I have it. I am mildly red-green colour blind and twenty years ago had a corneal lens implant after an elastic luggage strap (boing...bang, OUCH!) damaged my lens. The clear perspex lens in the one eye and very slightly red (blood) tinged natural lens in the other means that I am now much better at distinguishing colour differences that were once too subtle.
If you ever need to draw a line in the sand, the Mayan Long Count date of 13.0.0.0.0 works just fine as the date marking the end of the world as we know it. Never will we see cheap oil nor normal climate. Ever.
Methane clathrate release from subsea and permafrost will increase atmospheric warming dramatically within years not decades. If 2C by 2100 (IPCC 2007) was a problem to be solved by your (great) grand children, how does the accelerating changes make you feel? 3.5C by 2100 (UNEP 2009), 4C by 2060 (HCMR 2009), 7C by 2100 (GCP 2009), 3.5C by 2035 (IEA 2010), >5C by 2050 (UN 2010). If you are paying attention that was 2 years ago. Try 5C by 2017 as a current estimate...
Climate change is not a problem for 2100 but means near term extinction *[AMEG] in the northern hemisphere by 2031 and 2047 in southern hemisphere.
*AMEG: Arctic Methane Emergency Group Extinction of ALL multicellular life, not just Homo defectus.
And it is called the Sun. With 6 degrees of global warming by 2050, we don't need a fantasy planet destruction machine. We already live in one. I call it western industrial society.
Please write to Angela Merkel c/o the Reichstag, saying you will be thrilled to have the German nuclear waste depository in your county.
The Germans love the benefits of their nuclear power, they just cannot stand the unsolved problem of safe nuclear waste disposal. Just as Carbon Capture and Storage is -THEORETICALLY- possible but is not commercially viable, so too if nuclear power production accounting required -ALL- clean up cost to be fully funded, a huge unfunded externality, then it too would be deemed too expensive.
The question I ask then, is what mechanism are you proposing that is stopping physics from doing its thing here.
Ok, I'll bite... How about this as novel physics
to provide a mechanism that causes CO2 to stop absorbing IR light
The basic thermodynamic laws were conceived and especially the infrared spectrum of CO2 were determined with.... new carbon. That is to say CO2 that has been recently in the carbon cycle (recent being a geological time span) is more fit and sparky than tired old carbon that has been locked underground in fossil fuel deposits.* I call this true and honest theorem the "Degrees of Freedom: Fossil carbon aint what it used to be"(R)(C).
This makes perfect sense when you consider the world economy is slowing down, not because of the widely held erroneous view that the banks totally manipulated the financial markets to heck**, but simply that the more old tired carbon we breathe and consume in our petroleum soaked food supply, the less capable humans are of stepping up to their true Galtian potential.
OK I'm done, need to wash the brain with less sciency talk... What's on Fox?
*) Can I get my Koch grant now, please? **) Can I get my hedge fund kickback soon?
Got lemons? Make lemonade! My idea is that we should rename New York to New Venice.
The main problem is that storms will intensify as global climate change means higher temperatures means more atmospheric energy means more big storms.
So don't try to defend, go with the change: the goal is to survive the increasing sea level as CO2/ climate change higher temperature melt the poles and Greenland... Let the ground and first floor level flood with rising sea level and retreat up the Manhattan high rise buildings and (bonus) commute by boat!
Now the real (aka "old") Venice in (Italy for geographically challenged Republicans) will be fully submerged by then as Italy will not be able to afford the massive mitigation barrier around the Venice lagoon. Think of the boon in tourist industry as New Venice take the place of "old" Venice as a travel destination.
(Warning: Please keep distribution within Manhattan Millionaires Club, as there is scant provision for the proles in our forward looking plans)
Some of the healthiest guys are sewer workers, they rarely take a sick day, because their immune systemsare so strong, since they are constantly fighting off bacteria.
But their breath is knock down nasty and their farts are room clearing because sewage workers' internal bio flora has a larger population of anaerobic and methanogenic bacteria. Apart from that they are really nice guys.
To be a soothing presence to the victims of disaster, the drone should evoke calm and friendly feelings. The Japanese like their cute cats. So... My suggestion is a cross between Maru "the strangest cat on the planet" and "Orvillecopter" part cat, part rc helicopter.
The new Googlism for fuel consumption, 10-8 m2 is AWESOME Please type this into Google: 9 litres per 100 km (For our American educated? try this: "9 liters per 100 km")
(9 litres) per (100 kilometres) = 9.0 × 10-8 m2 More about calculator.
9x10-8 m2 equals 9x10-2 mm2 equals 9x 0.1mm x 0.1 mm equals 0.3mm x 0.3 mm So my car's fuel consumption is a square with sides less than one third of a mm long. AWESOME! (Excuse off topic but I have only just picked myself off the floor after discovering this)
Strictly, ALL power sources EXCEPT nuclear and ground thermal are solar power - formed by our sun (aka SOL) in hydrogen fusion. Nuclear and ground thermal (earth radioactive decay) are STRICTLY stellar power - formed by star(s) during supernova implosion. Loosely, solar power (SOL radiation from 1 million year decay of gamma radiation from 4H -> He fusion) can be conveniently partitioned into a) non-renewable hydrocarbon fossil fuel (SOL power via photosynthesis plus millions of years cooking) and b) renewable energy embodied in direct solar capture (PV) and wind sea and rain energy (earth system short term storage) and medium term bio storage (bio-gas, wood) which is continuously replenished for our use AS LONG AS WE DONT TOTALY FUCK UP THE BIOSPHERE WITH EXCESS CARBON DIOXIDE.
Be glad you live in a desert country sitting on billions of barrels of sweet crude that flash desalination is cheap for you.
I'd imagine with an abundance of free energy
I prefer to contemplate what effect declining energy sources (in terms of EROEI) will have on our complex near post industrial society, but then I dont need any imagination to see the abyss that is our future...
Funny but I do actually use 100% free, no-carbon energy to distill water. When my off-grid solar system finishes charging my batteries, it switches over to using the solar power that would just bounce off the panels into distilling rain harvested water for topping up the batteries....
I care that the men of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne will grow a pair, literally:
The WHO said in support of the 2003 0.5mg/L guildeline and repeated in the 2009 guideline “Short and long term oral exposures to boric acid or borax in laboratory animals have demonstrated that the male reproductive tract is a consistent target of toxicity. Testicular lesions have been observed in rats, mice and dogs given boric acid or boric in food or drinking water. Development toxicity has been demonstrated experimentally in rats, mice and rabbits”.
But the reasons for this decision which were promised in 2010 have still not been published on the WHO website. Ditto the Australian guidelines that allow 67% higher boron guidelines than established by the WHO.
There is an inverse relationship between boron toxicity and weight. The WHO used an average adult weight of 60kg and Australia used 70kg—why? But even if the new guidelines are safe for adults, especially obese adults, it does not follow that they are safe for children, foetuses, small animals and plants. The UN Food and Agricultural Organisation produced a list of 58 major food crop varieties which show that only nine would live with total boron levels above 4mg/L based on field research in 1960, 1973 and 1982.
0.5mg/L is twice the safe level for all mammals, before it was a cost problem, now it is whatever level industry ^H^H^H^H^H government believe it can get away with ^H^H^H^H legislate.
Sea water is difficult to desalinate to make potable water using filters. All sea water contains boron, mostly as boric acid. The boric acid molecule is about the same size as a water molecule. Boron occurs in the sea at a concentration of at least 4 milligrams per litre or over 20 times a safe drinking level of 0.2mg/L where it is safe for all mammals and plants. Tests in the US show that boron in dam water is 0.047 mg/L on average. Boron is tasteless. Membranes used to filter sea water under pressure are not efficient at reducing boron and their ability to remove boron diminishes with use.
Even in order to get the boron level down to 0.5mg/L (twice the safe level for all mammals) will require the RO filters to be changed every six months an increase of 12% in the operating cost. Usually RO plants are small and are used for short periods to produce permeate (or manufactured water) for use on installations like oil rigs or mixed with fresh water to dilute boron to safe levels.
From 2003 to 2009 0.5mg/L of boron was considered to be a safe level for drinking and is the maximum boron amount specified in the Wonthaggi contract. Records from Australia’s Gold Coast and Kurnell plants show that boron has not been kept at levels below 0.5mg/L and the level exceeds 0.5mg/L after about six months. The Kurnell plant which is currently up for sale by the NSW government is mixed with water held in the large Warragamba Dam to dilute the boron to safe levels, apart from the suburbs of Prospect, Ryde and Potts Hill which receive unmixed water for pressure reasons.
The toxicity tests entailed feeding a group of pregnant rats increasing amounts of boric acid to the point where the average foetal weight loss was 5% compared to a control group. The World Health Organisation then used this standard formula to establish safety guidelines for humans based on water consumption, boron retention and adult body weight. On this basis the WHO set the 0.5mg/L safety guideline which was adopted by Australia. It was only when reverse osmosis plants began to replace distillation plants that the WHO guidelines became of more than academic interest to the water industry. In 2008 the Harvard Medical School undertook an exhaustive survey of boron literature which concluded that additional boron exposure above the background level in drinking water should be avoided by children under 18 years of age.
The original boron safety standard of 0.5mg/L is costly to meet. One way of reducing that cost is to relax the guidelines.
Despite the lack of new laboratory or population research in 2009 the WHO increased the safety guideline to 2.4mg/L and the Australian guidelines were increased to 4mg/L in 2004 just before Australia’s first large desalination plant was approved. The 400% increase in the WHO guidelines and the 800% increase in the guidelines for Australia are not based on published toxicology or epidemiology. This apparent regulatory capture has international as well as national implications for the development of public health standards.
Slashdot Mirror
but what do you really expect when you are on the suction end of the US empire wealth pump.
Plagiatsvorwürfe gegen Merkel!
http://www.titanic-magazin.de/typo3temp/pics/b08249c126.jpg
I have it.
I am mildly red-green colour blind and twenty years ago had a corneal lens implant after an elastic luggage strap (boing...bang, OUCH!) damaged my lens.
The clear perspex lens in the one eye and very slightly red (blood) tinged natural lens in the other means that I am now much better at distinguishing colour differences that were once too subtle.
until I ran out of money.
malpractice
That'll burn him.
Is my connection slow or is it the morning after before coffee...?
If you ever need to draw a line in the sand, the Mayan Long Count date of 13.0.0.0.0
works just fine as the date marking the end of the world as we know it.
Never will we see cheap oil nor normal climate. Ever.
Methane clathrate release from subsea and permafrost will increase atmospheric warming dramatically within years not decades.
If 2C by 2100 (IPCC 2007) was a problem to be solved by your (great) grand children, how does the accelerating changes make you feel?
3.5C by 2100 (UNEP 2009), 4C by 2060 (HCMR 2009),
7C by 2100 (GCP 2009), 3.5C by 2035 (IEA 2010),
>5C by 2050 (UN 2010). If you are paying attention that was 2 years ago.
Try 5C by 2017 as a current estimate...
Climate change is not a problem for 2100 but means near term extinction *[AMEG]
in the northern hemisphere by 2031 and 2047 in southern hemisphere.
*AMEG: Arctic Methane Emergency Group
Extinction of ALL multicellular life, not just Homo defectus.
PANIC!
Intellectual Vultures
And it is called the Sun.
With 6 degrees of global warming by 2050, we don't need a fantasy planet destruction machine.
We already live in one. I call it western industrial society.
Please write to Angela Merkel c/o the Reichstag,
saying you will be thrilled to have the German nuclear waste depository in your county.
The Germans love the benefits of their nuclear power, they just cannot stand the
unsolved problem of safe nuclear waste disposal.
Just as Carbon Capture and Storage is -THEORETICALLY- possible but is not commercially
viable, so too if nuclear power production accounting required -ALL- clean up cost to be
fully funded, a huge unfunded externality, then it too would be deemed too expensive.
The question I ask then, is what mechanism are you proposing that is stopping physics from doing its thing here.
Ok, I'll bite... How about this as novel physics
to provide a mechanism that causes CO2 to stop absorbing IR light
The basic thermodynamic laws were conceived and especially the infrared spectrum of CO2 were determined with....
new carbon. That is to say CO2 that has been recently in the carbon cycle (recent being a geological time span) is more fit and sparky than tired old carbon that has been locked underground in fossil fuel deposits.*
I call this true and honest theorem the "Degrees of Freedom: Fossil carbon aint what it used to be"(R)(C).
This makes perfect sense when you consider the world economy is slowing down, not because of the widely held erroneous view that the banks totally manipulated the financial markets to heck**, but simply that the more old tired carbon we breathe and consume in our petroleum soaked food supply, the less capable humans are of stepping up to their true Galtian potential.
OK I'm done, need to wash the brain with less sciency talk... What's on Fox?
*) Can I get my Koch grant now, please?
**) Can I get my hedge fund kickback soon?
ninaninanina
We had a lovely total solar eclipse this week and you didn't get to see it...
Love and kisses
<3 XXX <3
Australia
"So, what is your root password?" **
Hey that's MY pickup line!
**Warning: May only be valid in British English speaking countries.
Got lemons? Make lemonade!
My idea is that we should rename New York to New Venice.
The main problem is that storms will intensify as global climate change means higher temperatures means more atmospheric energy means more big storms.
So don't try to defend, go with the change: the goal is to survive the increasing sea level as CO2/ climate change higher temperature melt the poles and Greenland... Let the ground and first floor level flood with rising sea level and retreat up the Manhattan high rise buildings and (bonus) commute by boat!
Now the real (aka "old") Venice in (Italy for geographically challenged Republicans) will be fully submerged by then as Italy will not be able to afford the massive mitigation barrier around the Venice lagoon. Think of the boon in tourist industry as New Venice take the place of "old" Venice as a travel destination.
(Warning: Please keep distribution within Manhattan Millionaires Club, as there is scant provision for the proles in our forward looking plans)
Some of the healthiest guys are sewer workers, they rarely take a sick day, because their immune systemsare so strong, since they are constantly fighting off bacteria.
But their breath is knock down nasty and their farts are room clearing because sewage workers' internal bio flora has a larger population of anaerobic and methanogenic bacteria. Apart from that they are really nice guys.
Innovation by copying.
I suggest they rename it MeToo
This is a wonderous name as it also harkens back to those halcyon days before XP, as in
ME 2.0
Now they're just going more badly, and baldly, too.
IOW: To run a tech company well, you have to be bold. Not bald.
MS is a negative brand, people AVOID MS if they can because they hate the moments they can't.
Thank you. That sums it up beautifully.
To be a soothing presence to the victims of disaster, the drone should evoke calm and friendly feelings.
The Japanese like their cute cats.
So...
My suggestion is a cross between Maru "the strangest cat on the planet"
and "Orvillecopter" part cat, part rc helicopter.
At last a useful cat
There are other browsers?
The new Googlism for fuel consumption, 10-8 m2 is AWESOME
Please type this into Google: 9 litres per 100 km
(For our American educated? try this: "9 liters per 100 km")
(9 litres) per (100 kilometres) = 9.0 × 10-8 m2
More about calculator.
9x10-8 m2 equals 9x10-2 mm2 equals 9x 0.1mm x 0.1 mm equals 0.3mm x 0.3 mm
So my car's fuel consumption is a square with sides less than one third of a mm long.
AWESOME!
(Excuse off topic but I have only just picked myself off the floor after discovering this)
Strictly, ALL power sources EXCEPT nuclear and ground thermal are solar power - formed by our sun (aka SOL) in hydrogen fusion.
Nuclear and ground thermal (earth radioactive decay) are STRICTLY stellar power - formed by star(s) during supernova implosion.
Loosely, solar power (SOL radiation from 1 million year decay of gamma radiation from 4H -> He fusion) can be conveniently
partitioned into a) non-renewable hydrocarbon fossil fuel (SOL power via photosynthesis plus millions of years cooking) and
b) renewable energy embodied in direct solar capture (PV) and wind sea and rain energy (earth system short term storage)
and medium term bio storage (bio-gas, wood) which is continuously replenished for our use AS LONG AS WE DONT TOTALY
FUCK UP THE BIOSPHERE WITH EXCESS CARBON DIOXIDE.
Be glad you live in a desert country sitting on billions of barrels of sweet crude that flash desalination is cheap for you.
I'd imagine with an abundance of free energy
I prefer to contemplate what effect declining energy sources (in terms of EROEI)
will have on our complex near post industrial society, but then I dont need any
imagination to see the abyss that is our future...
Funny but I do actually use 100% free, no-carbon energy to distill water.
When my off-grid solar system finishes charging my batteries, it switches
over to using the solar power that would just bounce off the panels into
distilling rain harvested water for topping up the batteries....
I care that the men of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne will grow a pair, literally:
The WHO said in support of the 2003 0.5mg/L guildeline and repeated in the 2009 guideline “Short and long term oral exposures to boric acid or borax in laboratory animals have demonstrated that the male reproductive tract is a consistent target of toxicity. Testicular lesions have been observed in rats, mice and dogs given boric acid or boric in food or drinking water. Development toxicity has been demonstrated experimentally in rats, mice and rabbits”.
But the reasons for this decision which were promised in 2010 have still not been published on the WHO website. Ditto the Australian guidelines that allow 67% higher boron guidelines than established by the WHO.
There is an inverse relationship between boron toxicity and weight. The WHO used an average adult weight of 60kg and Australia used 70kg—why? But even if the new guidelines are safe for adults, especially obese adults, it does not follow that they are safe for children, foetuses, small animals and plants. The UN Food and Agricultural Organisation produced a list of 58 major food crop varieties which show that only nine would live with total boron levels above 4mg/L based on field research in 1960, 1973 and 1982.
0.5mg/L is twice the safe level for all mammals, before it was a cost problem, now it is whatever level
industry ^H^H^H^H^H government believe it can get away with ^H^H^H^H legislate.
Cited from
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/problems-with-desalination-plants/3796870
Food for thought below:
Sea water is difficult to desalinate to make potable water using filters. All sea water contains boron, mostly as boric acid. The boric acid molecule is about the same size as a water molecule.
Boron occurs in the sea at a concentration of at least 4 milligrams per litre or over 20 times a safe drinking level of 0.2mg/L where it is safe for all mammals and plants. Tests in the US show that boron in dam water is 0.047 mg/L on average. Boron is tasteless. Membranes used to filter sea water under pressure are not efficient at reducing boron and their ability to remove boron diminishes with use.
Even in order to get the boron level down to 0.5mg/L (twice the safe level for all mammals) will require the RO filters to be changed every six months an increase of 12% in the operating cost. Usually RO plants are small and are used for short periods to produce permeate (or manufactured water) for use on installations like oil rigs or mixed with fresh water to dilute boron to safe levels.
From 2003 to 2009 0.5mg/L of boron was considered to be a safe level for drinking and is the maximum boron amount specified in the Wonthaggi contract. Records from Australia’s Gold Coast and Kurnell plants show that boron has not been kept at levels below 0.5mg/L and the level exceeds 0.5mg/L after about six months. The Kurnell plant which is currently up for sale by the NSW government is mixed with water held in the large Warragamba Dam to dilute the boron to safe levels, apart from the suburbs of Prospect, Ryde and Potts Hill which receive unmixed water for pressure reasons.
The toxicity tests entailed feeding a group of pregnant rats increasing amounts of boric acid to the point where the average foetal weight loss was 5% compared to a control group. The World Health Organisation then used this standard formula to establish safety guidelines for humans based on water consumption, boron retention and adult body weight. On this basis the WHO set the 0.5mg/L safety guideline which was adopted by Australia.
It was only when reverse osmosis plants began to replace distillation plants that the WHO guidelines became of more than academic interest to the water industry. In 2008 the Harvard Medical School undertook an exhaustive survey of boron literature which concluded that additional boron exposure above the background level in drinking water should be avoided by children under 18 years of age.
The original boron safety standard of 0.5mg/L is costly to meet. One way of reducing that cost is to relax the guidelines.
Despite the lack of new laboratory or population research in 2009 the WHO increased the safety guideline to 2.4mg/L and the Australian guidelines were increased to 4mg/L in 2004 just before Australia’s first large desalination plant was approved. The 400% increase in the WHO guidelines and the 800% increase in the guidelines for Australia are not based on published toxicology or epidemiology. This apparent regulatory capture has international as well as national implications for the development of public health standards.
Sorry if this is tl;dr but this is not slashfox
the keyword here is salinification.
Pedantic pedant is pedantic.
The great danger is not MAKING SALT - salinification
but adding salt to the agricultural land - salination