following my own advice...
No, they don't. Those are anarchists, not Libertarians. Please learn the difference, because the difference is very big.
As far as your other statements, I will just ignore them, because they simply do not apply to Libertarians. Tell you what: try looking up "anarchy" and finding out what it means. Then, go insult the Anarchy party, because there is one.