In article ,
"DogDiesel" wrote:
"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bill who putters wrote:
In article
,
Billy wrote:
In article ,
Bill who putters wrote:
In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Bill who putters wrote:
Strange thought entered my mind concerning the tragedy in Japan.
With
the higher levers do radiation entering the ocean. With this
make
the
fish unsuitable for harvesting and will this enable the fish
populations
to have a long respite ?
Probably not. The ocean is too big so dilution works. The
isotopes
have short enough halflives that the radiation will fade very
quickly.
The current situation is a huge mess but the effects will remain
more
local than what happened at Chernobyl. There will be more of a
move
farther away from shore by Japanese fishermen but that's nothing
new -
They are hunting whales in the Antarctic Ocean already now.
Approaches that work for DDT and mercury will work exactly the same
way for the small amounts of long life isotopes - Eat lower on the
food
chain. Plant eating fish over predator fish, squid over fish,
small
critters over large critters. Conveniently this approach also
helps
fish populations.
Anyone know about the ramifications ?
Far more likely to have impact on land industry than sea industry.
No
shift from fossil fuel to nuclear so increased strip mining in coal
belts. Increased CO2 release. And no change in the exponential
growth
curve of installed solar cells so the good promise on that front is
not
effected. Given how industrious the Japanese have been in the past
they
will recover, rebuild and be back near the top sooner than most
expect.
Old news but be sure to look at the radio nuclide issues down in the
article. Deals with increase of back ground radiation.
http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/page37.html
Got Hope? Got Seed? Got a Clue?
So, are you better off now than you were 10 years ago?
Are you better off now than you were 30 years ago, when we were
introduced to the "Laugher's Curve"?
Me neither.
What is the "Laughers Curve" ?
It's the economic joke that Reagan pulled on the U.S. Sometimes spelled
by the less humorous as "Laffers Curve", it is supposed to justify
"Trickle Down" economics, a.k.a. "VooDoo economics". The theory was that
there was an optimum level that would generate the most revenue. The
irony is that America was at its most prosperous between 1947 and 1964
when progressive tax rates went as high as 91% to 70%.
And government spending was 10% of now.
I make it 2%: '56-$76.0B/'10-$3,591.1B
Obama's rescue plan is likely to cost at least $700 billion - and that
would push Uncle Sam's bailouts near $8 trillion. January 6, 2009
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news...s_fits_in/inde
x.htm
---
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy
of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate sees a generation-long
struggle to recoup.
by Joseph E. Stiglitz December 2007
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712
---
As the Economic Policy Institute has reported, the richest 10 percent of
Americans received an unconscionable 100 percent of the average income
growth in the years 2000 to 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/op...r=1&ref=bobher
bert
---
The result (of spending cuts), according to an analysis by the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, would be to limit federal spending to
about 16.7 percent of GDP.
And when was the last time federal spending was that low? In 1956, the
center reports, when ³Medicare and Medicaid did not exist and millions
of workers ... were excluded from Social Security.² Oh yes, and we
didn¹t have much federal aid to education then, or most of our
environmental protection initiatives, or ³basic programs to ease poverty
and hardship such as Supplemental Security Income for the elderly and
disabled poor, food stamps, and the Earned Income Tax Credit.²
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...ive_government
/2011/04/01/AFQbjTXC_story.html?nav=emailpage
---
The nation - the nation is not broke, my friends. There's lots of money
to go around. Lots! Lots! It's just that those in charge have diverted
that wealth into a deep well that sits on their well-guarded estates.
They know - they know that they have committed crimes to make this
happen. And they know - and they know that someday you may want to see
some of that money that used to be yours. So they have bought and paid
for hundreds of politicians across the country to do their bidding for
them. - Michael Moore
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
---
Dawg, I wish I could have been as terse as you, but this is the only way
I could think of to respond.
If you want to continue with this, pick the alley of your choice. I've
already posted it on ca.politics and tx.guns as "Got Hope? Got Seed?
Got a Clue?". We probably wouldn't even be noticed ;O)
Jobs not Wars
--
- Billy
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://wn.com/black_panther_party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug