Slashdot Mirror


Mysterious, Ice-Buried Cold War Military Base May Be Unearthed By Climate Change (sciencemag.org)

Slashdot reader sciencehabit quotes Science magazine: It sounds like something out of a James Bond movie: a secret military operation hidden beneath the Greenland Ice Sheet. But that's exactly what transpired at Camp Century during the Cold War. In 1959, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built the subterranean city under the guise of conducting polar research -- and scientists there did drill the first ice core ever used to study climate. But deep inside the frozen tunnels, the corps also explored the feasibility of Project Iceworm, a plan to store and launch hundreds of ballistic missiles from inside the ice.

The military ultimately rejected the project, and the corps abandoned Camp Century in 1967. Engineers anticipated that the ice -- already a dozen meters thick -- would continue to accumulate in northwestern Greenland, permanently entombing what they left behind. Now, climate change has upended that assumption. New research suggests that as early as 2090, rates of ice loss at the site could exceed gains from new snowfall. And within a century after that, melting could begin to release waste stored at the camp, including sewage, diesel fuel, persistent organic pollutants like PCBs, and radiological waste from the camp's nuclear generator, which was removed during decommissioning.

108 comments

  1. No more global warming by Noah+Haders · · Score: 0

    I'd like to make a public commitment to reverse climate change!!

    1. Re:No more global warming by tripleevenfall · · Score: 0

      Ban it!

    2. Re:No more global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Done and done. Good work gentlemen. Let's go get ourselves a drink!

    3. Re:No more global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We did it Reddit!

      Ooops...sorry...wrong site...

    4. Re:No more global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My prediction: we will now start seeing people saying this base caused global warming. Throw in a rumour about a nuclear power plant research gone bad (or degraded warheads which is why the base needed to be abandoned), maybe mumble something about aliens and let's watch it spread.

      (Of course the same people who believe this will simultaneously hold that there is no global warming and that humans are not causing the global warming that they say doesn't exist, but hey, that's not the point).

    5. Re:No more global warming by istartedi · · Score: 1

      I propose a "war on carbon". That approach always works. Nobody will use a substance if we ban it.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    6. Re:No more global warming by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      i think if we eliminated 80% of the population, we would be in good shape. But who should we chooose? spread across the globe equally, or by some certain pattern?

    7. Re:No more global warming by istartedi · · Score: 1

      "I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled"

      More information on this is available here.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    8. Re:No more global warming by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      President W suggested a space umbrella. What do you think?

    9. Re:No more global warming by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      But who should we chooose? spread across the globe equally, or by some certain pattern?

      I vote eugenics. You get to have a kid if you can program a computer.

    10. Re:No more global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to break this to you, but humans are not responsible for climate change. We are simply not that powerful or important.

    11. Re:No more global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's go with elitism. You must be able write a branching loop, correctly dereference a pointer to a pointer, determine whether a variable is being stored in the stack or the heap, and enter a valid tar command on the first try ( https://xkcd.com/1168/ ).

      On the other hand, we might run into problems when it turns out that the test has a 100% failure rate.

      Captcha: Cobalt. Hey, that's a great idea!

    12. Re:No more global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tar --help

    13. Re:No more global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2090? Really 2090? Oooo, better buy my insurance now and give people with an agenda all my money... 'cause 2090. "Early as 2090." Maybe, almost could be, perhaps 2090. Desperate is as Desperate does. ~

    14. Re:No more global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think if we eliminated 80% of the population, we would be in good shape. But who should we chooose? spread across the globe equally, or by some certain pattern?

      Since it's your idea, it is absolutely incumbent that you, and all the people like you, who think this is a great idea take the leap first.

      Yep, you just volunteered.

      You will report to the Processing Center at 7:00AM sharp, do not bring anything because you will not be leaving. (Well, not in the same state you entered.) Say good-bye to your Mommie and kiss your Teddy Bear good-bye. And hey, Civilization thanks you. Say 'Hi' from me to whatever deity (or not) you are going to. Buh-Bye. ~

    15. Re:No more global warming by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Might as well say "in the 22nd century". Jesus.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    16. Re: No more global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just start a war. Easy peasy.

    17. Re:No more global warming by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      The pictures look like the rebel base on Hoth.

      Eerily so.

      I think they must have payed Lucas to FAKE this whole thing! Like they did for Kubrick with the moon landings.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    18. Re: No more global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soylent Green! Soylent Green!

    19. Re:No more global warming by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      tar -zxvf filename.tar.gz

      Never really had a problem with that command, it uses gZip to uncompress the file, eXpands the file, is Verbose (usually left off for speed increase), and gives the Filename to uncompress.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. experts say first one thing by turkeydance · · Score: 0, Troll

    and then the other. won't be sure until after we die.

    1. Re: experts say first one thing by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      No, but I can understand why it might seem that way to stupid simpletons who get their entire worldview from equally-stupid talking heads in the media...

    2. Re: experts say first one thing by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Plus the guy on the news on the rad-io said they always flip-flop and rewrite their data. Where there's smoke, there's fire, even grandpa knew that.

  3. seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this is something we should worry about a century from now? OK, I'll put it on the calendar.

    1. Re:seriously? by war4peace · · Score: 2

      Two centuries.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    2. Re:seriously? by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure this is the leaked plot of the next Tomb Raider game.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:seriously? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Who cares about Project Iceworm, when the melting ice on the South Pole uncovers Project Koschei then the shit will really hit the fan.

    4. Re:seriously? by mcswell · · Score: 1

      But if your calendar is susceptible to the Y2K problem...

      Oh, wait, we dodged that bullet, which was supposed to have disastrous consequences too.

    5. Re: seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the amount of ice that's been accumulating there lately, there is no chance of that happening in the foreseeable future.

    6. Re: seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We only dodged the y2k problem because thousands of programmers, me included, spent most of 1998 and 1999 fixing all the potential disasters. Many important systems would have failed if not for this work.

    7. Re:seriously? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You are admitting that you don't bother learning the whole story. Should we really be expected to pay attention to folks like that?

    8. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess you didn't get the joke...

  4. Military Base my ass... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... thats a kryptonian scoutship...

    1. Re: Military Base my ass... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, It's The THING and it doesn't like the heat!

  5. Just wait for the future to arrive. by petes_PoV · · Score: 3, Insightful

    as early as 2090, rates of ice loss at the site could exceed gains from new snowfall. And within a century after that, melting could begin to release waste

    So in about 200 years, the people alive then will have something to worry about.

    To put this into perspective, let's look back at the technology of 1816 and compare it with today's. Then we can assume at least the same level of advancement from now until 2216 (if not, then I would expect the world of that era would have bigger problems than some sewage and diesel at the North Pole) and what would seem like an issue today will be entirely manageable by then.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Just wait for the future to arrive. by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually I don't think the point of all this is that we should be alarmed about this dump; it's more of a "ha-ha, look at that" story like the one in 2013 about the boat with climate scientists that got stuck in ice. Not so much substantive as ironic.

      The US and USSR both did a lot of crazy shit during the Cold War. Today, chemical weapons are disposed of via thermal or chemical degradation (and are generally not made anymore), but from 1916 to the 1960s, we built those things assuming we were going to use them, and we made them hard to disassemble. So when they reached the end of their lifetimes we routinely disposed of them by dropping them into the ocean.

      Meanwhile the USSR had a nasty habit of doing above-ground nuclear tests in Kazakhstan to see what the effects would be on a civilian population. They purposely didn't warn their citizens there (the USSR didn't have that kind of a government) and surprised them with mushroom clouds. Three generations later, babies are still being born or miscarried that have no arms, no skeletons, eyes in the wrong places or missing altogether, etc.

    2. Re:Just wait for the future to arrive. by Ken+McE · · Score: 1

      So in about 200 years, the people alive then will have something to worry about.

      There is a bit more to it than just losing ice off the surface. As the sheet loses mass it will shift and readjust its position. Fissures form at places where the ice is under tension. Melt water falls down into these fissures and starts what amount to underground streams. If these streams cross through areas of lower density ice - say old mostly collapsed tunnels - they will naturally flow along all the interconnected tunnels and rooms, this being an easier path than melting through solid ice. If we're lucky they might fill all the tunnels and freeze solid, thus preserving everything very nicely. Unfortunately this guy I know named Murphy says that the tunnels will probably first fill and then start draining through other openings out into streams or the sea. Any one who lives there and eats fish, or likes being able to drink from streams, would probably start to have a problem at this point.

    3. Re:Just wait for the future to arrive. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'm still not feeling it. There's only so much pampering and coddling you can do of people that far down the road. And nobody yet has explained why that's supposed to be a good idea.

    4. Re:Just wait for the future to arrive. by rrohbeck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Then we can assume at least the same level of advancement from now until 2216

      Says who? The rate of scientific progress has slowed significantly over the last few decades. Almost everything you see is WWII/cold war tech, refined.

    5. Re:Just wait for the future to arrive. by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I was going to express a related but dissimilar statement. I agree with the GP in that as a betting man I expect we will have the technology to solve the problem 200 years. I say that because a lot of the precursors exist today.

      We have for example effective methods of generating lots of energy in one place with a low carbon foot print, be it a solar technologies or nuclear power. Any respectable chemist would tell you that if you provide him input energy that is cheap and plentiful he or she can make you any long chain liquid hydrocarbon you want from air and a few other available inputs.

      So we can continue using the hydrocarbon distribution system and end use technologies of today in a completely carbon neutral way. Its just an industrial engineering and economics problem at this point; the science is done. We will get there unless we discover electric end use tech is better/easier/cheaper first.

      The larger idea the GP proposed was that suddenly our rate of technical advancement is going to go linear. I think that is a little bit of wild claim. Consider would someone ( a well educated someone ) from 1616 find the technology of 1816 more unbelievable than someone from 1816 encountering 2016? I rather doubt it. They would find the steam engines and trains pretty amazing yes but not unimaginable. While it might not have been until the 1690's that anything we might call a practical steam engine emerged, various experiments and amusements had been built, many of the fundamental principles were known. Even in ancient Greece some experiments had been done. On the flip side what would someone from 1816 make of a digital computer based on semiconductor physics? - Pure Magic

      The last 200 years in tech have been explosive in terms of grow especial the 1910's - 1960 period, there have been other great periods of advancement as well as long periods of relative stagnation, its not a constant rate.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    6. Re:Just wait for the future to arrive. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      s/200 years/70 years/

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    7. Re:Just wait for the future to arrive. by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      After this amount of time the radioactives are fairly benign.

      I'd be far more worried about the PCBs and other toxic chemical nasties on the site.

    8. Re:Just wait for the future to arrive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how much of the slowdown is caused by patents?

    9. Re:Just wait for the future to arrive. by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      I don't think it is. Quantum and nuclear physics were the last major areas that would have an effect on daily life. Science progress on basics since then was in areas that are so far removed from our size and energy scales that they are not relevant to technology.

  6. So in 200 years, the ice level may change by SensitiveMale · · Score: 0, Troll

    Wow! Good to know we have global warming alarmists, sorry "scientists", to tell us that ice levels may change in 200.

  7. Imminent Disaster! by KenHansen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The military ultimately rejected the project, and the corps abandoned Camp Century in 1967. Engineers anticipated that the ice -- already a dozen meters thick -- would continue to accumulate in northwestern Greenland, permanently entombing what they left behind. Now, climate change has upended that assumption. New research suggests that as early as 2090, rates of ice loss at the site could exceed gains from new snowfall. And within a century after that, melting could begin to release waste stored at the camp, including sewage, diesel fuel, persistent organic pollutants like PCBs, and radiological waste from the camp's nuclear generator, which was removed during decommissioning.

    So 50 years ago a military base was abandoned, and in 70 years, the ice/snow will start receding, and then a 100 years after that, waste buried in the ice will be exposed... Wow, I hope we'll be able to organize a clean-up party in the next 170 years, before the waste starts to be exposed!

    1. Re:Imminent Disaster! by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, I hope we'll be able to organize a clean-up party in the next 170 years, before the waste starts to be exposed!

      Based on past reactions to known situations of looming environmental catastrophes, this appears highly unlikely.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re: Imminent Disaster! by KenHansen · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Based on past reactions to known situations of looming environmental catastrophes, this appears highly unlikely

      Seriously, 170 years ! The announcement of our initial climate Armageddon was in the early 70s, when the planet was going to freeze over. Then in the 90s it morphed into Global Warming, peaking when Al Gore failed to become the Leader of the Free World, so he took up World a Leader for Global Warming, only to see it morph into the now popular Climate Change in the last ten years or so.

      If society has failed to rise to the Catastrophy, I posit that science has failed to officially declare what exactly the issue is in the last 40+ years... [cooling|warming|change]

      What we are talking about is some garbage that may thaw out in 170 years, that's right about the time your grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren might be born.

      The current generation is the first to not be able to remember a time when Al Gore wasn't profiting off his prophesied End of Days Climate Catastrophy...

    3. Re:Imminent Disaster! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

      I hope we'll be able to organize a clean-up party in the next 170 years, before the waste starts to be exposed!

      I doubt it- in the given scenario where the earth's temperature rises by 5 degrees Centigrade, this dump would probably be the least of our problems.

    4. Re: Imminent Disaster! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't even know Al Gore invented the Internet and the first website is already 25 years old.

    5. Re: Imminent Disaster! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it would be more reasonable to posit, given the sizeable body of evidence we have on the matter, that the main problem is elsewhere; perhaps related to the human tendency to largely ignore future problems until they become current problems (even in cases where we know the problem will be much larger if we do that), or possibly to the huge amounts of money that can be made if you're willing to destroy the environment in the process.

      A switch in terminology from "warming" to "change" to more accurately describe what's happening seems relatively minor compared to those.

    6. Re: Imminent Disaster! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Hint: Every time you attempt to disparage climatology by mentioning "global cooling", all you are doing is admitting you get your scientific information from the mainstream media. That's it. You are not commenting on the science, its data, its methodologies, nothing - just sitting there saying "I don't read scientific papers, but here's why I think scientific papers are nonsense!". The fact you also mention a politician when discussing the veracity of climate change also reeks of someone who doesn't understand where science ends and politics begins. It appears your anger is greater than your respect for the truth, or at least greater than your ability to discern it.

      Let me clear some things up for you:
      1. The global average temperature is increasing = Global warming
      2. This increase of energy causes the climate to change = climate change
      3. The "global cooling" flap you seem to think defines climatology of the 1970s was a fringe belief held by few, with minimal evidential backing (which is being generous). You confusing it with being generally-accepted only condemns you, and nothing else.

      It's not difficult. Either your educators failed you or you are being purposefully obtuse. Neither puts you in good stead in this discussion.

  8. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "New research suggests that as early as 2090, rates of ice loss at the site could exceed gains from new snowfall. And within a century after that...."
    As scientist have proven unable to predict weather, much less Climate, I say we have a few years to worry about this. Currently snow and ice forming is out running the melting, EVERY YEAR, CURRENTLY, ITS GETTING BURIED DEEPER AND DEEPER. Possibly, in maybe 80 years the melting might keep up the new snow/ice formation and begin reversing. 100 years afterwards, maybe, we have an issue to deal with. Seeing as this could be cleaned up and moved with less then a years work (200 years from now when its almost naturally uncovered....why are we talking about this. Looks like more "the sky is falling" news to me.

    1. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pure and simple, It gets climate change in the news with a "something must be done" message. Just propaganda.

    2. Re:Maybe by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Currently snow and ice forming is out running the melting, EVERY YEAR

      Link?

      I suspect you're making one of two common mistakes with claims like this: confusing land ice with sea ice, and confusing the Arctic with the Antarctic.

      in maybe 80 years the melting might keep up the new snow/ice formation and begin reversing.

      Link?

    3. Re:Maybe by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      OK, I'm replying to myself here after RTFA. The dump is situated at the accumulation zone of the Greenland ice sheet, so if the earth's average temperature increases by five degrees C, anything buried that deep at the site will surface after 80 years.

      This is land ice, not surface sea ice (which is declining year by year: see https://www.youtube.com/watch?... for a time-lapse). Land ice is declining in the rest of of Greenland which lies outside the accumulation zone.

    4. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As scientist have proven unable to predict weather, much less Climate , I say...

      (my emphasis) Oops... you are quite mistaken about weather and climate prediction.

      silentcoder explained in a previous post to a previous summary quite eloquently that the opposite of what parent AC believes is true, thus anything following their misunderstanding is suspect and probably not worth considering. Here is silentcoder's lovely explanation why climate is far easier to predict than weather:

      Weather is very difficult, climate is comparatively much easier.

      Because climate is an average - and averages are far easier to predict than specific individual cases.

      If I draw the name of a random American school kid from a hat and ask you to predict their final grades this year... you have roughly a zero chance of getting it right. If I ask you to predict their GPA and you bet on '3' (the average) you have much better (but still high) odds. If I ask you to predict the distribution of grades for all graduating students this year and you have even a modicum of understanding of statistics you can bet on 'a normal distribution pattern' (that is roughly 25% fail, in the average pass range and 25% with A's) then you have 100% chance of being right - in fact, we are SO certain that this average MUST hold in any fair exam that if the grades FAIL to line up to a normal distribution that's sufficient evidence to criminally convict teachers or administrators of cheating !

      So why can I predict the average scores for a class or a country with 100% success rates with no other information, and yet have near-zero chance of predicting a particular student's grades without a LOT of other information ? Because average are much, much more predictable than the instances they are averages off.

      Climate is an average of weather over a long time. Climate, as an average, is therefore much, much more predictable than weather.

      Thank you, silentcoder!! You remind us of the days when slashdot was great!!

    5. Re:Maybe by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The claim isn't, "the sky is falling." The claim is, "the secret garbage pile might not remain secret forever. And is made of garbage."

    6. Re: Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if it is so much easier to predict climate, why don't we have ANY accurate climate models? Why are they all too high? Why is the recorded average rarely if ever even within the predicted range?

      If it is so easy and the models are still failing, what does that tell you?

      It tells me that the extra billions of dollars put into climate research over the last 20 years have been a waste for the most part, since accuracy hasn't improved sufficiently for any objective observer to conclude that we can trust a single one of the dozens of models produced.

    7. Re: Maybe by dave420 · · Score: 1

      We do have accurate models. You not knowing about them doesn't mean they don't exist. Why are you so angry with scientists instead of yourself? It's your job to educate you, not theirs.

  9. Thanks, climate models by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    So in 70 years, the ice might start melting. If climate models with a lot of uncertainty are correct. And we here on /. know how accurate computer simulations are, when the underlying factors are not well understood and not all are known.

  10. So, basically, Clevelend, Pittsburg, and Detroit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and don't get me started on Seattle and San Francisco.

  11. more propaganda from slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    2090... HAHAHAHAHA They can't predict next week's weather and they want to... OHOHOHOHOHH [gasping for air]
    Oh, my stomach hurts :-P

    captcha: get your skepticals on

    1. Re:more propaganda from slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you understand how significant digits work? This was likely covered in high school.

    2. Re:more propaganda from slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a point to make? If you don't, then allow me to indulge in my pot shots.

    3. Re:more propaganda from slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you one of those still suckered by the two-party system? Do you not realise both candidates are evidently co-opted by the same interests?
      I'm sorry for you.

  12. Don't bother with the link in the summary by pablo_max · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Do yourself a favor and have a look at the youtube video in the NPR link. It was produced by the war department. It's fascinating. I especially like how the solders were handling the fuel rods in t-shirts and no protective equipment at all.
    I am quite sure every single one of those poor guys died a horrible death not long after.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

    1. Re:Don't bother with the link in the summary by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Thanks!! Great read and interesting video.

      Also, for the folks that assume the problem is 170 years away, one of the concerns is meltwater bringing the waste to the ocean well before the camp is actually exposed.

    2. Re:Don't bother with the link in the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      uhh... you do realize those fuel rods are in lead shields right? they have Geiger counters and shit around.

      what protective equipment is gonna help you handling a fuel rod? wearing 100lbs of lead?

      so long its sealed in a cask and you don't have dust around its fine... the army is not completely retarded

    3. Re:Don't bother with the link in the summary by AbrasiveCat · · Score: 1

      Do yourself a favor and have a look at the youtube video in the NPR link. It was produced by the war department. It's fascinating. I especially like how the solders were handling the fuel rods in t-shirts and no protective equipment at all. I am quite sure every single one of those poor guys died a horrible death not long after.

      http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

      Why would every poor guy handling fuel rods be dead already? Looking at how everyone seems to smoke back then, I expect more solders died of smoking that any radiation issues. (Remember they are handling new fuel rods, which are not all that dangerous.)

    4. Re:Don't bother with the link in the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking at how everyone seems to smoke back then, I expect more solders died of smoking that any radiation issues.

      In reality, smoking was not nearly as unhealthy as it is today. Big Tobacco optimized addition by poisoning smokers. Previously, smoking natural tobacco was not nearly as lethal as smoking what is in national cigarettes today, which is no longer natural tobacco.

      From the US Surgeon General Report "Smoking and Health" (big pdf)

      (No. 1103, page 112)
       

      Death rates for current pipe smokers were little if at all higher than for non-smokers, even with men smoking 10 pipefuls per day and with men who had smoked pipes for more than 30 years.

      (No. 1103, page 92)
       

      Among the pipe smokers.... The US mortality ratios are 0.8 for non-inhalers and 1.0 for inhalers.

      ...which means pipe smokers who inhale live as long as nonsmokers, and pipe smokers that don’t inhale live longer than non-smokers.

      To understand how the Big Tobacco industry started killing people, you have to understand what it is that they're selling... it isn't tobacco.
      This Modern Marvels episode dispassionately makes it clear cigarettes contain no tobacco, but instead a tobacco-based paper product infused with nicotine and 300 some other chemicals in order to keep smokers addicted:
      Modern Marvels 12x46
      (requires registration)

      here's a free clip:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBAuM1fLKRk

      Regular, ordinary, honest to goodness tobacco doesn't do that. Its still not good for you, but natural tobacco is no where near as lethal as whatever the heck is in cigarettes.

    5. Re:Don't bother with the link in the summary by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Old government videos about mining operations are great. Everyone is so optimistic and clueless- you see people messing around with uranium, asbestos, lead, etc. with cheerful music playing in the background. There are great videos about how awesome leaded gasoline is too.

    6. Re:Don't bother with the link in the summary by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      which means pipe smokers who inhale live as long as nonsmokers, and pipe smokers that donâ(TM)t inhale live longer than non-smokers.

      This doesn't make any sense. The tobacco in pipes is sold by the same companies that make the cigarettes, so one would expect it to be similarly bad.
      In fact a quick google turns up numerous studies that say just that: example graph

      So pipe smokers and cigar smokers are very similar in developing cancers and mortality rates. Cigarette smokers do worse for some cancers and better for other.
      As to why: I read a study years ago that concluded that smokers of "light" cigarettes developed deeper and more lethal lung cancers because they inhaled more/deeper to get the same amount of nicotine.
      Cigar and pipe smokers typically inhale more shallowly, which may explain why they develop cancer of the larynx instead.

    7. Re:Don't bother with the link in the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This doesn't make any sense.

      And yet it is science, as the links I have provided show. The study is not recent, but it is no less true today. What you missed was what I was unable to explain, so I'll try again.

      There is natural tobacco, and there is the stuff that Big Tobacco developed and invented. These are different things. One is natural, and one is synthetic. Once upon a time, what was in cigarettes was precisely the same stuff that pipe smokers use: natural tobacco. Today, the only way you will get natural tobacco is if you buy the natural tobacco, as pipe smokers do, or those that roll their own cigarettes. If you buy a bag of natural tobacco, it is not a reconstituted product with synthetically induced nicotine and 300 other some carcinogens synthentically introduced into what amounts to a shredded paper product made from a process that has tobacco ingredient.

      By the time that Surgeon General's report was released, most if not all cigarettes produced by Big Tobacco were created the way that Modern Marvels episode illustrates. Cigarette smokers' cancer and death rates had been going through the roof for at least a decade or two. Meanwhile, pipe smokers were still only smoking tobacco, which is why those odd statistics appear.

      Today, everyone "knows" that smoking tobacco causes cancer. But in fact, hardly any smokers are actually smoking tobacco... but rather the synthetically processed tobacco infused with chemical carcinogens with the intention of increasing sales by making cigarettes more addictive, more instantaneously pleasing to the smoker. So in reality what everyone "knows" is actually quite wrong. It isn't tobacco that is killing smokers by the droves, but that product that Big Tobacco replaced it with.

      Breathing any solid particles, any smoke, is clearly not good for you. But there is a order of magnitude difference in the lethality of smoking natural tobacco compared to the lethality of smoking the shredded nicotine paper that is in today's cigarettes (and probably domestic cigars). It only looks like tobacco, but it clearly is not tobacco.

      So you are right and you are wrong. You are correct if you believe that cigarettes are lethal. You are incorrect if you believe cigarettes are tobacco, and further incorrect to believe that tobacco is causing the cancer/death rates we've seen for decades in cigarette smokers.

      It only makes sense once you realize that natural tobacco leaf is an entirely different from one made from bleaching the entire tobacco plant, roots, stems and all, making it into a mash, sucking out all the nicotine, then reinfusing nicotine in amounts unseen in nature, along with 300+ other synthetically produced chemicals, pressing, rolling and drying it into a paperlike sheet, shredding that and then passing it off as tobacco.

    8. Re:Don't bother with the link in the summary by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      There are several factors at work for smoking-related cancers.

      1: Chemical (tobacco smoke and the additives in cigarettes that are there to keep them burning)
      2: Thermal - this is what gets pipe smokers with lip and tooth cancers
      3: Radiological - yes really. Look up "Polonium 210 on tobacco"

      #2 stops being a factor as soon as the smoker stops. #1 clears out after 6-10 weeks

      #3 is the gift that keeps on giving. A smoker's lungs are fizzing with radioactivity, to the point where they'd be classified as high-level radioactive waste if left on a nuclear plant site.

  13. Who even cares?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So one site melts and gets exposed. There's plenty enough ice in that sheet. We can easily build another such base at a deeper, more secluded position. Or 5 or 6 of them, just to be on the safe side.

    Or, maybe we can do the sensible thing and protect our investment by having a high-capacity ice regeneration system installed on-site.

  14. There isn't any kind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of cold climate change gonna respect!

  15. That's more than enough time for Mister Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If any of the documentaries featuring Austin Powers are to be believed, that's more than enough time for Mr Evil to become Dr Evil

  16. Don't forget the DYE stations by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The US also had a series of DYE radar installations on the Greenland Ice Sheet - together they made up the DEW (Distant Early Warning) line. Climate scientists drilled ice cores at those locations as well.

    I used to work in an ice core climate research group. I've never been to any of the DYE stations (although I did spent parts of some summers on the Greenland ice sheet); but there's a simple reason why those ice cores were drilled at these defense installations - logistics. It's difficult and expensive to get to, set up, and maintain a camp on the ice sheet. Piggybacking on already-existing military infrastructure saves time and money.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  17. Camp Century wasn't a secret. by hey! · · Score: 1

    Newsman Walter Cronkite even went there. What was a secret was what they were up to -- which by the way they didn't explain honestly to the Danish government, which was told this was a polar research station but didn't know that the ultimate aim was to set up a missile base.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  18. Yes, it'll happen, just like the other predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh wait, not a single prediction made about climate change has *EVER* come to pass. Not one. Don't believe me? You can check. I'll wait.

  19. Uhhhhh... by john.r.strohm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Back in the Dark Ages, before smartphones and Pokemon Go, every schoolchild in the United States of America learned about the Viking settlements in Greenland.

    Those settlements included dairy farms.

    Those settlements were there, doing well, for 269 years.

    They eventually shut down when the glacier moved south, it being really difficult to graze cattle on top of a glacier.

    The Greenland ice sheet has not been there forever, people. Its progress southward can be tracked in the historical records from the Vikings. They left behind detailed notes on the development of the glacier, because it affected where the boats could make landfall.

    1. Re:Uhhhhh... by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "They eventually shut down when the glacier moved south, it being really difficult to graze cattle on top of a glacier"

      This part has been disproven. The moraines of the glaciers in question show they never moved forward.

      There's no doubt it got colder - this was part of the european medeval cooling period - which was probably related to a peturbation of the Gulf Stream (aka "the mini-ice age") but increased glaciation had little to do with the settlements being abandoned. It was just plain tough living there and the rewards didn't outweigh the inconvenience.

    2. Re:Uhhhhh... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      the farms and settlements you speak of were in the same places people are still settled today: on the coasts on the bit of land not covered by ice.
      no, the ice sheet did not move south and force the Vikings out.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    3. Re:Uhhhhh... by john.r.strohm · · Score: 1

      You evidently missed the furor a few years ago when the glacier retreated, revealing some of the old farms.

      The AGW crowd screamed at the top of their lungs, that this PROVED that Global Warming was happening. They were strangely silent when the area re-glaciated, again burying the farms.

    4. Re:Uhhhhh... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Still waiting for your link...

  20. Documentary by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    I could watch stuff like this all day.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  21. BS story by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    Scientist can't predict the weather more than 24-48 hours, and they keep claiming man made global warming. 25-50 years of weather data (some of that is questionable) considering the age of the Earth, is mule fritters. The SUN causes changes in our climate, not man. The sun, now in a period of COOLING, has had this summer, several periods of NO SUNSPOTS on the visible disk that is toward Earth. Lack of disruption in the solar disk, means no flares that will cause our geomagnetic bubble to ebb & flow, and cause the oceans to change. Once the solar minimum is over, those spots will start showing back up, and the solar flares will direct energy towards Earth. It also helps ham radio operators and the bands haven't been that good this summer. http://www.solarham.net/

    1. Re:BS story by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Gather some evidence, write a paper, and get a Nobel prize or two. Either you don't understand what you are saying, or you are criminally lazy. Pick one.

  22. Radical thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article was posted to encourage a near term response to a long term problem I assume for commercial purposes.

    I have a suggestion. Have the same folks do the cleanup on Rio's rivers and the Pacific plastic island. By the time they get a handle on that, they will have the resources, experience and heritage to take on Greenland's "secret" facilities as well as Nevada's "secret facilities", as well as store our nuclear waste somewhere useful. The sun.

    Do or do not there is no try.

  23. Greenland and Arctic data by zapadnik · · Score: 2

    If we use the Scientific Method (rather than anecdotes) we look at data. Here is the Danish Meteorological Institute's measurements (Greenland is administered by Denmark)
    http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland...
    Of particular interest is this graph:
    http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_d... Here is the Arctic Ice Extent:
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/ice...

    Here is the late-summer Arctic ice extent. Temperatures drop below freezing in a week from now and the Arctic ice will start accumulating again (this is from an American source):
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_i...

    The coasts of Greenland are losing some ice, which may be why this base is being expose, but a much larger interior are in the interior is putting on a lot of ice/snow. The pattern of where ice is gained and lost seems to vary annually, depending on sea conditions and also changes in wind/storms.

    Given that the Antarctic is putting on ice and the total ice cover of the globe is actually increasing (if you look at the measurements) then there isn't much of a reason to panic - especially as those that study solar activity have a prediction of Maunder-Minimum conditions by about 2030, where the global temperature will decrease drastically. So relax, enjoy the good weather (El Nino this year, which was wonderful) while it lasts, amigas y amigos.

    Don't forget to always check the observed data, as computer climate models are not data according to the Scientific Method, they are considered "hypothesis" and observational data can falsify those hypothesis.

    1. Re:Greenland and Arctic data by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "the total ice cover of the globe is actually increasing"

      1km^3 of land ice makes about 750-800km^2 of sea ice - and once it's on the sea, it's already affected sea levels.

      Increases in Antarctic sea ice are a direct result of increased melt runoff (it's making the water less salty which in turn means it freezes at higher temperatures) and they ONLY happen in winter. All that sea ice rapidly disappears in summer.

      Disclosure: I work with climate scientists. They're fed up to the back teeth of ignorant people claiming that increases in Antarctic sea ice mean AGW isn't a "thing". The reality is that summer ice minimums keep decreasing.

      Most scientists who actually study climate and are actually experts in the field are deeply worried. What they're saying publically mostly errs on the cautious side, simply because they get shat on politically when they start telling it like it is.

      My personal worry is the increasing risk of an anoxic oceanic event - which is something most climate scientists haven't considered (or won't discuss publically) even though the possibility was raised as far back as 1976. Again, they'll get shat on if they start bringing this up. It's bad enough when they point out the economic and ecological effects of coral bleaching and ocean acidification that's already occuring.

    2. Re:Greenland and Arctic data by dywolf · · Score: 1

      JFC that was a pile of stupid.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    3. Re:Greenland and Arctic data by zapadnik · · Score: 1

      The Scientific Method doesn't care about your opinion. You should try applying it some time. You cannot refute the data, so you talk about your feelings. This is a bad habit you have, and anti-scientific.

    4. Re:Greenland and Arctic data by zapadnik · · Score: 1

      Do you have anything to refute the data I have presented? I thought not.

      1km^3 of land ice makes about 750-800km^2 of sea ice - and once it's on the sea, it's already affected sea levels.

      According to the sea level data the sea level has been at approximate the same rate for a LONG time. Here is Data from the Australian CSIRO:
      http://realclimatescience.com/...
      Remember, before 1950 even the IPCC claims all the rise is natural, and only after 1950 is there any anthropogenic component. So, based on the ACTUAL DATA do you see any statistically significant change from natural to 'man-made' ? No, you do not.

      Disclosure: I work with climate scientists. They're fed up to the back teeth of ignorant people claiming that increases in Antarctic sea ice mean AGW isn't a "thing". The reality is that summer ice minimums keep decreasing.

      I was an astrophysicist, and we real scientists are sick to the back teeth of climate so-called 'scientists' refusing to the use the Scientific Method, ignoring data they don't like (any contra-data falsifies a theory), and acting like righteous zealots against any 'heretic' who actually does objectively follow the Scientific Method and looks at ALL the data, including the paleo record.

      Most scientists who actually study climate and are actually experts in the field are deeply worried. What they're saying publically mostly errs on the cautious side, simply because they get shat on politically when they start telling it like it is.

      Nonsense. Recent surveys show that only 53% of scientists think that humans have any measurable impact on the climate (AGW) and much fewer think it will be catastrophic (CAGW). Even the internal emails revealed in Climategate I, II, and III show the pro-CAGW climate modellers understand that their models don't work but they cannot publicly admit this.

      It is clear you have very little understanding of the skeptics position. The Scientific Method requires you to understand the skeptics' arguments *****from their own mouths**** and not the disinformation put out by the pro-CAGW loons. And I will say it again, you are also required to account for ALL THE DATA - not just the data you like.

      My personal worry is the increasing risk of an anoxic oceanic event - which is something most climate scientists haven't considered (or won't discuss publically) even though the possibility was raised as far back as 1976. Again, they'll get shat on if they start bringing this up. It's bad enough when they point out the economic and ecological effects of coral bleaching and ocean acidification that's already occuring.

      If you are worried about that then perhaps you should get a grip. How come you ecoloons completely lose perspective - you are even worse at doommongering than the islamicists who think the Day of Judgement is just about on us with fighting near Dabiq (the islamic version of Armageddon). It's like your life is not complete unless you can be miserable worrying about things that just aren't going to happen, all because you don't understand the ways how oxygen gets in the ocean in the first place.

      Learn the Scientific Method. Use it. Listen to the arguments made against the CAGW hypothesis, from the skeptics themselves (not from pro-CAGW propagandists distorting the arguments), look at ALL the DATA. Get some perspective, and STOP BEING A MISERABLE DOOMSAYER. Complex mammalian life has survived multiple massive asteroids, all sorts of Solar variability (like the extremes of the Minoan Warm Period to the Little Ice Age), massive volcanic outgassing transforming the atmosphere, large periodic orbital distance changes, etc etc

      Oh, and if you didn't know, the skeptics include the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of China (who may know a thing or two), half the scientists of the West (that i

    5. Re:Greenland and Arctic data by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Oh. I thought you were discussing science, not some conspiracy being waged in your head. Tragic.

    6. Re:Greenland and Arctic data by zapadnik · · Score: 1

      Yawn. You didn't even look at the data, did you? the fact you have such a strong opinion but have not actually looked at the data yourself proves my point. Look at the data I have presented, it is the Scientific Method ! why don't you loons get that the only reality is the DATA, and it shows normal fluctuations.

  24. No big mystery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This video detailing construction of Camp Century was supposedly classified but there were articles published about it in Nat Geo and other publications at the time and during the early '60s.

    The amount of waste that would be released if the camp were to be exposed for any reason would be a fart in a windstorm compared to the septic tanks leaking and leaching into the Indian River in over-misdeveloped South Florida, and would have a correspondingly minimal impact in the site area, much less the whole island and surrounding waters. Hardly suitable grist for the climate change FUD grill, for all you who have drunk the kool-aid and refuse to acknowledge the political and economic agendas gerrymandering science in that arena.

  25. "Mysterious"?? by tigersha · · Score: 1

    The Air Force dug some tunnels during the cold war to launch missiles. What is so "mysterious" about it?

    --
    The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  26. Trump Is not A Scientist by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Therefore we have no global warming to worry about even if it adds plutonium to my soup or my grandchildren's playground.

    1. Re:Trump Is not A Scientist by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      This is totally a problem that your grandchildren will have to fix when they grow up and not something for you to worry about.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  27. 2090? Sucks for you by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    I'll be long gone by then so I don't give the furry crack of a rat's behind. Also, get off my lawn.

  28. Climate change rejection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess what no believers. If your IQ is above 90 one need not muse over climate change. Where I live in Canada the growing season has increased by three weeks in 40 years. Birds species not seen here 40 years ago are commonplace now. The tundra to the north of me has failing permafrost such that forests are now referred to as drunken as the trees are sub sing into the slush that used to be firmly supported as frozen soil. Methane fades are bubbling out under winter ice from a loss of Methane ices formerly stable at depth in colder oceans. What do you idiots require to understand that we are changing the. Climate? You Americans will keep building your condos on the shorelines of your tropical cities as in Florida and only when the water is lapping at the second story will you finally stop reading the Bible and look up to see the slow wet Armmeggedon you have created. Summers will kill you and storms will increase and ravage us all as have happened more and more. We in the North have had gigantic firestorms and ice storms of unprecedented ferocity and across the continents floods and drought and catastrophe has been recorded. Are we that stupid not to note these things? Apparently slashedotters are too busy to note any of this. I am old and will miss the catastrophe but some of you will get around for the next unknown tragedies. Get ready since you seem unwilling to prevent it. Kiss your collective arses goodbye.

  29. Prediction Category 2: too far to test by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    as early as 2090

    There seem to be two categories of climate change prediction: too soon to matter ("It's not climate, it's weather"), and too late to test ("as early as 2090").

    There is another category: "long enough to be about climate rather than weather, and wrong", but we don't hear about those much.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  30. Think of the children by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    In this case, not just the children, children that have yet to be born, probably for a couple of centuries. Even then, that's a maybe. Sounds like more Man Mad Global Warming bullshit. As if everyone will suddenly say - oh, gee, let's start doing something about it. I'll put up those solar panels, we'll do away with gasoline, we'll do away with everything else they SAY is contributing to MMGW, including killing off about 3/4 of the human population (Leaving about 1.5 billion of us behind). A lot of people don't realize that's what they want. To me, I'm being captain obvious here. Ain't going to happen.

    One thing is for sure, that site will be exposed one day. Humans may be long gone by that point, however it will happen. Earth has a way of rotating land around and shifting things, even climate. It's natural.