In article ,
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 ?
Anyone know about the ramifications ?

Woods Hole Chimes in.

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/natur...910240000.html


.................................

Impact of radiation from Japan: Woods Hole expert answers your questions

March 29, 2011 " Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

On March 11, 2011 a magnitude 9.0 earthquake one of the largest ever
recorded, occurred 80 miles off the coast of Japan. The earthquake
created a series of tsunamis, the largest estimated to be over 30-feet,
that swept ashore along the northeast coast of the main island, Honshu.
In addition to killing more than 9,000 people, the earthquake and
tsunamis badly damaged the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant,
eventually causing four of the six reactors there to release radiation
into the atmosphere and ocean.

What is being released from the Fukushima reactors and how dangerous is
it?
So far, we know that releases from the Fukushima reactors have been
primarily composed of two radioactive substances: iodine-131 and
cesium-137. In large doses, both of these isotopes or radionuclides, as
they are called, can cause long-term health problems. So far, however,
only those working at the plant face the most serious exposure.

More about iodine-131 and cesium-137

Are there different types of radiation?
In general, there are two types of radiation, ionizing and non-ionizing.
Non-ionizing radiation includes visible light and radio waves things
that, as the name implies, do not have the ability to form charged ions
in other materials. Ionizing radiation, however, can and as a result
presents a serious health threat because it can alter the atomic
structure of living tissue. Ionizing radiation also comes in several
different types, including alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, all with
different degrees of concern and health impacts.

More about types of radiation

How long is the radiation from these substances a risk to humans and the
environment?
Radioactive materials are, by their very nature, unstable and decline in
strength over time. This change is measured in half-lives the length
of time it takes for the radiation to decrease by one-half. Every
radioactive substance has a different half-life, ranging from fractions
of a second to billions of years. Those with longer half-lives are
potentially more difficult to deal with because they remain radioactive
for longer periods of time. Cesium-137, for example, has a half-life of
30 years and so is a potentially serious health threat for decades or
centuries. Iodine-131, on the other hand, has a half-life of just 8 days
and so loses much of its potency after just days and effectively
disappears after one to two months.

More about half-lives

How far can radiation travel?
Ionizing radiation itself cannot travel very far through the air.
Typically, dust and other particles, seawater and other liquids, or even
gases become radioactive due to exposure to radionuclides and are then
transported great distances. In the months and years after the explosion
at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine scientists were able to
track the spread of radioactive material in the atmosphere and the ocean
around the globe. Within a week after the explosions at the Fukushima
plant, there were reports of very small increases in the continental U.S.

More about mapping and monitoring radiation from Japan

What is the normal background level of radiation?
The normal background level of radiation is different for different
places on the planet. Radiation in some places is higher because these
receive less of the natural protection offered by Earth s atmosphere or
because they are in places where the surrounding rocks contain more
radioactive substances, such as radon. In the ocean, the largest source
of radiation comes from naturally occurring substances such as
potassium-40 and uranium-238, which are found at levels 1,000 to 10,000
times higher than any human sources of radiation (see illustration). The
largest human release of radionuclides was the result of atmospheric
nuclear weapons tests carried out by the U.S., French and British during
the 1950s and 60s. Despite even the high concentration of nuclear
fallout in the Pacific caused by U.S. tests on the Marshall Islands,
there is no known adverse health effect associated with eating seafood
from the Pacific.

More about natural background radiation

If there are warnings in Japan about eating certain products
contaminated by radiation, why is it safe to eat the seafood?
Except for the vicinity of the reactors, seafood and other products
taken from the sea should be safe for human consumption. Radiation
levels in seafood should continue to be monitored, of course, but
radiation in the ocean will very quickly become diluted and should not
be a problem beyond the coast of Japan. The same is true of radiation
carried by winds around the globe. However, crops and other vegetation
near the reactor site (including grass that cows eat to produce milk)
that receive fallout from the atmosphere build up radioactivity can
remain contaminated even if washed. When these foods are consumed, a
person receives much of this dose internally, often a more severe
pathway to receive radiation than by external exposure.

More about radiation and food safety

How does radiation released from the Japanese reactors compare to the
accident at Chernobyl?
We still don t know exactly how much radiation was released at Fukushima
or how much will ultimately be released before the reactors are fully
contained. The Chernobyl accident was much more violent and resulted in
a complete breach of the reactor vessel. The event also started a very
hot graphite fire that released large amounts of radioactive material
into the atmosphere equivalent to between 3 and 5 percent of the total
reactor inventory. Winds carried the radioactive fallout first to the
north and eventually into the Black Sea to the south. Radiation in the
Black Sea and Baltic Sea, though elevated, remained well below EPA
guidelines for radiation in drinking water.

More about the after-effects of Chernobyl

How will the radioactive material released in Japan affect humans?
It s still too early to tell, but unless we learn that the type or
amount of material released is larger than reported or changes
dramatically it will likely have significant long-term impacts only
within a few miles or tens of miles from the plant. This is because the
further the radioactive material travels, the more dispersed (and the
less harmful) it becomes. The effects of Chernobyl were felt well beyond
Ukraine in part because the amount of radioactive material released was
large and because it also included substances such as plutonium that
have very long half-lives. That being said, people who live near the
plants would be wise to follow the minimum safe distance restrictions
and other precautions recommended by the Japanese government and at-risk
individuals should take suggested extra precautions such as taking
potassium iodide to avoid thyroid problems.

More about radiation in the environment

Is there any danger to people in other parts of the world?
Prevailing winds over from Japan blow east towards North America; ocean
currents in the region also flow generally east into the North Pacific,
though much slower than winds. However, radioactive materials carried by
winds or currents will be quickly diluted until the radiation falls
below background levels. Unless radioactivity from Fukushima finds its
way directly to another part of the world through food or other
commercial products, it should become sufficiently dispersed over time
that it will not prove to be a serious health threat elsewhere. Over
time, the radioactivity associated with the Fukushima plant should
continue to decline even further. In particular, radiation from
iodine-131 will decay very quickly, but even the effects of the much
longer-lived cesium-137 will decline in strength. Today, people who eat
seafood from the Black Sea, which received a considerable amount of
fallout from Chernobyl (see map), consume a dose of cesium-137 that is
100 times below the one provided by a naturally occurring radionuclide,
polonium-210, that is not considered harmful to animals or humans.

More about the environmental health effects of radiation

Why is this event of interest to oceanographers?
Oceanographers use substances called tracers to study the path and rate
of ocean currents and of processes such as mixing that are important
parts of the global ocean and climate systems. There are many different
radionuclides that scientists use as "clocks" to measure how fast the
ocean mixes and sediment accumulates on the seafloor. Some of these
substances are natural, but many are the result of human activity, such
as the Chernobyl accident or nuclear weapons testing, and now releases
at Fukushima.

More about radioactive tracers in the ocean

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden

Unemployment is capitalism's way of getting you to plant a garden.
- Orson Scott Card

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

In article ,
Bill who putters wrote:

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/natur...910240000.html


................................

Impact of radiation from Japan: Woods Hole expert answers your questions

Thanks again, Bill.



"The best fertilizer is the gardener's shadow." - Anon

--
--
- 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

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
Bill who putters wrote:

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/natur...910240000.html


................................

Impact of radiation from Japan: Woods Hole expert answers your questions

Thanks again, Bill.



"The best fertilizer is the gardener's shadow." - Anon

--

Just wish the worlds media would address issues like this.

These days we have to identify the question and try to find a source
that could address possible further study. Whew!

Here is a rainy day search engine............

http://www.archive.org/web/web.php

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden

Unemployment is capitalism's way of getting you to plant a garden.
- Orson Scott Card

Bill who putters wrote:

Woods Hole Chimes in.

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/natur...910240000.html

The top experts on oceanography.

What is being released from the Fukushima reactors and how dangerous is
it?

One topic still to be learned is how much of what got onto the land. In
the long run that will be worse than what is being leached into the
ocean.

So far, we know that releases from the Fukushima reactors have been
primarily composed of two radioactive substances: iodine-131 and
cesium-137. In large doses, both of these isotopes or radionuclides, as
they are called, can cause long-term health problems. So far, however,
only those working at the plant face the most serious exposure.

I figure some of those workers will die, likely many of them. Heroes of
the most amazing sort who have a lot of time to reflect on the outcome
who go in anyways.

Iodine-131, on the other hand, has a half-life of just 8 days
and so loses much of its potency after just days and effectively
disappears after one to two months.

This is why it's so important to have potasium iodide on hand if you
live near reactors. But wait until the prices drops again. It's cheap
when the demand is low.

Today, people who eat
seafood from the Black Sea, which received a considerable amount of
fallout from Chernobyl (see map), consume a dose of cesium-137 that is
100 times below the one provided by a naturally occurring radionuclide,
polonium-210, that is not considered harmful to animals or humans.

That's 25 years later in a body of water much smaller than the Pacific.
It's why I suggested there won't be much impact on fishing.

I was careful to not make an advance judgment about radiation release on
the land. We know it will be orders of magnitude lower than Chernobyl.
It will still be a mess to anyone not measuring it against Chernobyl.

The land effects remain unknown, not as bad as Chernobyl, and large. If
I'm eating beef that might come from Japan I want to know where it was
pastured.

songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:
Bill who putters wrote:
...

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%.

c'mon, i expect more brains from you billy.

study a small amount of history and note that
the USoA from 1945 on was perhaps the only major
industrial country that didn't suffer damage to
it's manufacturing infrastructure.

given the state of the rest of the world we had
no place to go but up. you can tax that sort of
system heavily and not kill it. taxing a weak
growth system (like we have now) with many other
issues and it's not going to perform very well.


songbird

If one does not increase taxes on the wealthy, the greater the disparity of
the rich and poor. The rich will continue to squeeze the middle class to
get richer.

What if, Songbird, in the future, that ten percent of the worlds population
can provide for one hundred percent of all goods and services for everyone
on this planet through automation and mass markets. What kind of economic
system would you have? It will not be capitalism!

The world is producing twice as many cars with half of as many people ten
years ago. This trend is coming across all manufacturing/service areas.
Without an equal distribution of wealth, this world will have misery the
likes of no one has ever seen.

Population reduction is a must, this can be done with civil planning or be
done with mass starvation and disease from the result of poverty.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Nad R wrote:
songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:
Bill who putters wrote:
...

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%.

c'mon, i expect more brains from you billy.

study a small amount of history and note that
the USoA from 1945 on was perhaps the only major
industrial country that didn't suffer damage to
it's manufacturing infrastructure.

given the state of the rest of the world we had
no place to go but up. you can tax that sort of
system heavily and not kill it. taxing a weak
growth system (like we have now) with many other
issues and it's not going to perform very well.


songbird

If one does not increase taxes on the wealthy, the greater the disparity of
the rich and poor. The rich will continue to squeeze the middle class to
get richer.

only if the middle class and poor continue
to buy their products.


What if, Songbird, in the future, that ten percent of the worlds population
can provide for one hundred percent of all goods and services for everyone
on this planet through automation and mass markets. What kind of economic
system would you have? It will not be capitalism!

it's not capitalism now (it's a mix of
capitalism and socialism). it really hasn't
ever been pure capitalism and it won't ever
be pure capitalism (because people can
voluntarily form socialistic organisations
and then distribute their wealth in any
way they choose within a capitalistic
system -- and they always have).

ok, what if? then you have 90% of the population
texting and playing social website games and
living off solar energy and organic farmed produce
picked by robots. i doubt many of them will even
notice the shift because much of it has already
happened (the change from production being
about things to production being about service
jobs and jobs that involve entertainment and
other forms of intangibles (like art, food and
derivatives).


The world is producing twice as many cars with half of as many people ten
years ago. This trend is coming across all manufacturing/service areas.
Without an equal distribution of wealth, this world will have misery the
likes of no one has ever seen.

i'm thinking it's already got it but not
many people actually are acknowledging it.
in other words, looking around at the
amount of violence, substance abuse,
vandalism, environmental destruction,
obesity, etc.


Population reduction is a must, this can be done with civil planning or be
done with mass starvation and disease from the result of poverty.

it's supposedly coming about by educating
women and getting them into the workforce.
i'm not sure that alone it will be enough.

i think it likely we'll have some more
epidemics of some kind. population density
continues to increase as people move to
the cities. more people are raising
chickens and pigs in close proximity again.
these sorts of trends are asking for
trouble. on top of the likelyhood of
food shortages, riots, wars, water
shortages, etc. it's going to be an
interesting period of time coming up.


songbird

songbird wrote:

i think it likely we'll have some more
epidemics of some kind. population density
continues to increase as people move to
the cities.

Not in the US. More and More people are moving to the country. Carving up
the the land into smaller and small segments at a destructive pace. The
last census showed that most cities have fewer people. I am one of those
that fled the city for the safety of the country.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...htm?csp=34news

more people are raising
chickens and pigs in close proximity again.
these sorts of trends are asking for
trouble.

Does this mean I have to kick my chickens, dogs and bessy the cow out of my
bed room Or are you advocating vegetarianism? Or against farm factories
from that last sentence?

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/na...next_aids.html

on top of the likelyhood of
food shortages, riots, wars, water
shortages, etc. it's going to be an
interesting period of time coming up.

Interesting only for those that can avoid the food and water shortages,
riots and wars. Shortages caused by humans breading like rats. Let us
support Family Planning and the Environmental Protection Agency

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Nad R wrote:
songbird wrote:

i think it likely we'll have some more
epidemics of some kind. population density
continues to increase as people move to
the cities.

Not in the US. More and More people are moving to the country. Carving up
the the land into smaller and small segments at a destructive pace. The
last census showed that most cities have fewer people. I am one of those
that fled the city for the safety of the country.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...htm?csp=34news

when times get really bad people
will be forced to band together again.

around here most of the townships
have lost population the past ten
years.


more people are raising
chickens and pigs in close proximity again.
these sorts of trends are asking for
trouble.

Does this mean I have to kick my chickens, dogs and bessy the cow out of my
bed room Or are you advocating vegetarianism? Or against farm factories
from that last sentence?

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/na...next_aids.html

i much prefer no kicking involved
when it comes to animals.

i'm just stating that it's more
likely we'll have an increase of
certain kinds of diseases as more
people get involved in raising
animals.

as it currently stands i'm not
a big fan of factory farming, but
the acreage involved in free range
chicken farming for huge flocks
would consume many acres of land
and there's a good chance it would
damage the environment on those
many acres too. in the end my
answer is to eat less meat all
around. as an omnivore there are
other sources i can be happy with
and they cost less than meat most
of the time.

looks like free range pig farming
is already happening in Michigan with
the wild pigs. so there at least is
an ethical source of pig, but so far
they've not shown their curly tails
here...


on top of the likelyhood of
food shortages, riots, wars, water
shortages, etc. it's going to be an
interesting period of time coming up.

Interesting only for those that can avoid the food and water shortages,
riots and wars. Shortages caused by humans breading like rats. Let us
support Family Planning and the Environmental Protection Agency

and the right to arm bears.


songbird

In article ,
Nad R wrote:

songbird wrote:

i think it likely we'll have some more
epidemics of some kind. population density
continues to increase as people move to
the cities.

Not in the US. More and More people are moving to the country. Carving up
the the land into smaller and small segments at a destructive pace. The
last census showed that most cities have fewer people. I am one of those
that fled the city for the safety of the country.
And increased transportation cost$ to go to the markets, stores, and
other business offices that are found in towns and cities. Do you get
all your culture from the small screen?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/..._ST_N.htm?csp=
34news

more people are raising
chickens and pigs in close proximity again.
these sorts of trends are asking for
trouble.

Does this mean I have to kick my chickens, dogs and bessy the cow out of my
bed room
Nad, I don't think you have a firm grasp on the concept of animal
husbandry ;O)

Or are you advocating vegetarianism? Or against farm factories
from that last sentence?

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/na...next_aids.html

on top of the likelyhood of
food shortages, riots, wars, water
shortages, etc. it's going to be an
interesting period of time coming up.
There's that Chinese curse again.

Interesting only for those that can avoid the food and water shortages,
riots and wars. Shortages caused by humans breading like rats.
Breading humans? Is that anything like schnitzel?

Let us
support Family Planning and the Environmental Protection Agency
Sorry, both are being axed by Paul Ryan’s neo-liberal, bone-headed
budget cuts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...ive_government
/2011/04/01/AFQbjTXC_story.html?nav=emailpage

The end of progressive government?
By E.J. Dionne Jr., Sunday, AprilÂ*,Â*7:53 PM
So far, our nation’s budget debate has been a desultory affair focused
on whether a small slice of the federal government’s outlays should be
cut by $33 billion or $61 billion, or whatever.

But Americans are about to learn how much is at stake in our larger
budget fight, how radical the new conservatives in Washington are, and
the extent to which some politicians would transfer even more resources
from the have-nots and have-a-littles to the have-a-lots.

And you wonder: Will President Obama welcome the responsibility of
engaging the country in this big argument, or will he shrink from it?
Will his political advisers remain robotically obsessed with poll
results about the 2012 election, or will they embrace Obama’s historic
obligation — and opportunity — to win the most important struggle over
the role of government since the New Deal?

This week, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) will announce the House Republicans’
budget plan, which is expected to include cuts in many programs for the
neediest Americans.

The Ryan budget’s central purpose will not be deficit reduction but the
gradual dismantling of key parts of government. Remember that Ryan wants
both to preserve the Bush tax cuts and, over the long run, to enact more
breaks for the wealthy, including the elimination of the capital gains
tax.

Ryan’s plan reportedly will include steep Medicaid cuts, disguised as a
proposal to turn the program into a “block grant� to the states. The net
effect would be to leave even more Americans to the mercies of the
private insurance market.

In deference to the GOP’s success in turning last year’s health-care law
into “Obamacare,� let’s call this proposal Ryancare — and let’s make
sure we look carefully at its impact on the elderly and the disabled,
the main beneficiaries of Medicaid.

Put the two parts of the Ryan design together — tax cuts for the rich,
program cuts for the poor — and its radically redistributionist purposes
become clear. Timid Democrats would never dare embark on class warfare
on this scale the other way around.
(cont.)
-


If you like weekends (8 hr./day & 40 hr./week), then thank a labor union.
They paid for it in blood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair


=
--
- 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

In article ,
songbird wrote:

Interesting only for those that can avoid the food and water shortages,
riots and wars. Shortages caused by humans breading like rats. Let us
support Family Planning and the Environmental Protection Agency

and the right to arm bears.
Makes more sense than Paul Ryan's plan to steal more from the poor to
give to the rich.



songbird




If you like weekends (8 hr./day & 40 hr./week), then thank a labor union.
They paid for it in blood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair


=
--
- 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

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Nad R wrote:

songbird wrote:

i think it likely we'll have some more
epidemics of some kind. population density
continues to increase as people move to
the cities.

Not in the US. More and More people are moving to the country. Carving up
the the land into smaller and small segments at a destructive pace. The
last census showed that most cities have fewer people. I am one of those
that fled the city for the safety of the country.

And increased transportation cost$ to go to the markets, stores, and
other business offices that are found in towns and cities. Do you get
all your culture from the small screen?

Not at all, now that I am retired my cost for fuel has been dramatically
reduced. I no longer drive a hundred miles round trip each day. I use more
gas in my lawn mower than my truck now. I only go shopping twice a month.
Gas can go to ten bucks a gallon for all I care now. I may start riding my
bike ten miles one way to the nearest market or get horse.

Does this mean I have to kick my chickens, dogs and bessy the cow out of my
bed room
Nad, I don't think you have a firm grasp on the concept of animal
husbandry ;O)

That is a good one

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

songbird wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...htm?csp=34news

when times get really bad people
will be forced to band together again.

I do not believe in that for a minute. When times get bad, people start
aiming at each other for the scraps. At least in the US.

Michigan is the only state have a reduction in population. However, land
prices with out a home on it is still going up in price. If the land has a
home on it the price goes down. Land is still being used as an investment.

Does this mean I have to kick my chickens, dogs and bessy the cow out of my
bed room Or are you advocating vegetarianism? Or against farm factories
from that last sentence?

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/na...next_aids.html

i much prefer no kicking involved when it comes to animals.

Ok, I will only beat them after they have a quick end to help tenderize
them.


i'm just stating that it's more
likely we'll have an increase of
certain kinds of diseases as more
people get involved in raising
animals.

as it currently stands i'm not
a big fan of factory farming, but
the acreage involved in free range
chicken farming for huge flocks
would consume many acres of land
and there's a good chance it would
damage the environment on those
many acres too. in the end my
answer is to eat less meat all around.

Free ranging animals will cost more therefore will eat less of the
critters.
I would support a human animals right bill that would reduce the crowding.

and the right to arm bears.

I just hope the bears shoot straight

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

I will bifold and amateur analysis my sources of vitamins. Fish and fish oils vitamins from the North Atlantic will be my aboriginal choice. Many vitamin manufactures are from Japan.