Let's get real here. The Hanford Site was started in 1942-1943 and produced enough Pu-239 by 1945 to supply the Trinity test and the Fat Boy bomb dropped on Nagasaki. The last reactor built, the N reactor was started-up was in 1963. There were no regulations back then. They were making it up as they went along. It was the era of "nuclear power's going to be too cheap to meter" and "we can use nuclear bombs to excavate canals". We are now paying for the mistakes they made because they didn't know any better back then.
The stuff in those tanks is nasty leftovers from the plutonium extraction process. It needs to be dealt with rather than just letting it leach into the environment. Dealing with it is extremely difficult. It has to be completely automated including necessary repairs because the plant is too dangerous to enter once it starts up.
Your eligibility to vote should be determined at the time you register to vote and the only ID you should need to vote is your signature in the poll book.
Such a cute idea, 100,000 of us suing the coal plant upwind from us for the damage to our health from their emissions. Much more efficient for everyone to band together and just bring one suit. Like say we do with government? Yes, government has protected polluters but that's something that can be changed.
If you RTFA you find it is not expected to produce objectionable byproducts like regular reactors. It says that unlike fission and fusion reactions that depend on the strong nuclear force for their energy this is drawing energy from the weak nuclear force. Like fusion though it appears to be mostly in the experimental stage and is years away from practical application. One difficulty they have is they need to generate vibrations in the 5-30 THz range which the researcher calls "the valley of inaccessibility".
The problem I have with that is what if the mess includes dead or crippled for life people? You can't clean up a mess like that and money is poor compensation for irreversible damage. And what if the guy doesn't have the financial wherewithal? Who pays for cleaning it up then? The only answer I have is government. It's usually cheaper to prevent the mess in the first place.
The Preamble is right there at the top of the first page of the Constitution. It is as much a part of the Constitution as anything else. It is a general statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles and anything else in there should be interpreted in the light of those purposes and principles.
The problem the Occupy camps had was that after they had been there a while they started attracting various homeless people who were not part of the movement. They were the source of most of the problems in the camps.
... nothing stops gays from having religious ceremonies and making lifetime commitments...
And the government grants certain rights and responsibilities to heterosexual couples that do that by taking the simple step of registering the marriage. By the principle of equal treatment under the law how is it equal treatment to deny the same status to gays who make that lifetime commitment?
I really think within the next ten years or so the effects of climate change will become so manifest that it can't be ignored. Special interests don't stand a chance once enough people get active. I'm an optimist but if democracy means anything in the US that's what will happen.
Winston Churchill said: "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." Let's hope he was right.
Yes, I think the tide is changing I think. Reality has a way of helping the honestly skeptical to make up their minds, especially when it starts to impact their lives. But there will always be some people who are ideologically incapable of accepting what the science leads us to because their ideology is more important to them than reality.
I thought about adding a third body but thinking about the complications that introduces hurts my head. I think it could only be workable if it only took 2 of the 3 legislative bodies to pass something.
I've also committed to only up-modding others' comments;
I pretty much do that too. The exceptions are off topic trolls like the "nigger" guys, spam and occasionally I'll throw an "Overrated" at someone who I think got upmodded more than is warranted. I read at -1 because sometimes those guys deserve upmods. Also, I've learned to not waste my mod points on climate change related discussions because I always find comments I want to make.
If you're going to look back 500 million years you have to take into account that the Sun was cooler back then and the configuration of the continents and oceans was much different, factors that affect climate on geologic time scales but not so much on human time scales.
Oh... I don't know that they know they are wrong. I think they just have a world view that is incapable of accepting anything that goes against their ideological predilections. They may be in for a rude awakening if they ever wake up.
The problem with the anthropogenic part is that it's almost impossible to come up with something that's scientific and falsifiable...
We can certainly measure the radiative absorption characteristics of CO2, that's scientific and falsifiable. We can measure the level and rate of change in CO2 in the atmosphere. We can measure the approximate emissions of CO2 by human activities and observe that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is a bit less than half of those emissions. That plus solar input and feedback from water vapor are about all you need for a first order calculation.
The spatial and temporal data sparsity is what it is and you have to work with what you've got. That doesn't mean the results are useless, it's just a factor in the uncertainty you attach to your results. As long as climate scientists use a consistent methodology to derive their results from one iteration to the next it's useful information.
As long as you are measuring how something is changing over time rather than the absolute value then UHI located temperature stations can still measure the amount of change even though the absolute temperature may read higher in the UHI. Only if conditions change, ie. someone adds a second air conditioner outlet to the location, would the results be skewed.
I think the political tides in the US on this will make it politically difficult to be on the skeptic side by 2020 or 2025 at the latest. As the evidence continues to pile up, as we continue to get more weather extremes around the world there will develop a critical mass of people demanding action that can't be opposed. Most polls in the US already show a substantial majority in favor of action on AGW but there aren't enough yet who are actively engaging their representation about it.
Notice the AC divided volume (3 dimensions) by area (2 dimensions) leaving 1 dimension for the answer. It's good math and the answer comports with scientists estimates of ~60 meters once complications such as the ocean spreading out and the fact that some Antarctic ice is under sea level even though it is sitting on ground are taken into account.
Really? I mean the first three sentences could just as easily be a description of the UN and the science of the global warming faithful, where you receive funding only if your research produces the desired result.
That seems to be a matter of faith on the denier side but I have yet to see one concrete example where that is true, that the funder is telling the grantee what the results are to be. Perhaps you could provide one.
I think it's generally understood to be short for anthropogenic climate change denial. It's not possible to call most of them skeptics because a real skeptic is willing to be convinced by evidence and most of them are not. So what's a better term? I some time use contrarians but that seems to mild.
As opposed to the Koch brothers who are worth at least 10 times what Gore is and stand to make billions from their oil and gas investments. Neither of them are doing anything illegal so calling out one side and ignoring the other is simply a political statement.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's get real here. The Hanford Site was started in 1942-1943 and produced enough Pu-239 by 1945 to supply the Trinity test and the Fat Boy bomb dropped on Nagasaki. The last reactor built, the N reactor was started-up was in 1963. There were no regulations back then. They were making it up as they went along. It was the era of "nuclear power's going to be too cheap to meter" and "we can use nuclear bombs to excavate canals". We are now paying for the mistakes they made because they didn't know any better back then.
The stuff in those tanks is nasty leftovers from the plutonium extraction process. It needs to be dealt with rather than just letting it leach into the environment. Dealing with it is extremely difficult. It has to be completely automated including necessary repairs because the plant is too dangerous to enter once it starts up.
Any checking of your eligibility to vote should be done at the time you register to vote, not at the polls.
Your eligibility to vote should be determined at the time you register to vote and the only ID you should need to vote is your signature in the poll book.
Such a cute idea, 100,000 of us suing the coal plant upwind from us for the damage to our health from their emissions. Much more efficient for everyone to band together and just bring one suit. Like say we do with government? Yes, government has protected polluters but that's something that can be changed.
kitty Genovese.
You beat me to it.
If you RTFA you find it is not expected to produce objectionable byproducts like regular reactors. It says that unlike fission and fusion reactions that depend on the strong nuclear force for their energy this is drawing energy from the weak nuclear force. Like fusion though it appears to be mostly in the experimental stage and is years away from practical application. One difficulty they have is they need to generate vibrations in the 5-30 THz range which the researcher calls "the valley of inaccessibility".
The problem I have with that is what if the mess includes dead or crippled for life people? You can't clean up a mess like that and money is poor compensation for irreversible damage. And what if the guy doesn't have the financial wherewithal? Who pays for cleaning it up then? The only answer I have is government. It's usually cheaper to prevent the mess in the first place.
The Preamble is right there at the top of the first page of the Constitution. It is as much a part of the Constitution as anything else. It is a general statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles and anything else in there should be interpreted in the light of those purposes and principles.
Personally I don't even want to try and find a kiddie porn site in the first place. goat.se or gay porn I could see.
The problem the Occupy camps had was that after they had been there a while they started attracting various homeless people who were not part of the movement. They were the source of most of the problems in the camps.
And the government grants certain rights and responsibilities to heterosexual couples that do that by taking the simple step of registering the marriage. By the principle of equal treatment under the law how is it equal treatment to deny the same status to gays who make that lifetime commitment?
I really think within the next ten years or so the effects of climate change will become so manifest that it can't be ignored. Special interests don't stand a chance once enough people get active. I'm an optimist but if democracy means anything in the US that's what will happen.
Winston Churchill said: "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." Let's hope he was right.
Yes, I think the tide is changing I think. Reality has a way of helping the honestly skeptical to make up their minds, especially when it starts to impact their lives. But there will always be some people who are ideologically incapable of accepting what the science leads us to because their ideology is more important to them than reality.
Thanks for the compliment. {blush}
I thought about adding a third body but thinking about the complications that introduces hurts my head. I think it could only be workable if it only took 2 of the 3 legislative bodies to pass something.
I've also committed to only up-modding others' comments;
I pretty much do that too. The exceptions are off topic trolls like the "nigger" guys, spam and occasionally I'll throw an "Overrated" at someone who I think got upmodded more than is warranted. I read at -1 because sometimes those guys deserve upmods. Also, I've learned to not waste my mod points on climate change related discussions because I always find comments I want to make.
If you're going to look back 500 million years you have to take into account that the Sun was cooler back then and the configuration of the continents and oceans was much different, factors that affect climate on geologic time scales but not so much on human time scales.
Oh... I don't know that they know they are wrong. I think they just have a world view that is incapable of accepting anything that goes against their ideological predilections. They may be in for a rude awakening if they ever wake up.
The problem with the anthropogenic part is that it's almost impossible to come up with something that's scientific and falsifiable ...
We can certainly measure the radiative absorption characteristics of CO2, that's scientific and falsifiable. We can measure the level and rate of change in CO2 in the atmosphere. We can measure the approximate emissions of CO2 by human activities and observe that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is a bit less than half of those emissions. That plus solar input and feedback from water vapor are about all you need for a first order calculation.
The spatial and temporal data sparsity is what it is and you have to work with what you've got. That doesn't mean the results are useless, it's just a factor in the uncertainty you attach to your results. As long as climate scientists use a consistent methodology to derive their results from one iteration to the next it's useful information.
As long as you are measuring how something is changing over time rather than the absolute value then UHI located temperature stations can still measure the amount of change even though the absolute temperature may read higher in the UHI. Only if conditions change, ie. someone adds a second air conditioner outlet to the location, would the results be skewed.
I think the political tides in the US on this will make it politically difficult to be on the skeptic side by 2020 or 2025 at the latest. As the evidence continues to pile up, as we continue to get more weather extremes around the world there will develop a critical mass of people demanding action that can't be opposed. Most polls in the US already show a substantial majority in favor of action on AGW but there aren't enough yet who are actively engaging their representation about it.
Notice the AC divided volume (3 dimensions) by area (2 dimensions) leaving 1 dimension for the answer. It's good math and the answer comports with scientists estimates of ~60 meters once complications such as the ocean spreading out and the fact that some Antarctic ice is under sea level even though it is sitting on ground are taken into account.
Really? I mean the first three sentences could just as easily be a description of the UN and the science of the global warming faithful, where you receive funding only if your research produces the desired result.
That seems to be a matter of faith on the denier side but I have yet to see one concrete example where that is true, that the funder is telling the grantee what the results are to be. Perhaps you could provide one.
I think it's generally understood to be short for anthropogenic climate change denial. It's not possible to call most of them skeptics because a real skeptic is willing to be convinced by evidence and most of them are not. So what's a better term? I some time use contrarians but that seems to mild.
As opposed to the Koch brothers who are worth at least 10 times what Gore is and stand to make billions from their oil and gas investments. Neither of them are doing anything illegal so calling out one side and ignoring the other is simply a political statement.