Higgs Boson wrote:

Just a thought: With all that Pacific Ocean out there just
off-shore, why not scale up successful Israeli desalination
technology via a Manhattan Project-sized program.

HB

Cost in money and greenhouse gases would be the obvious answer, not that the
later seems to bother too many.

D

On Friday, February 28, 2014 1:00:27 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:



Just a thought: With all that Pacific Ocean out there just

off-shore, why not scale up successful Israeli desalination

technology via a Manhattan Project-sized program.



HB



Cost in money and greenhouse gases would be the obvious answer, not that the

later seems to bother too many.



D

Uh, let's look at those factors:

Cost: If Nature (or global warming) continues to dry us up out here on the West Coast of the U.S. how else are we going to get water for nearly 40,000,000 in California alone, not counting other affected states like Arizona & New Mexico. Thirty years since James Hansen told Congress exactly what would happen and when, it is coming true as predicted. Even the most corrupt legislator will be forced to listen to their constituents rather than continuing their long, well-emunerated love affair with Big Oil, Big Coal, and other constituents of global warming.

Greenhouse gases: Not sure I see the relevance, but have a look at what's been happening in the Middle East. As always, Israel has been a forward-thinking leader. When you're a tiny blip on the map, surrounded by neighbors that have been trying to kill you long before you officially became a country, you HAVE to devote resources to survival. One of many Web sites devoted to Israeli irrigation, water usage, and desalination:

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059994202

This research has long been shared with Big Brother, aka the U.S. but until recent years, the full effect of global warming has not been felt by the average US person, who is focussed more on the next electronic toy than on the price/supply of water.

HB

Higgs Boson wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 1:00:27 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:



Just a thought: With all that Pacific Ocean out there just

off-shore, why not scale up successful Israeli desalination

technology via a Manhattan Project-sized program.



HB



Cost in money and greenhouse gases would be the obvious answer, not
that the

later seems to bother too many.



D

Uh, let's look at those factors:

Cost: If Nature (or global warming) continues to dry us up out here
on the West Coast of the U.S. how else are we going to get water for
nearly 40,000,000 in California alone, not counting other affected
states like Arizona & New Mexico. Thirty years since James Hansen
told Congress exactly what would happen and when, it is coming true
as predicted. Even the most corrupt legislator will be forced to
listen to their constituents rather than continuing their long,
well-emunerated love affair with Big Oil, Big Coal, and other
constituents of global warming.

Greenhouse gases: Not sure I see the relevance, but have a look at
what's been happening in the Middle East.

The relevance is that RO is very energy intensive and unless you source your
power from non-fossil sources you will be compounding the problem.


D

David Hare-Scott wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
....
Uh, let's look at those factors:

Cost: If Nature (or global warming) continues to dry us up out here
on the West Coast of the U.S. how else are we going to get water for
nearly 40,000,000 in California alone, not counting other affected
states like Arizona & New Mexico. Thirty years since James Hansen
told Congress exactly what would happen and when, it is coming true
as predicted. Even the most corrupt legislator will be forced to
listen to their constituents rather than continuing their long,
well-emunerated love affair with Big Oil, Big Coal, and other
constituents of global warming.

Greenhouse gases: Not sure I see the relevance, but have a look at
what's been happening in the Middle East.

The relevance is that RO is very energy intensive and unless you source your
power from non-fossil sources you will be compounding the problem.

the basic problem is that we've gotten into the
habit of mixing human waste with potable water to
begin with. this compounds many other problems and
they tag along with the whole process. clean up
the basic misconception and you get many benefits
in result. not having to build nuclear
desalinization plants would be one of them (who
needs more chances at Fukushima? are you seriously
considering more nuclear plants in California?
are you really that idiotic? yes, i am seriously
calling you an idiot if you are building more
nuclear plants in that area).

much of the use of water is simply to flush waste
materials away.

when you consider how much energy it takes to pump
and clean the water again after it is used as a waste
transport system then perhaps you'll understand the
sheer stupidity of this whole system.

most human waste is valueable and can be composted
safely without having to use all that water.

the waste which is not safely compostable (hormone
treatments, some drugs, chemotherapeutics and nuclear
medicine) should be treated differently, but those
people who know they are doing such things could be
set up with their medical providers to have a clean
disposal path for their waste (so that it does not
become a hazard to others).

in a world of limited resources there is no excuse
for not recycling of most materials. for areas with
limited water they certainly should not be wasting
water by using it as a waste transport mechanism.

you do not need or want more nuclear plants. there
are viable methods that can be used right now without
nuclear energy. please don't support methods which
potentially can kill/pollute everyone downwind or
downstream.


songbird

songbird wrote:
the basic problem is that we've gotten into the
habit of mixing human waste with potable water to
begin with.

No.

this compounds many other problems and
they tag along with the whole process. clean up
the basic misconception and you get many benefits
in result. not having to build nuclear
desalinization plants would be one of them (who
needs more chances at Fukushima? are you seriously
considering more nuclear plants in California?
are you really that idiotic? yes, i am seriously
calling you an idiot if you are building more
nuclear plants in that area).


An emotive side issue.

much of the use of water is simply to flush waste
materials away

It's true some water is used to flush but you still need to have a sewerage
system in cities. If using dual flush toilets and only hitting the button
when required the use on toilet flushing is not that high. There are only
small savings there. Domestically, washing and showering use much more.
Gardens, golf courses, pools, fountains, hosing the driveway etc use
astronomically more.


when you consider how much energy it takes to pump
and clean the water again after it is used as a waste
transport system then perhaps you'll understand the
sheer stupidity of this whole system.

most human waste is valueable and can be composted
safely without having to use all that water.


Composting toilets are fashionable round here. They smell in normal
operation and are a bitch to clean out, someone has to go in and dig them
out. You can't pay someone enough to do it. They are suitable for deserts
not cities. In high humidty areas they stay too wet. But you still need to
have water reticulation and sewerage networks. Flushing with grey water is
more practical.

the waste which is not safely compostable (hormone
treatments, some drugs, chemotherapeutics and nuclear
medicine) should be treated differently, but those
people who know they are doing such things could be
set up with their medical providers to have a clean
disposal path for their waste (so that it does not
become a hazard to others).


Yes if the whole family is healthy compost it otherwise cart your shit to a
waste centre if any one of you are taking pills. Or have a honey pot
collection. Can you imagine this system in a big city. In the 19th century
before the sewer was built London was called "the great wen" Get serious.

in a world of limited resources there is no excuse
for not recycling of most materials. for areas with
limited water they certainly should not be wasting
water by using it as a waste transport mechanism.


Most of the water in the sewer is not from flushing.

Bird you haven't thought this out.

D

David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:

the basic problem is that we've gotten into the
habit of mixing human waste with potable water to
begin with.

No.

this compounds many other problems and
they tag along with the whole process. clean up
the basic misconception and you get many benefits
in result. not having to build nuclear
desalinization plants would be one of them (who
needs more chances at Fukushima? are you seriously
considering more nuclear plants in California?
are you really that idiotic? yes, i am seriously
calling you an idiot if you are building more
nuclear plants in that area).


An emotive side issue.

we're allowed emotions.


much of the use of water is simply to flush waste
materials away

It's true some water is used to flush but you still need to have a sewerage
system in cities. If using dual flush toilets and only hitting the button
when required the use on toilet flushing is not that high. There are only
small savings there. Domestically, washing and showering use much more.
Gardens, golf courses, pools, fountains, hosing the driveway etc use
astronomically more.

to me this is poor design (especially in an arid
climate). if most of the water being used is for
washing then a graywater system which keeps the
water on site is much better for recharging the
groundwater and of benefit to the plants and animals.
polluting it with waste and then having to pump
it some place else, then to be cleaned up again
is really a huge waste of energy and resources.

yes, it is the primary sytem in use now in many
places but that doesn't mean it is the best way
of doing things.


when you consider how much energy it takes to pump
and clean the water again after it is used as a waste
transport system then perhaps you'll understand the
sheer stupidity of this whole system.

most human waste is valueable and can be composted
safely without having to use all that water.


Composting toilets are fashionable round here. They smell in normal
operation and are a bitch to clean out, someone has to go in and dig them
out.

if you can smell it, then it isn't operating
normally, do you smell nasty fumes coming out of
your compost piles?

to me this is not a good design at all if you
have a system that involves paying someone else
to clean up after yourself then you're quite a
ways from simplicity.

that a poorly designed or misunderstood system
doesn't work well isn't a mystery to me. but of
course, if the people using it don't maintain it
properly or understand it then it's not going to
be the greatest. however, if you're raised to
take care of things and understand what you're
doing it's not going to be a problem.

change can be hard, but this isn't beyond most
people once they understand the reasons for doing
it and the methods involved.


You can't pay someone enough to do it.

you don't have to pay someone to do it. do you
have to pay someone to carry a bucket of compost
materials out to the compost pile?


They are suitable for deserts not cities.

false. people compost in cities.


In high humidty areas they stay too wet.

improper design. improper use. improper
maintenance. people compost in wet or humid
climates.


But you still need to
have water reticulation and sewerage networks.

no, people only need water, food, air and
shelter. there is no need for piping gray
water off site. it is lazyness and habit and
a temporary illusion of richness (mostly due
to fossil fuel use).


Flushing with grey water is more practical.

only if you have the expensive system already
paid for and installed, but then that doesn't
deal with expenses of keeping it running or
the energy involved.

if in the future energy gets more expensive
and fresh water more scarce, you'll see a lot
more changes and rethinking of how we do waste
systems.

once you switch to an in place composting system
with any grey water being handled on site processes
then there's no need to pay anyone for waste
processing any more than you pay someone to put
things on the compost heap or scrub out a bucket.


the waste which is not safely compostable (hormone
treatments, some drugs, chemotherapeutics and nuclear
medicine) should be treated differently, but those
people who know they are doing such things could be
set up with their medical providers to have a clean
disposal path for their waste (so that it does not
become a hazard to others).


Yes if the whole family is healthy compost it otherwise cart your shit to a
waste centre if any one of you are taking pills. Or have a honey pot
collection.

compost it on site and use it on site, no need to
ship it anywhere.


Can you imagine this system in a big city. In the 19th century
before the sewer was built London was called "the great wen" Get serious.

i am, any reasonably normal person can understand
composting and accomplish it.

that is then, this is now, do we understand things
better today or not?


in a world of limited resources there is no excuse
for not recycling of most materials. for areas with
limited water they certainly should not be wasting
water by using it as a waste transport mechanism.


Most of the water in the sewer is not from flushing.

it doesn't have to be, once it's contaminated
by poop that means the entire volume must be
cleaned up again. if you only had to move poop
and pee around that would be how much less per
person of material to deal with cleaning up,
processing or disposing of?

dehydrate it and reclaim that water, and then
you're down by another factor or two of reduction.
isn't that a much more efficient use of energy
and materials to deal only with the problem
instead of multiplying it?


Bird you haven't thought this out.

funny assumption, you've not seen my reading
list for the past dozen years.

a very simple system of handling waste from
people is quite possible that doesn't involve
having to move or dig out huge tanks. if you
are used to composting processes then it fits
in very well. that it will work even when the
power goes out, that it means valuable materials
don't leave the gardens, saves water, energy,
etc. that's all a bonus as far as i'm concerned.

take a look at _the humanure handbook_ it's in
third edition and online for free.

the trouble is not composting it's getting
people to accept that it can be done at all
as they are raised to flush and forget. raise
them with a different way and they'll be fine
and much better off in the long run.


songbird

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:06:13 -0400, songbird
wrote:

David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:

the basic problem is that we've gotten into the
habit of mixing human waste with potable water to
begin with.

No.

this compounds many other problems and
they tag along with the whole process. clean up
the basic misconception and you get many benefits
in result. not having to build nuclear
desalinization plants would be one of them (who
needs more chances at Fukushima? are you seriously
considering more nuclear plants in California?
are you really that idiotic? yes, i am seriously
calling you an idiot if you are building more
nuclear plants in that area).


An emotive side issue.

we're allowed emotions.


much of the use of water is simply to flush waste
materials away

It's true some water is used to flush but you still need to have a sewerage
system in cities. If using dual flush toilets and only hitting the button
when required the use on toilet flushing is not that high. There are only
small savings there. Domestically, washing and showering use much more.
Gardens, golf courses, pools, fountains, hosing the driveway etc use
astronomically more.

to me this is poor design (especially in an arid
climate). if most of the water being used is for
washing then a graywater system which keeps the
water on site is much better for recharging the
groundwater and of benefit to the plants and animals.
polluting it with waste and then having to pump
it some place else, then to be cleaned up again
is really a huge waste of energy and resources.

yes, it is the primary sytem in use now in many
places but that doesn't mean it is the best way
of doing things.


when you consider how much energy it takes to pump
and clean the water again after it is used as a waste
transport system then perhaps you'll understand the
sheer stupidity of this whole system.

most human waste is valueable and can be composted
safely without having to use all that water.


Composting toilets are fashionable round here. They smell in normal
operation and are a bitch to clean out, someone has to go in and dig them
out.

if you can smell it, then it isn't operating
normally, do you smell nasty fumes coming out of
your compost piles?

to me this is not a good design at all if you
have a system that involves paying someone else
to clean up after yourself then you're quite a
ways from simplicity.

that a poorly designed or misunderstood system
doesn't work well isn't a mystery to me. but of
course, if the people using it don't maintain it
properly or understand it then it's not going to
be the greatest. however, if you're raised to
take care of things and understand what you're
doing it's not going to be a problem.

change can be hard, but this isn't beyond most
people once they understand the reasons for doing
it and the methods involved.


You can't pay someone enough to do it.

you don't have to pay someone to do it. do you
have to pay someone to carry a bucket of compost
materials out to the compost pile?


They are suitable for deserts not cities.

false. people compost in cities.


In high humidty areas they stay too wet.

improper design. improper use. improper
maintenance. people compost in wet or humid
climates.


But you still need to
have water reticulation and sewerage networks.

no, people only need water, food, air and
shelter. there is no need for piping gray
water off site. it is lazyness and habit and
a temporary illusion of richness (mostly due
to fossil fuel use).


Flushing with grey water is more practical.

only if you have the expensive system already
paid for and installed, but then that doesn't
deal with expenses of keeping it running or
the energy involved.

if in the future energy gets more expensive
and fresh water more scarce, you'll see a lot
more changes and rethinking of how we do waste
systems.

once you switch to an in place composting system
with any grey water being handled on site processes
then there's no need to pay anyone for waste
processing any more than you pay someone to put
things on the compost heap or scrub out a bucket.


the waste which is not safely compostable (hormone
treatments, some drugs, chemotherapeutics and nuclear
medicine) should be treated differently, but those
people who know they are doing such things could be
set up with their medical providers to have a clean
disposal path for their waste (so that it does not
become a hazard to others).


Yes if the whole family is healthy compost it otherwise cart your shit to a
waste centre if any one of you are taking pills. Or have a honey pot
collection.

compost it on site and use it on site, no need to
ship it anywhere.


Can you imagine this system in a big city. In the 19th century
before the sewer was built London was called "the great wen" Get serious.

i am, any reasonably normal person can understand
composting and accomplish it.

that is then, this is now, do we understand things
better today or not?


in a world of limited resources there is no excuse
for not recycling of most materials. for areas with
limited water they certainly should not be wasting
water by using it as a waste transport mechanism.


Most of the water in the sewer is not from flushing.

it doesn't have to be, once it's contaminated
by poop that means the entire volume must be
cleaned up again. if you only had to move poop
and pee around that would be how much less per
person of material to deal with cleaning up,
processing or disposing of?

dehydrate it and reclaim that water, and then
you're down by another factor or two of reduction.
isn't that a much more efficient use of energy
and materials to deal only with the problem
instead of multiplying it?


Bird you haven't thought this out.

funny assumption, you've not seen my reading
list for the past dozen years.

a very simple system of handling waste from
people is quite possible that doesn't involve
having to move or dig out huge tanks. if you
are used to composting processes then it fits
in very well. that it will work even when the
power goes out, that it means valuable materials
don't leave the gardens, saves water, energy,
etc. that's all a bonus as far as i'm concerned.

take a look at _the humanure handbook_ it's in
third edition and online for free.

the trouble is not composting it's getting
people to accept that it can be done at all
as they are raised to flush and forget. raise
them with a different way and they'll be fine
and much better off in the long run.


songbird

Word of the day:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/%20verbiage

songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:

the basic problem is that we've gotten into the
habit of mixing human waste with potable water to
begin with.

No.

this compounds many other problems and
they tag along with the whole process. clean up
the basic misconception and you get many benefits
in result. not having to build nuclear
desalinization plants would be one of them (who
needs more chances at Fukushima? are you seriously
considering more nuclear plants in California?
are you really that idiotic? yes, i am seriously
calling you an idiot if you are building more
nuclear plants in that area).


An emotive side issue.

we're allowed emotions.


much of the use of water is simply to flush waste
materials away

It's true some water is used to flush but you still need to have a
sewerage system in cities. If using dual flush toilets and only
hitting the button when required the use on toilet flushing is not
that high. There are only small savings there. Domestically,
washing and showering use much more. Gardens, golf courses, pools,
fountains, hosing the driveway etc use astronomically more.

to me this is poor design (especially in an arid
climate). if most of the water being used is for
washing then a graywater system which keeps the
water on site is much better for recharging the
groundwater and of benefit to the plants and animals.
polluting it with waste and then having to pump
it some place else, then to be cleaned up again
is really a huge waste of energy and resources.

yes, it is the primary sytem in use now in many
places but that doesn't mean it is the best way
of doing things.


when you consider how much energy it takes to pump
and clean the water again after it is used as a waste
transport system then perhaps you'll understand the
sheer stupidity of this whole system.

most human waste is valueable and can be composted
safely without having to use all that water.


Composting toilets are fashionable round here. They smell in normal
operation and are a bitch to clean out, someone has to go in and dig
them out.

if you can smell it, then it isn't operating
normally, do you smell nasty fumes coming out of
your compost piles?

to me this is not a good design at all if you
have a system that involves paying someone else
to clean up after yourself then you're quite a
ways from simplicity.

that a poorly designed or misunderstood system
doesn't work well isn't a mystery to me. but of
course, if the people using it don't maintain it
properly or understand it then it's not going to
be the greatest. however, if you're raised to
take care of things and understand what you're
doing it's not going to be a problem.

change can be hard, but this isn't beyond most
people once they understand the reasons for doing
it and the methods involved.


You can't pay someone enough to do it.

you don't have to pay someone to do it. do you
have to pay someone to carry a bucket of compost
materials out to the compost pile?


They are suitable for deserts not cities.

false. people compost in cities.


In high humidty areas they stay too wet.

improper design. improper use. improper
maintenance. people compost in wet or humid
climates.


But you still need to
have water reticulation and sewerage networks.

no, people only need water, food, air and
shelter. there is no need for piping gray
water off site. it is lazyness and habit and
a temporary illusion of richness (mostly due
to fossil fuel use).


Flushing with grey water is more practical.

only if you have the expensive system already
paid for and installed, but then that doesn't
deal with expenses of keeping it running or
the energy involved.

if in the future energy gets more expensive
and fresh water more scarce, you'll see a lot
more changes and rethinking of how we do waste
systems.

once you switch to an in place composting system
with any grey water being handled on site processes
then there's no need to pay anyone for waste
processing any more than you pay someone to put
things on the compost heap or scrub out a bucket.


the waste which is not safely compostable (hormone
treatments, some drugs, chemotherapeutics and nuclear
medicine) should be treated differently, but those
people who know they are doing such things could be
set up with their medical providers to have a clean
disposal path for their waste (so that it does not
become a hazard to others).


Yes if the whole family is healthy compost it otherwise cart your
shit to a waste centre if any one of you are taking pills. Or have
a honey pot collection.

compost it on site and use it on site, no need to
ship it anywhere.


Can you imagine this system in a big city. In the 19th century
before the sewer was built London was called "the great wen" Get
serious.

i am, any reasonably normal person can understand
composting and accomplish it.

that is then, this is now, do we understand things
better today or not?


in a world of limited resources there is no excuse
for not recycling of most materials. for areas with
limited water they certainly should not be wasting
water by using it as a waste transport mechanism.


Most of the water in the sewer is not from flushing.

it doesn't have to be, once it's contaminated
by poop that means the entire volume must be
cleaned up again. if you only had to move poop
and pee around that would be how much less per
person of material to deal with cleaning up,
processing or disposing of?

dehydrate it and reclaim that water, and then
you're down by another factor or two of reduction.
isn't that a much more efficient use of energy
and materials to deal only with the problem
instead of multiplying it?


Bird you haven't thought this out.

funny assumption, you've not seen my reading
list for the past dozen years.

a very simple system of handling waste from
people is quite possible that doesn't involve
having to move or dig out huge tanks. if you
are used to composting processes then it fits
in very well. that it will work even when the
power goes out, that it means valuable materials
don't leave the gardens, saves water, energy,
etc. that's all a bonus as far as i'm concerned.

take a look at _the humanure handbook_ it's in
third edition and online for free.

the trouble is not composting it's getting
people to accept that it can be done at all
as they are raised to flush and forget. raise
them with a different way and they'll be fine
and much better off in the long run.


songbird

I admire your idealism to a degree. The problem is that you are so absorbed
with it you give no time to the practicalities of whether your proposal can
be done in various places or circumstances and what the cost may be. You
complain that nobody is listening but make no effort to address the big
issues with implementing your plan, until you can show that it can work and
maintain public health and that the benefits outweigh the costs of a large
scale implementation you are just ****ing on the lemon tree.

D

On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:26:56 PM UTC-8, songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:

Higgs Boson wrote:

...

Uh, let's look at those factors:



Cost: If Nature (or global warming) continues to dry us up out here

on the West Coast of the U.S. how else are we going to get water for

nearly 40,000,000 in California alone, not counting other affected

states like Arizona & New Mexico. Thirty years since James Hansen

told Congress exactly what would happen and when, it is coming true

as predicted. Even the most corrupt legislator will be forced to

listen to their constituents rather than continuing their long,

well-emunerated love affair with Big Oil, Big Coal, and other

constituents of global warming.



Greenhouse gases: Not sure I see the relevance, but have a look at

what's been happening in the Middle East.

(removed by previous poster: detail of working scalable desalination in the one democracy in the Middle East)



The relevance is that RO is very energy intensive and unless you source your

power from non-fossil sources you will be compounding the problem.



the basic problem is that we've gotten into the

habit of mixing human waste with potable water to

begin with. this compounds many other problems and

they tag along with the whole process. clean up

the basic misconception and you get many benefits

in result. not having to build nuclear

desalinization plants would be one of them (who

needs more chances at Fukushima? are you seriously

considering more nuclear plants in California?

are you really that idiotic? yes, i am seriously

calling you an idiot if you are building more

nuclear plants in that area).

Songie, before you gallop away on your apocalyptic anti-nuclear horse, allow this "idiot" to point out that "Manhattan Project" only referred to a national effort -- in WW II, to create an atomic bomb. Not something this "idiot" approved of, much less appreciated incinerating two cities full of civilians.

I have seen several films, both American and Japanese, which documented in chilling detail the utter chaos -- political and military -- that reigned inside the Japanese Government after Hiroshima and before Nagasaki. It is useful to make some effort to acquaint oneself with the FACTS.

The US was not only ignorant of the situation inside Japan, but didn't condescend to investigate it. We only blindly insisted on the military mantra of "unconditional surrender". If our ultimatum had been couched with SOME understanding of what was going on -- don't tell me sources weren't available!! -- like not humiliating their Emperor-God -- hundreds of thousands more lives could have been spared, not to mention future generations affected by radiation.

As we know, after surrender, the U.S. turned over Japan to big business, which basically ran the country until some stirrings of democracy began to be felt.

How many are aware that dropping the bombs had little to do with forestalling a putative land invasion of Japan? They were on their asses already; no fuel, no food, no nuthin'. Ththere would have been relatively little resistance even by suicide, once the Emperor said give up.

Our GIs were told that dropping the bomb saved them from heavy casualties in a putative invasion. If I'd been a grunt at that time, believe me, I would have believed it!

What they, and the American people, were never told was that the bomb was rushed into production to hasten surrender before the Soviet Union could take part in the fighting, per their wartime agreement with the Allies. The last thing the US wanted was them Commie pinkos getting their toes into Japan -- or anywhere else. Never mind a few million "Japs" getting toasted, between the Tokyo firebombing (see also Dresden) and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Years ago, I made a pilgrimage to Hiroshima to bow at the memorial of those innocents killed at 8:15 a.m.,just as the streets were full of children on their way to school.

Boys with their toys...

The point made by this "idiot" is that a full-scale national effort was behind the Bomb.

A similar full-scale effort to investigate and perfect scalable desalinization
is not only do-able, but of the utmost urgency.

HB (aka "the idiot"
[...]

On 03/01/2014 11:25 AM, Higgs Boson wrote:
How many are aware that dropping the bombs had little to do with forestalling a putative land invasion of Japan? They were on their asses already; no fuel, no food, no nuthin'. Ththere would have been relatively little resistance even by suicide, once the Emperor said give up.

Our GIs were told that dropping the bomb saved them from heavy casualties in a putative invasion. If I'd been a grunt at that time, believe me, I would have believed it!

Hi Higgs,

My late mother-in-law worked on the Manhattan project. Everyone on
that project was HORRIFIED with what they were about to do. And, if
anyone tells you they were not aware of the situation in Japan, they
are lying to you. The decision was made based on the Japanese military
arming the civilian population -- women, children -- with wooden
knives to fight us hand to hand. They were not going to give up.
And it took two bombs, not one, before they did.

And the death count from those two bombs was actually lower than
the death count from our fire bomb attacks, which suffocated
thousands.

Have you read the prisoner counts from those islands we invaded
in the Pacific? 10, 14? We had to run soldiers over who where
out of ammunition with our tanks. They were fighting us with their
hands. This was the Japan we were about to invade.

A lot of people hate America. They spread a lot of b--- s---
around about us. We are not with out our problems. What makes
us different is that we do work on them.

-T

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 11:04:05 PM UTC-8, Todd wrote:
On 03/01/2014 11:25 AM, Higgs Boson wrote:

How many are aware that dropping the bombs had little to do with forestalling a putative land invasion of Japan? They were on their asses already; no fuel, no food, no nuthin'. Ththere would have been relatively little resistance even by suicide, once the Emperor said give up.



Our GIs were told that dropping the bomb saved them from heavy casualties in a putative invasion. If I'd been a grunt at that time, believe me, I would have believed it!



Hi Higgs,



My late mother-in-law worked on the Manhattan project. Everyone on

that project was HORRIFIED with what they were about to do. And, if

anyone tells you they were not aware of the situation in Japan, they

are lying to you. The decision was made based on the Japanese military

arming the civilian population -- women, children -- with wooden

knives to fight us hand to hand. They were not going to give up.

And it took two bombs, not one, before they did.

Todd, you have either not read my post carefully or not understood it.

The Japanese people were so totally brainwashed by generations of Emperor worship that they would instantly do whatever he ordered. I referred to the chaotic situation within the Japanese government and military;perhaps you are not familiar with that, though there are several excellent sources for verification.

So I am not going through the whole argument again; I ask you just to read again and try to understand why, strictly speaking, neither bomb was necessary to end the war. A demonstration on a deserted island, properly announced in advance to the Japanese govt, would have been convincing. But the Americans were afraid it might not work (even after Trinity) so chose the mass incineration path.

To my knowledge, NO effective contact was made with the Japanese government before the 2nd bomb was dropped. Not to repeat again my informed comments about the chaos within the govt and the US ineptitude about discerning that chaos.

Of course there may have been reasons too horrible to envision for dropping two different kinds of bombs. Which kinda knocks out the argument against trying one out on a deserted island first. So the DID have another in reserve! This stinks louder & louder.

Boys with their toys...

HB



And the death count from those two bombs was actually lower than

the death count from our fire bomb attacks, which suffocated

thousands.



Have you read the prisoner counts from those islands we invaded

in the Pacific? 10, 14? We had to run soldiers over who where

out of ammunition with our tanks. They were fighting us with their

hands. This was the Japan we were about to invade.



A lot of people hate America. They spread a lot of b--- s---

around about us. We are not with out our problems. What makes

us different is that we do work on them.



-T

On 3/1/2014 11:25 AM, Higgs Boson wrote:
Songie, before you gallop away on your apocalyptic anti-nuclear
horse, allow this "idiot" to point out that "Manhattan Project" only
referred to a national effort -- in WW II, to create an atomic bomb.
Not something this "idiot" approved of, much less appreciated
incinerating two cities full of civilians.

I have seen several films, both American and Japanese, which
documented in chilling detail the utter chaos -- political and
military -- that reigned inside the Japanese Government after
Hiroshima and before Nagasaki. It is useful to make some effort to
acquaint oneself with the FACTS.

The US was not only ignorant of the situation inside Japan, but
didn't condescend to investigate it. We only blindly insisted on the
military mantra of "unconditional surrender". If our ultimatum had
been couched with SOME understanding of what was going on -- don't
tell me sources weren't available!! -- like not humiliating their
Emperor-God -- hundreds of thousands more lives could have been
spared, not to mention future generations affected by radiation.

As we know, after surrender, the U.S. turned over Japan to big
business, which basically ran the country until some stirrings of
democracy began to be felt.

How many are aware that dropping the bombs had little to do with
forestalling a putative land invasion of Japan? They were on their
asses already; no fuel, no food, no nuthin'. Ththere would have been
relatively little resistance even by suicide, once the Emperor said
give up.

Our GIs were told that dropping the bomb saved them from heavy
casualties in a putative invasion. If I'd been a grunt at that time,
believe me, I would have believed it!

What they, and the American people, were never told was that the bomb
was rushed into production to hasten surrender before the Soviet
Union could take part in the fighting, per their wartime agreement
with the Allies. The last thing the US wanted was them Commie pinkos
getting their toes into Japan -- or anywhere else. Never mind a few
million "Japs" getting toasted, between the Tokyo firebombing (see
also Dresden) and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Years ago, I made a pilgrimage to Hiroshima to bow at the memorial of
those innocents killed at 8:15 a.m.,just as the streets were full of
children on their way to school.

Boys with their toys...

The point made by this "idiot" is that a full-scale national effort
was behind the Bomb.

A similar full-scale effort to investigate and perfect scalable
desalinization is not only do-able, but of the utmost urgency.

HB (aka "the idiot" [...]

I believe the horror caused by the two bombs dropped in Japan (very
shortly after my 4th birthday) has prevented any nation from again using
any kind of nuclear weapon.

--
David E. Ross
Climate: California Mediterranean, see
http://www.rossde.com/garden/climate.html
Gardening diary at http://www.rossde.com/garden/diary

On Friday, February 28, 2014 4:57:01 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:

On Friday, February 28, 2014 1:00:27 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:

[,,,]

Greenhouse gases: Not sure I see the relevance, but have a look at

what's been happening in the Middle East.



The relevance is that RO is very energy intensive and unless you source your

power from non-fossil sources you will be compounding the problem.

Am I naive to speculate that RO won't be the only technology down the pike?

HB

Higgs Boson wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 4:57:01 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:

On Friday, February 28, 2014 1:00:27 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott
wrote:

[,,,]

Greenhouse gases: Not sure I see the relevance, but have a look at

what's been happening in the Middle East.



The relevance is that RO is very energy intensive and unless you
source your

power from non-fossil sources you will be compounding the problem.

Am I naive to speculate that RO won't be the only technology down the
pike?

HB

Probably. It takes energy to get a solute out of a solvent, this is not a
question of technology but known science. We know about distilation and RO,
and both cost energy. It is usually the problem deniers who assume that
unknown science (read magic) or unproven technology ("clean coal") will come
to our rescue and thus we ought not to worry.

I suggest that not destroying our sources of water and not using it so
carelessly (growing rice in drylands and building golf courses in deserts
come to mind) will serve better in the short to medium term. Of course if
tomorrow somebody comes up with a way to make large scale atomic fusion
efficient and practical I will be made to eat my hat. Since the idea was
first shown to be theoretically possible ( say a century ago) a practical
solution has always been predicted to be available in "about 30 years".
Well the greatgrandchildren of those blokes are still working on it.

D

On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:59:21 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:

On Friday, February 28, 2014 4:57:01 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:

Higgs Boson wrote:



On Friday, February 28, 2014 1:00:27 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott

wrote:



[,,,]



Greenhouse gases: Not sure I see the relevance, but have a look at



what's been happening in the Middle East.







The relevance is that RO is very energy intensive and unless you

source your



power from non-fossil sources you will be compounding the problem.



Am I naive to speculate that RO won't be the only technology down the

pike?



HB



Probably. It takes energy to get a solute out of a solvent, this is not a

question of technology but known science. We know about distilation and RO,

and both cost energy. It is usually the problem deniers who assume that

unknown science (read magic) or unproven technology ("clean coal") will come

to our rescue and thus we ought not to worry.



I suggest that not destroying our sources of water and not using it so

carelessly (growing rice in drylands and building golf courses in deserts

come to mind) will serve better in the short to medium term. Of course if

tomorrow somebody comes up with a way to make large scale atomic fusion

efficient and practical I will be made to eat my hat. Since the idea was

first shown to be theoretically possible ( say a century ago) a practical

solution has always been predicted to be available in "about 30 years".

Well the greatgrandchildren of those blokes are still working on it.

The biggest problem at this point is educating the public. Maybe people are more socially-minded in OZ, but Up Here (US) it is only a minority of the population who are educated and aware enough to take the simple steps that
would reduce consumption dramatically.

People who have programmed sprinklers don't take care to adjust when water is not needed. In the middle of our dramatic storm last week, the CITY's sprinklers were still going!

As are those of my neighbor, on automatic. That storm soaked everything so well that no watering would be required for AT LEAST a week; I think more.
I know that at least several people including our shared gardener, have mentioned the wasted water, but so far no change...

I'm afraid it will take sky-high water costs -- and they are high anyway --
to make people stop & think. Alas, those high costs hit even the good guys,
like yours truly.

HB