As of 2005, it is estimated that the United States still provides about 180 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey under these NATO agreements.
What do you expect the consumer down under to do though? Everyone always says well you vote for this with your wallet but give me an example of how we can buy toothpaste that doesn't come from a polluting factory in the USA? All the brands are made their now. So am I supposed to stop brushing my teeth? Oh there's organic toothpaste but I don't want toothpaste that does a worse job, I just want toothpaste that isn't going to destroy the world when its produced. Its easy to blame everyone but its a lot harder to come up with solutions for individuals. The only realistic force that can control this is our government because they have the power to block the imports and force it to be made cleanly. Unfortunately our government doesn't want to take such steps and there isn't anyone I'm aware of that I can vote for that would...
Better watch out, soon they'll be rich enough to start funding scientists to distract everyone with reports on the impact of US pollution on China, when the reality is that the Chinese pollution in China is what is doing most of the damage (and vice versa).
Whales are bottom feeders, the cockroaches of the sea. They want to be slaughtered by us, why else do you think they beach themselves? Harpoon them all I say.
No, you are fusing two atoms together to create a larger atom. Gravity plays no part in this reaction. The resulting atom has less mass than the initial atoms, and the excess mass is converted into energy. E=mc^2 and all that.
Radioactive carbon is one thing, uranium and plutonium another. There may be some typical overreaction by Greenpeace yet I'm not sure you should dismiss the issue as trivial so lightly. There were linked articles that shed some light on their concerns.
Greenpeace revealed that Cogema, the operator of the state-owned La Hague reprocessing plant, has installed inadequate equipment off the plant's discharge pipe, 30 metres under the sea, in a flawed attempt to prevent the routine discharge of radioactive particles into the ocean. Levels of radiation on the outside of the two steel chambers are so high (up to 500 micro-sieverts each hour) that a no-dive zone was self imposed by Greenpeace's radio-protection officer.
Since July, Cogema have been attempting to remove the radioactive crust from within their waste pipe. Greenpeace had called upon French authorities for a thorough Environmental Impact Assessment prior to any operation. This was not conducted, and during the operation hundreds of kilograms of waste material escaped into the ocean.
Greenpeace revealed today that nuclear particles larger than 63 microns were captured during a scientific sampling FROM Cogema's discharge pipe, while the Discharge Authorization from 1980 states that no particle larger than 25 microns can be discharged by the reprocessing plant.
In late 1998, following a green light and final checks by regulatory authorities DSIN, responsible for regulating nuclear transport, and OPRI which handles radioprotection, spent fuel shipment transportation from Cruas-Meysse to La Hague resumed. Shipments had been suspended in April 1998 after safety authorities reported ground contamination at the Valognes terminal near La Hague.
In mid-January 1997, the British Medical Journal published a study by two French scientists, Dominique Pobel and Jean-FranÃois Viel. The report warned of an increased risk of leukaemia for children who played regularly on beaches near the nuclear La Hague reprocessing plant, triggering local public concern. French Environment and Health Ministries commissioned an official epidemiological study of leukaemia around La Hague to be conducted by a high-level, ten-member team of experts. On 16 June 1997, the Secretary of State for Health requested OPRI (Office for Protection against Ionizing Radiation) to conduct an analysis of the marine environment (water, sediments, fauna, flora) around the sea discharge end of the effluent pipe of the La Hague plant. Measurements taken by OPRI near the beaches detected no radioactivity above the natural radioactivity level.
Activists such as Rousselet had reason to doubt La Hague's chemistry, essentially the same as the separation process developed by the Manhattan Project. It has proved an ecological, occupational, and humanitarian disaster nearly everywhere else. Spills and explosions at reprocessing plants in the United States, Russia, and Britain have polluted rivers and contaminated hundreds of thousands of acres. Britain's Sellafield reprocessing complex, on England's Cumbrian coast, was shuttered in April 2005 after safety authorities discovered that 83 cubic meters of highly radioactive liquids had spilled during a period of nine months.
While they may be rabidly anti-nuclear they still have a right to be concerned.
Not only that, but we are creatures of habit. Such a relationship can be maintained simply through not knowing any other way. No desire, no want or need, just a habit. As such, it is a terrible thing that such abuses occur, one more reason we need to increase the socialising in our society.
You're spot on. All that land was owned by the Crown. I'm sure Her Majesty would be most pleased for you to return your little part of the Commonwealth to its rightful owner.
Explain to me then how the experiment let them see more than which they analysed.
The first experiment was wrong because they never even calculated the known variables, they just coaxed the unknowns into a verifiable pattern. Little science happened here, and a shitload of speculation took its place.
Please give me your genuine answer for the second question, have you even considered MOND for yourself as an alternative, or are you just repeating that which has been foisted upon you?
And when the analysis is wrong, we cling to the old models and advance fabrications as science? I think not. A single iota of evidence has never been forthcoming from the dark matter camp. Innuendo passes for affirmation. Please, all I asked for initially was a validation of dark matter theory in any way, and none has been forthcoming. Modifying the laws seems the only logical avenue.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought you were refering to this hypocracy:
As of 2005, it is estimated that the United States still provides about 180 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey under these NATO agreements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty
Wait, you had a perl script complete your PhD in nuclear physics while you went and did something else? I'm impressed.
What do you expect the consumer down under to do though? Everyone always says well you vote for this with your wallet but give me an example of how we can buy toothpaste that doesn't come from a polluting factory in the USA? All the brands are made their now. So am I supposed to stop brushing my teeth? Oh there's organic toothpaste but I don't want toothpaste that does a worse job, I just want toothpaste that isn't going to destroy the world when its produced. Its easy to blame everyone but its a lot harder to come up with solutions for individuals. The only realistic force that can control this is our government because they have the power to block the imports and force it to be made cleanly. Unfortunately our government doesn't want to take such steps and there isn't anyone I'm aware of that I can vote for that would...
Better watch out, soon they'll be rich enough to start funding scientists to distract everyone with reports on the impact of US pollution on China, when the reality is that the Chinese pollution in China is what is doing most of the damage (and vice versa).
You can hear the full speech here, and the remix here.
Whales are bottom feeders, the cockroaches of the sea. They want to be slaughtered by us, why else do you think they beach themselves? Harpoon them all I say.
It's charming how a nation of 300 million or so is divided perfectly in twain on the issue of restaruant quality due to their proximity to coastlines.
The proper connoisseurs should, though I'm sure there are many poseurs.
Yeah, I guess that's why they invented perfume.
I'm sure it does get annoying being sued all the time. My symapthies.
So your dog does your coding for you now?
Try CowboyNeal :)
No, you are fusing two atoms together to create a larger atom. Gravity plays no part in this reaction. The resulting atom has less mass than the initial atoms, and the excess mass is converted into energy. E=mc^2 and all that.
Radioactive carbon is one thing, uranium and plutonium another. There may be some typical overreaction by Greenpeace yet I'm not sure you should dismiss the issue as trivial so lightly. There were linked articles that shed some light on their concerns.
Greenpeace revealed that Cogema, the operator of the state-owned La Hague reprocessing plant, has installed inadequate equipment off the plant's discharge pipe, 30 metres under the sea, in a flawed attempt to prevent the routine discharge of radioactive particles into the ocean. Levels of radiation on the outside of the two steel chambers are so high (up to 500 micro-sieverts each hour) that a no-dive zone was self imposed by Greenpeace's radio-protection officer.
Since July, Cogema have been attempting to remove the radioactive crust from within their waste pipe. Greenpeace had called upon French authorities for a thorough Environmental Impact Assessment prior to any operation. This was not conducted, and during the operation hundreds of kilograms of waste material escaped into the ocean.
Greenpeace revealed today that nuclear particles larger than 63 microns were captured during a scientific sampling FROM Cogema's discharge pipe, while the Discharge Authorization from 1980 states that no particle larger than 25 microns can be discharged by the reprocessing plant.
In late 1998, following a green light and final checks by regulatory authorities DSIN, responsible for regulating nuclear transport, and OPRI which handles radioprotection, spent fuel shipment transportation from Cruas-Meysse to La Hague resumed. Shipments had been suspended in April 1998 after safety authorities reported ground contamination at the Valognes terminal near La Hague.
In mid-January 1997, the British Medical Journal published a study by two French scientists, Dominique Pobel and Jean-FranÃois Viel. The report warned of an increased risk of leukaemia for children who played regularly on beaches near the nuclear La Hague reprocessing plant, triggering local public concern. French Environment and Health Ministries commissioned an official epidemiological study of leukaemia around La Hague to be conducted by a high-level, ten-member team of experts. On 16 June 1997, the Secretary of State for Health requested OPRI (Office for Protection against Ionizing Radiation) to conduct an analysis of the marine environment (water, sediments, fauna, flora) around the sea discharge end of the effluent pipe of the La Hague plant. Measurements taken by OPRI near the beaches detected no radioactivity above the natural radioactivity level.
Activists such as Rousselet had reason to doubt La Hague's chemistry, essentially the same as the separation process developed by the Manhattan Project. It has proved an ecological, occupational, and humanitarian disaster nearly everywhere else. Spills and explosions at reprocessing plants in the United States, Russia, and Britain have polluted rivers and contaminated hundreds of thousands of acres. Britain's Sellafield reprocessing complex, on England's Cumbrian coast, was shuttered in April 2005 after safety authorities discovered that 83 cubic meters of highly radioactive liquids had spilled during a period of nine months.
While they may be rabidly anti-nuclear they still have a right to be concerned.
Never, ever visit the idle section again. Ever.
Here's an impartial count: abc.net.au
United States 987 gold, 774 silver, 664 bronze
Not only that, but we are creatures of habit. Such a relationship can be maintained simply through not knowing any other way. No desire, no want or need, just a habit. As such, it is a terrible thing that such abuses occur, one more reason we need to increase the socialising in our society.
Which demonstrates the power of the model. Your edit is just one among many, and among many there seems to be a decent font of knowledge.
You're spot on. All that land was owned by the Crown. I'm sure Her Majesty would be most pleased for you to return your little part of the Commonwealth to its rightful owner.
you might want to try ihatethosebastardsthatfiredme@yahoo.com as well, just to be safe.
everything looks like a good vibration" situation to me.
Why do you attribute that to dark matter? It is an anomaly in Einsteins field equations sure, but evidence of unseen matter I doubt.
It only interacts gravitationally right? Otherwise why is is dark?
Explain to me then how the experiment let them see more than which they analysed.
The first experiment was wrong because they never even calculated the known variables, they just coaxed the unknowns into a verifiable pattern. Little science happened here, and a shitload of speculation took its place.
Please give me your genuine answer for the second question, have you even considered MOND for yourself as an alternative, or are you just repeating that which has been foisted upon you?
And when the analysis is wrong, we cling to the old models and advance fabrications as science? I think not. A single iota of evidence has never been forthcoming from the dark matter camp. Innuendo passes for affirmation. Please, all I asked for initially was a validation of dark matter theory in any way, and none has been forthcoming. Modifying the laws seems the only logical avenue.
The only thing there is an inadequacy among our own models. Nothing more.