Areas with radiation presently showed decomposition
It's probably reduced to oxidation (pun not intended). So not really proper decomposition and I would expect impaired nitrogen "recuperation", soil degradation and desertification.
No, they don't. That's the job for the spokespeople and publicists, some of whom may be these scientists. There's enough high school level information in the abstracts of their publications for the interested to peruse. Somehow though, most "interested" people don't show high school level education. I don't see why anyone should enable their learned helplesness. If people don't really learn they will question even those explanations^Winterpretations.
who do we think we are to believe we have as much power to actually change the climate
Short memory, seek professional help.
1. Ozone layer. We had no problem thoroughly damaging that.
2. Deforestation, desertification, city hot-spots, carbon dioxide emissions, cloud seeding (I'm not talking about "chemtrails" bullshit, just ordinary contrail/exhaust seeding), what else...
Slashdot Mirror
This problem ends after bootstrapping green energy, no? When you can build green plants using green energy, that is.
A pit I mile to a side
1 cubic mile?
Of course decaying Pu239 "vanishes", so there's NO MORE RADIOACTIVITY left.
Golden shmolden. This news made me want more of what I've just had!
Burma Shave!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
As opposed to imperialistic expansion?
it almost begs the question to use general relativity to calculate a result predicted by general relativity.
YES!
Nuke it from orbit! It's the only wait...
Areas with radiation presently showed decomposition
It's probably reduced to oxidation (pun not intended). So not really proper decomposition and I would expect impaired nitrogen "recuperation", soil degradation and desertification.
home to your SO and they ask you
In this case, it's "OS", as in Other Self.
Apple. It's one of the 5 patents they want $40 a phone for in royalties.
Try " apropos milf "
Maybe... Although it referred to the crater, the word relatively might be the important one.
Huh?
You're assuming too much. Namely that "it works" and "is being improved."
Whatever happened to adverbs?
While we're at it, FUCK BETA.
religion postulates "why"
FTFY.
Your grammar is awfully bad.
communism was a great idea, but it just hasn't been widely implemented yet
FTFY. See FSF & al.
...is a miracle.
No. It's a successful exercise at fault tolerance.
From the misery of this site it looks as if it was specifically designed to kill Obamacare.
No, they don't. That's the job for the spokespeople and publicists, some of whom may be these scientists. There's enough high school level information in the abstracts of their publications for the interested to peruse. Somehow though, most "interested" people don't show high school level education. I don't see why anyone should enable their learned helplesness. If people don't really learn they will question even those explanations^Winterpretations.
who do we think we are to believe we have as much power to actually change the climate
Short memory, seek professional help.
1. Ozone layer. We had no problem thoroughly damaging that.
2. Deforestation, desertification, city hot-spots, carbon dioxide emissions, cloud seeding (I'm not talking about "chemtrails" bullshit, just ordinary contrail/exhaust seeding), what else...
To illustrate it better, apply your hypothesis to human population.
Your error here is linear "thinking" (note the quotes).