The IAEA's job is to promote nuclear energy. As such they are a little biased towards neglecting effects. So it is save to say the increase in cancer exists. However, a lot of other stuff may also exist but they do not admit it. It is a little bit like with the tobacco companies.
The base load is an interesting thing. In past years we were working towards increasing base load. For example people got cheap electricity at night so that they power their radiators at night. And a lot of other tools. So the base load is not that big as it is always stated. Especially we have a lot more energy consumption during the day. Especially around 12:00. The same time photo-voltaic energy is at its peak. But still there is a base load. And so the question is how can we work with that? One possibility is redundancy and distribution. While it happens that wind may not blow in a certain area, in the temperate climate zone we have large weather systems cycling around the globe. So if you distribute the wind turbines properly (e.g. over the North Sea in Europe or along the US coasts) one section has always wind.
We will see how good this works in Germany as they dump their nuclear plants until 2020/2030. And they will switch from old coal plants to fewer new ones. To compensate that, they build wind farms and photo-voltaic.
This is nonsense. a) Most of those deads in the fossil fuel industry die in insecure mines in China. b) People with deformations, broken imune system and reduced life expectancy suffer from the Chernobyl incident (20 years ago). Also a lot of babies where born dead in that period and we will see a cancer increase in Japan in the next years. Radiation is killing slowly. BTW some people already died in Fukushima by conamination. And when you look at the liquidators in Chernobyl they paid a high price. c) Why are only fossile fuels a equivalent for you for nuclear power? Looks like a very US-logic thing.
It looks like a geek toy to me. At least as train, such a vehicle would not be very practical. The main problems of todays train systems is not speed, but how many people can be moved and how can cargo be distributed more efficiently. The first thing involves two deck trains, trains without locomotive (which follow more or less the concept of a tram). The second thing has to do with shorter or easier to decompose cargo trains. So they can transfer containers from the harbors to the interior.
You are missing the point: Osama bin Laden was a living human being and therefor he is entitled to all human rights by our standards (see http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml). It does not matter if he declares something. I can declare myself ruler of the cosmos. This has no consequence. And when I decide to commit crimes, like terrorism, theft, murder etc. in the name of being ruler of the cosmos then I am still just a criminal which means I am a suspect. When I am proven guilty I am a criminal. And the I am most likely sent to a prison. In the US I might even be killed.
What you definitely missed is: That we have to live up to our standards not to Osama's standards. When we are not able to play by our rules. Why should everyone else believe us. That is exactly what the Chinese did lately. We do not live by our rules because it is always easy, but because we think they are good. so sometimes it is hard to fulfill them. But either we are hypocrites or we live by them.
It is of no consequence what he said he is. If I say I am on war with the US and then attack an embassy, in my country they will catch me (if they can), trial me and send me to a prison. That's what modern states do with criminals. A person cannot declare war to a state or any other body. It is mostly a figure of speech, but it has no consequence on a legal basis and on how a state deals with it.
We do not measure bin Laden by his own rules nor do we use his rules on us. We use our rules and laws. And they see him as an criminal or at least as a suspect. And according to these rules we have to judge him and us. Everything else is vengeance talk. And states do not do vengeance. If you do not understand that you are soooooo Middle Ages.
Okay, let's put you in the position of planning this operation. Are you really going to be the guy who says "take him alive at any cost" when he might be armed, might have a suicide bomb strapped to his chest, might be holding a detonator to blow up the whole compound, or any other number of very likely scenarios?
Yes definitely. A state does not indulge itself in revenge and vengeance. It tries to get hold on criminals. So the normal thing to do is: Get him, bring him before a judge and if considered guilty, send him to prison for his crimes.And I am not happy with the current outcome as it looks like vengeance.
This guy is a terrorist, after all, who said that he'd never be taken alive, and so on with the usual terrorist rhetoric.
He is still a human. And that means all human right apply to him as much as for any other human on this planet. And it is of now importance what that person did wrong. Even if he is the most dangerous, evil and brutal mass murder on the planet. If you cannot understand this concept, please feel free to read about those concepts and the principals of humans rights. Also try to understand the basics of the so called enlightenment.
I'm sorry, but a US Navy SEAL's life is worth more than a mass murderer. Enough people have died because of bin Laden. Take no chances. If he doesn't immediately have his hands up and be face down on the floor spread-eagled and screaming "I surrender" when you burst into that room, yeah, you shoot him.
a) All human life is equal. b) Of course he was not putting his face down as he wanted to die as a hero and a martyr. Now he did. And we have shown that we cannot life up to our own rules. Perfect.
You make that very clear to the men you send into harm's way to get him, and at the end of the day you trust their judgement on the battlefield when they kick down that door and have to make a split-second decision. We who are Monday morning quarterbacking are lucky that we didn't have to make that decision, but I think 99% of people would neutralize the threat when they see he's not prone with his hands up, and the other 1% probably doesn't live long enough to feel smug and superior about it.
This might be true for an average guy, but the SEALs should have been better in this. At least the outcome is suboptimal for the US and Western states.
I am not for the death penalty, but in a military operation, you do what you have to do to come home safe. If Osama bin Laden wanted a fair trial, he could have turned himself in to the nearest US Embassy on 9/12.
It is not important what Osama bin Laden wanted, it is important if we can life up to our own rules. And we failed. If he believed in something else than our rules, we should still not align our behavior to his rules, but always to our own. And that means, killing a suspect is not ok.
Let's stop with the silly idealist nonsense and recognize we're living in the real world, with real consequences to our men and women on the battlefield. I'll say it again, an American soldier's life is worth more than bin Laden's, and any operation to get bin Laden had to have recognized that basic truth.
And no: No men's life is more worth than any other. IF you believe in the enlightenment and human rights you should understand that. If you are a Christian you should still understand that concept as it is proposed in the Bible. Jews, Moslems and Buddhists have similar concepts so even then you should understand that the price tag on every human is infinite even the one for Osama bin Laden.
Most hydroelectric damns are quite small. When they collapse nothing catastrophic happen on a continental level. Even those in the mountains might destroy a village or two. Nothing we cannot handle. The thing is different when like in Bhopal a chemical plant explodes. The results are devastating. Not as bad as Chernobyl, but ask the Indians they hat to cope with it for decades. The cost for the accident is in the billions.
However, I do not understand your argument. Nuclear disasters are not that bad, because there are other disasters which do not involve radioactivity? Is that your argument? Well I thought a bad thing is a bad thing. Even if there is another bad thing somewhere else.
When it comes to Chernobyl: The cost is easily in the trillions. Most of the EU was affected. As well as Syria and Turkey. Milk, animals and plants had to be thrown away. And "wild" animals cannot be eaten for years. In addition, some regions are still too contaminated in Germany today, that you cannot collect mushrooms without glowing at night. Even worse you can go to Chernobyl itself. The whole area is still uninhabitable. Cities gone waste. People died. And People are still dieing from it. And the sarcophagus, that concrete monument, has to repaired and replaced. And in several years it has to be replaced again, because the radiation is still that bad that the stuff is aging very fast.
An area with a 30 km radius (296 km or 114 mi) is wasted. And it will sty that way for another 20 or 100 years. I do not know any other historic event with a similar impact. Oh wait. There was one in Japan lately. But beside that.
There is a lot of space between poor and rich. And from my point of view, it is good enough when I can make a decent living. Right now I make 38 K EUR a year before taxes and stuff and 20 K EUR after taxes, state retirement funds and health care. That should be enough for me. And if I would be married with children, then I would have to pay less taxes and it would still be ok.
I personally work to live. Even though I am in the sciences and therefor my job (research) is also my passion.;-)
I would say: Found a union. But unions are not allowed on Feregninar. Even though I have a research post in Germany getting 38K EUR a year (before taxes) or 20K EUR after taxes, state retirement funds and health care, which runs for three years. At the end I have to look for the next project. But due to the normal payment for a MSc degree, I can save some money and bridge the payment gap at the end of the current project.
Ok. So I will most likely not get rich. Who cares? I don't. And by the way the article puts bachelors, masters and phds in the same pond. However, their career options are quite different. And honestly when the US is such a bad place to work in the sciences. Other countries are possibly better suited. So pack your bag and move.
They can't get over it, as it is connected to some Western fears. The West and especially the USA are not that important anymore and the Chinese are considered to be commies (even if they are not). So the USA fears to loose against the commies after all. "We are all doomed!" This leads to the problem that the US think they are safe when they can control everything. But this normally piss of others. Now when they are getting closer to bankruptcy they feel other gaining on them. Even if this is just a normalization.
We present the new strange particle of the week, which made $SOMETHING_INCREDIBLE and transformed $OBJECT_A into $OBJECT_B which allows us to $DO_SOMETHING_EVEN_MORE_INCREDIBLE which we will use to (go home|blow up our enemies|have a warm bath).
Even without the Trevatron, there are mountains of data to be dug through to find bumps and hills and scratches and wrinkles in the data. They are still finding new things in the data from LEP and from the moon material they brought back from that moon thing. So why bother if it is still online. The LHC will produce even more data and that means we have enough data in the future to play with it to the end of the world. And if not we can always built a larger thing. The device in Swiss/France is an international device with scientists from many different countries.
Next time we built one in... well Japan is out of the question they have an energy problem right now. And the US does not have a stable grid. The Europeans are not really sure if they should go to renewable energy or if they should blow up ehm built new nuclear plants on the edge of tectonic plates. May be Libya would be a good place. A lot of sunshine which can be used for energy at day time and the inhabitants are our friends now. At least of half of them.;-)
First, it is mono. Beside any technical argument. There are a lot of people who do not like mono, because it is an incarnation of evil (alias MS). I am not saying that it is, but many people feel that way. So this is definitely one obstacle. Second, Android and iOS are different enough to be different on the low level aka programming language level, which will result either in compatibility libraries which are wrappers and resemble at some point internal DSLs. And they result in another abstraction layer which costs memory and CPU power. When you used an iPhone 3G/3GS you already find your phone to slow. So why torture yourself with slow software. And fourth, there are other cross platform approaches which use external DSLs which do not introduce another layer of abstraction at runtime, only on built time. For example: http://code.google.com/p/applause/
As usual they will talk a lot about it in the EU. And if I am not mistaken, then this ruling requires only 2/3 of all votes in the EU council so the UK can't block is on their own. However, Germany will help them for all their fabulous car companies.
When they ban oil driven cars by 2050 then you should have some warning time. Beside that, they defined that as a goal not as a regulation. So it is most likely that they will use some sort of step wise approach. As they do it right now.
It is very interesting how you react. If you disagree you could have said: "I do not believe you" or "to my knowledge your figures are wrong." However, you decided to use rude language. Even though I do not know which claim you criticize. Is it that the nuclear tests in the 1950 and 1960 had an effect? Or is it that we can see the effects from the current disaster in 10-20 years?
How do you handle the nuclear waste they produce? What are you doing when the reactors go out of service? And what is the worst case scenario of that technology?
The plutonium released by nuclear testing increased the cancer rate in world population by 10%. This is a significant effect. And the effects of the Fukushima incident will have effects, which we will be able to measure in 10 or 20 years. It is expected that the average increase of cancer and other radiation effects will be around 1-2%.
It is very interesting to see that so many people here are in favor of nuclear power. And the best are the arguments why nuclear is not such a big issue as coal or oil. The discussion in Germany is quite different. We are going to end the nuclear age in our country and have increased the output of electricity out of renewable energy up to 17% in the last decade. Based on current development in wind and solar power we believe that we can obsolete nuclear power by 2020 and meet our CO2 reduction goal as well. We think that we will reach that limit even faster with closing nuclear plant earlier.
But looking into the argument of coal kills more people than nuclear plants and their waste. This is definitely not true. It kill thousands after the Chernobyl disaster and something which is not counted in studies is the increase in cancer rates, babies born dead or deformed and the negative effects on the environment. So the argument coal kills more people is faulty.
I live in Kiel at the Baltic Sea and after checking my food supplies, I discovered 2 cans of tomatoes, spaghetti, wheat, sugar, honey, milk (1l), and 2 kg of coffee powder. And some fish artifacts and vegis in the fridge. However, when a major disaster would occur, I could still leave the house and enter one of those supermarkets close by (ca 5 min by foot). My home is uphill and I live in the third floor so the possibility of a flood is minimal. The only real danger would be a explosion of an atomic bomb (but then I do not need any cans of what so ever in my flat) or the close by coal-burning power plant goes. In that case my heating system will fail and for cold winters I am prepared.
If the only problem with my comment ins spelling and grammar than everything is fine for me.
However, I will try to be more careful when posting to avoid misunderstandings.
Beside that, I hope for you that your last statement is either only an illustration of the different meanings of loser and looser or you are very old. In all other cases you are really strange, having sex with the dead. I don't know. Is that legal?;-)
Slashdot Mirror
The IAEA's job is to promote nuclear energy. As such they are a little biased towards neglecting effects. So it is save to say the increase in cancer exists. However, a lot of other stuff may also exist but they do not admit it. It is a little bit like with the tobacco companies.
The base load is an interesting thing. In past years we were working towards increasing base load. For example people got cheap electricity at night so that they power their radiators at night. And a lot of other tools. So the base load is not that big as it is always stated. Especially we have a lot more energy consumption during the day. Especially around 12:00. The same time photo-voltaic energy is at its peak. But still there is a base load. And so the question is how can we work with that? One possibility is redundancy and distribution. While it happens that wind may not blow in a certain area, in the temperate climate zone we have large weather systems cycling around the globe. So if you distribute the wind turbines properly (e.g. over the North Sea in Europe or along the US coasts) one section has always wind.
We will see how good this works in Germany as they dump their nuclear plants until 2020/2030. And they will switch from old coal plants to fewer new ones. To compensate that, they build wind farms and photo-voltaic.
This is nonsense. a) Most of those deads in the fossil fuel industry die in insecure mines in China. b) People with deformations, broken imune system and reduced life expectancy suffer from the Chernobyl incident (20 years ago). Also a lot of babies where born dead in that period and we will see a cancer increase in Japan in the next years. Radiation is killing slowly. BTW some people already died in Fukushima by conamination. And when you look at the liquidators in Chernobyl they paid a high price. c) Why are only fossile fuels a equivalent for you for nuclear power? Looks like a very US-logic thing.
It looks like a geek toy to me. At least as train, such a vehicle would not be very practical. The main problems of todays train systems is not speed, but how many people can be moved and how can cargo be distributed more efficiently. The first thing involves two deck trains, trains without locomotive (which follow more or less the concept of a tram). The second thing has to do with shorter or easier to decompose cargo trains. So they can transfer containers from the harbors to the interior.
But cool device.
You are missing the point: Osama bin Laden was a living human being and therefor he is entitled to all human rights by our standards (see http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml). It does not matter if he declares something. I can declare myself ruler of the cosmos. This has no consequence. And when I decide to commit crimes, like terrorism, theft, murder etc. in the name of being ruler of the cosmos then I am still just a criminal which means I am a suspect. When I am proven guilty I am a criminal. And the I am most likely sent to a prison. In the US I might even be killed.
What you definitely missed is: That we have to live up to our standards not to Osama's standards. When we are not able to play by our rules. Why should everyone else believe us. That is exactly what the Chinese did lately. We do not live by our rules because it is always easy, but because we think they are good. so sometimes it is hard to fulfill them. But either we are hypocrites or we live by them.
It is of no consequence what he said he is. If I say I am on war with the US and then attack an embassy, in my country they will catch me (if they can), trial me and send me to a prison. That's what modern states do with criminals. A person cannot declare war to a state or any other body. It is mostly a figure of speech, but it has no consequence on a legal basis and on how a state deals with it.
We do not measure bin Laden by his own rules nor do we use his rules on us. We use our rules and laws. And they see him as an criminal or at least as a suspect. And according to these rules we have to judge him and us. Everything else is vengeance talk. And states do not do vengeance. If you do not understand that you are soooooo Middle Ages.
Okay, let's put you in the position of planning this operation. Are you really going to be the guy who says "take him alive at any cost" when he might be armed, might have a suicide bomb strapped to his chest, might be holding a detonator to blow up the whole compound, or any other number of very likely scenarios?
Yes definitely. A state does not indulge itself in revenge and vengeance. It tries to get hold on criminals. So the normal thing to do is: Get him, bring him before a judge and if considered guilty, send him to prison for his crimes.And I am not happy with the current outcome as it looks like vengeance.
This guy is a terrorist, after all, who said that he'd never be taken alive, and so on with the usual terrorist rhetoric.
He is still a human. And that means all human right apply to him as much as for any other human on this planet. And it is of now importance what that person did wrong. Even if he is the most dangerous, evil and brutal mass murder on the planet. If you cannot understand this concept, please feel free to read about those concepts and the principals of humans rights. Also try to understand the basics of the so called enlightenment.
I'm sorry, but a US Navy SEAL's life is worth more than a mass murderer. Enough people have died because of bin Laden. Take no chances. If he doesn't immediately have his hands up and be face down on the floor spread-eagled and screaming "I surrender" when you burst into that room, yeah, you shoot him.
a) All human life is equal.
b) Of course he was not putting his face down as he wanted to die as a hero and a martyr. Now he did. And we have shown that we cannot life up to our own rules. Perfect.
You make that very clear to the men you send into harm's way to get him, and at the end of the day you trust their judgement on the battlefield when they kick down that door and have to make a split-second decision. We who are Monday morning quarterbacking are lucky that we didn't have to make that decision, but I think 99% of people would neutralize the threat when they see he's not prone with his hands up, and the other 1% probably doesn't live long enough to feel smug and superior about it.
This might be true for an average guy, but the SEALs should have been better in this. At least the outcome is suboptimal for the US and Western states.
I am not for the death penalty, but in a military operation, you do what you have to do to come home safe. If Osama bin Laden wanted a fair trial, he could have turned himself in to the nearest US Embassy on 9/12.
It is not important what Osama bin Laden wanted, it is important if we can life up to our own rules. And we failed. If he believed in something else than our rules, we should still not align our behavior to his rules, but always to our own. And that means, killing a suspect is not ok.
Let's stop with the silly idealist nonsense and recognize we're living in the real world, with real consequences to our men and women on the battlefield. I'll say it again, an American soldier's life is worth more than bin Laden's, and any operation to get bin Laden had to have recognized that basic truth.
And no: No men's life is more worth than any other. IF you believe in the enlightenment and human rights you should understand that. If you are a Christian you should still understand that concept as it is proposed in the Bible. Jews, Moslems and Buddhists have similar concepts so even then you should understand that the price tag on every human is infinite even the one for Osama bin Laden.
And which technology make nuclear wast disappear?
Most hydroelectric damns are quite small. When they collapse nothing catastrophic happen on a continental level. Even those in the mountains might destroy a village or two. Nothing we cannot handle. The thing is different when like in Bhopal a chemical plant explodes. The results are devastating. Not as bad as Chernobyl, but ask the Indians they hat to cope with it for decades. The cost for the accident is in the billions.
However, I do not understand your argument. Nuclear disasters are not that bad, because there are other disasters which do not involve radioactivity? Is that your argument? Well I thought a bad thing is a bad thing. Even if there is another bad thing somewhere else.
When it comes to Chernobyl: The cost is easily in the trillions. Most of the EU was affected. As well as Syria and Turkey. Milk, animals and plants had to be thrown away. And "wild" animals cannot be eaten for years. In addition, some regions are still too contaminated in Germany today, that you cannot collect mushrooms without glowing at night. Even worse you can go to Chernobyl itself. The whole area is still uninhabitable. Cities gone waste. People died. And People are still dieing from it. And the sarcophagus, that concrete monument, has to repaired and replaced. And in several years it has to be replaced again, because the radiation is still that bad that the stuff is aging very fast.
An area with a 30 km radius (296 km or 114 mi) is wasted. And it will sty that way for another 20 or 100 years. I do not know any other historic event with a similar impact. Oh wait. There was one in Japan lately. But beside that.
There is a lot of space between poor and rich. And from my point of view, it is good enough when I can make a decent living. Right now I make 38 K EUR a year before taxes and stuff and 20 K EUR after taxes, state retirement funds and health care. That should be enough for me. And if I would be married with children, then I would have to pay less taxes and it would still be ok.
I personally work to live. Even though I am in the sciences and therefor my job (research) is also my passion. ;-)
I would say: Found a union. But unions are not allowed on Feregninar. Even though I have a research post in Germany getting 38K EUR a year (before taxes) or 20K EUR after taxes, state retirement funds and health care, which runs for three years. At the end I have to look for the next project. But due to the normal payment for a MSc degree, I can save some money and bridge the payment gap at the end of the current project.
Ok. So I will most likely not get rich. Who cares? I don't. And by the way the article puts bachelors, masters and phds in the same pond. However, their career options are quite different. And honestly when the US is such a bad place to work in the sciences. Other countries are possibly better suited. So pack your bag and move.
They can't get over it, as it is connected to some Western fears. The West and especially the USA are not that important anymore and the Chinese are considered to be commies (even if they are not). So the USA fears to loose against the commies after all. "We are all doomed!" This leads to the problem that the US think they are safe when they can control everything. But this normally piss of others. Now when they are getting closer to bankruptcy they feel other gaining on them. Even if this is just a normalization.
We present the new strange particle of the week, which made $SOMETHING_INCREDIBLE and transformed $OBJECT_A into $OBJECT_B which allows us to $DO_SOMETHING_EVEN_MORE_INCREDIBLE which we will use to (go home|blow up our enemies|have a warm bath).
Even without the Trevatron, there are mountains of data to be dug through to find bumps and hills and scratches and wrinkles in the data. They are still finding new things in the data from LEP and from the moon material they brought back from that moon thing. So why bother if it is still online. The LHC will produce even more data and that means we have enough data in the future to play with it to the end of the world. And if not we can always built a larger thing. The device in Swiss/France is an international device with scientists from many different countries.
Next time we built one in ... well Japan is out of the question they have an energy problem right now. And the US does not have a stable grid. The Europeans are not really sure if they should go to renewable energy or if they should blow up ehm built new nuclear plants on the edge of tectonic plates. May be Libya would be a good place. A lot of sunshine which can be used for energy at day time and the inhabitants are our friends now. At least of half of them. ;-)
First, it is mono. Beside any technical argument. There are a lot of people who do not like mono, because it is an incarnation of evil (alias MS). I am not saying that it is, but many people feel that way. So this is definitely one obstacle. Second, Android and iOS are different enough to be different on the low level aka programming language level, which will result either in compatibility libraries which are wrappers and resemble at some point internal DSLs. And they result in another abstraction layer which costs memory and CPU power. When you used an iPhone 3G/3GS you already find your phone to slow. So why torture yourself with slow software. And fourth, there are other cross platform approaches which use external DSLs which do not introduce another layer of abstraction at runtime, only on built time. For example: http://code.google.com/p/applause/
Is this the April-fools-day message? If not. It has been proven that terrorists can be as stupid as governments. What a relieve.
As usual they will talk a lot about it in the EU. And if I am not mistaken, then this ruling requires only 2/3 of all votes in the EU council so the UK can't block is on their own. However, Germany will help them for all their fabulous car companies.
When they ban oil driven cars by 2050 then you should have some warning time. Beside that, they defined that as a goal not as a regulation. So it is most likely that they will use some sort of step wise approach. As they do it right now.
It is very interesting how you react. If you disagree you could have said: "I do not believe you" or "to my knowledge your figures are wrong." However, you decided to use rude language. Even though I do not know which claim you criticize. Is it that the nuclear tests in the 1950 and 1960 had an effect? Or is it that we can see the effects from the current disaster in 10-20 years?
How do you handle the nuclear waste they produce?
What are you doing when the reactors go out of service?
And what is the worst case scenario of that technology?
The plutonium released by nuclear testing increased the cancer rate in world population by 10%. This is a significant effect. And the effects of the Fukushima incident will have effects, which we will be able to measure in 10 or 20 years. It is expected that the average increase of cancer and other radiation effects will be around 1-2%.
It is very interesting to see that so many people here are in favor of nuclear power. And the best are the arguments why nuclear is not such a big issue as coal or oil. The discussion in Germany is quite different. We are going to end the nuclear age in our country and have increased the output of electricity out of renewable energy up to 17% in the last decade. Based on current development in wind and solar power we believe that we can obsolete nuclear power by 2020 and meet our CO2 reduction goal as well. We think that we will reach that limit even faster with closing nuclear plant earlier.
But looking into the argument of coal kills more people than nuclear plants and their waste. This is definitely not true. It kill thousands after the Chernobyl disaster and something which is not counted in studies is the increase in cancer rates, babies born dead or deformed and the negative effects on the environment. So the argument coal kills more people is faulty.
Sounds like my job ;-)
I live in Kiel at the Baltic Sea and after checking my food supplies, I discovered 2 cans of tomatoes, spaghetti, wheat, sugar, honey, milk (1l), and 2 kg of coffee powder. And some fish artifacts and vegis in the fridge. However, when a major disaster would occur, I could still leave the house and enter one of those supermarkets close by (ca 5 min by foot). My home is uphill and I live in the third floor so the possibility of a flood is minimal. The only real danger would be a explosion of an atomic bomb (but then I do not need any cans of what so ever in my flat) or the close by coal-burning power plant goes. In that case my heating system will fail and for cold winters I am prepared.
If the only problem with my comment ins spelling and grammar than everything is fine for me.
However, I will try to be more careful when posting to avoid misunderstandings.
Beside that, I hope for you that your last statement is either only an illustration of the different meanings of loser and looser or you are very old. In all other cases you are really strange, having sex with the dead. I don't know. Is that legal? ;-)