(07-11-2014 12:37 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 07:45 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 10:07 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 08:07 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  The Plague

Plauges have had one positive impact. There are now people living in the world with an immune system so strong they don't catch diseases, including AIDS, hepatitis, and other deadly diseases. They are probably indestructible, as far as any disease is concerned.

Age is another matter. Time wears down all eventually.

The black plague wiped out 30-50% of Europe's population and killed a lot more people than any war or volcano. Not to mention, it prolonged a Dark Age they were coming out of for another 200 years and led to paranoia, holocaust and inquisition. While it did lead to some advancement in medicine and some Darwinism by attrition, I would say the overall impact was quite the disaster.

Maybe it killed more people than Toba but Toba killed a far larger percentage. The human population went from 3M to 30K.

Toba is prehistory. If some theories are correct, it may well have been a greater disaster than the black plague, but all we really know is an eruption took place. The black plague was the biggest disaster in history.

I do not buy the claim that it wiped out 99% of earth's population (3M to 30k). If it did that was certainly the biggest disaster.

As far as bitcruncher looking at the positive in the plague, a eugenicist could find positive in any disaster. I am sure Toba led to the European migration of the Aryan race, or something...

(07-16-2014 07:24 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:37 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 07:45 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 10:07 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 08:07 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  The Plague

Plauges have had one positive impact. There are now people living in the world with an immune system so strong they don't catch diseases, including AIDS, hepatitis, and other deadly diseases. They are probably indestructible, as far as any disease is concerned.

Age is another matter. Time wears down all eventually.

The black plague wiped out 30-50% of Europe's population and killed a lot more people than any war or volcano. Not to mention, it prolonged a Dark Age they were coming out of for another 200 years and led to paranoia, holocaust and inquisition. While it did lead to some advancement in medicine and some Darwinism by attrition, I would say the overall impact was quite the disaster.

Maybe it killed more people than Toba but Toba killed a far larger percentage. The human population went from 3M to 30K.

Toba is prehistory. If some theories are correct, it may well have been a greater disaster than the black plague, but all we really know is an eruption took place. The black plague was the biggest disaster in history.

I do not buy the claim that it wiped out 99% of earth's population (3M to 30k). If it did that was certainly the biggest disaster.

As far as bitcruncher looking at the positive in the plague, a eugenicist could find positive in any disaster. I am sure Toba led to the European migration of the Aryan race, or something...

A eugenicist? Is that your take on this? Boy, you really have some issues.

I was talking about a benefit that geneticists today are seeing the benefit of in researching cures for deadly diseases, including cancer. There are people out there with immune systems so strong that they do not catch diseases that effect the majority of humanity, and all of 'em are direct descendants of the survivors of the plagues on both sides of the family. They don't catch HIV or AIDS, and transfusions from such people have cured those with those diseases.

So when you talk about eugenics it shows you haven't a clue about what I'm talking about, because you've made up your mind on the issue, and aren't willing to explore the result I'm talking about. You have a very narrow mind, dude. You should expand your horizons a bit, which should result in an expansion of your mental capabilities.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska on March 24, 1989, was considered one of the worst man-made environmental disasters ever. Approximately 1,300 miles of coastline and 11,000 sq. mi. of ocean was impacted. Litigation resulted in an initial ruling against Exxon in the amount of $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages. After a lengthy appeals process ending with a US Supreme Court decision in 2008, the punitive damages were reduced to $507 million.

Quote: Both the long-term and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied. Prince William Sound's remote location, accessible only by helicopter, plane, or boat, made government and industry response efforts difficult and severely taxed existing plans for response. Immediate effects included the deaths of 100,000 to as many as 250,000 seabirds, at least 2,800 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbor seals, 247 Bald Eagles, and 22 orcas, and an unknown number of salmon and herring.

In 2003, fifteen years after the spill, a team from the University of North Carolina found that the remaining oil was lasting far longer than anticipated, which in turn had resulted in more long-term loss of many species than had been expected. The researchers found that at only a few parts per billion, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons caused a long-term increase in mortality rates. They reported that "species as diverse as sea otters, harlequin ducks and killer whales suffered large, long-term losses and that oiled mussel beds and other tidal shoreline habitats will take an estimated 30 years to recover.

In 2006, a study done by the National Marine Fisheries Service in Juneau found that about 9.6 kilometres of shoreline around Prince William Sound was still affected by the spill, with 101.6 tonnes of oil remaining in the area. Exxon Mobil denied any concerns over any remaining oil, stating that they anticipated a remaining fraction that they assert will not cause any long-term ecological impacts, according to the conclusions of the studies they had done: "We've done 350 peer-reviewed studies of Prince William Sound, and those studies conclude that Prince William Sound has recovered, it's healthy and it's thriving." However, in 2007 a NOAA study concluded that this contamination can produce chronic low-level exposure, discourage subsistence where the contamination is heavy, and decrease the "wilderness character" of the area.

The effects of the spill continued to be felt for many years afterwards. As of 2010 there were an estimated 23,000 US gallons (87 m3) of Valdez crude oil still in Alaska's sand and soil, breaking down at a rate estimated at less than 4% per year.

On March 24, 2014, the twenty-fifth anniversary of the spill, NOAA scientists reported that some species seem to have recovered, with the sea otter the latest creature to return to pre-spill numbers. Scientists who have monitored the spill area for the last 25 years report that concern remains for one of two pods of local orca whales, with fears that one pod may eventually die out. Federal scientists estimate that between 16,000 and 21,000 gallons of oil remains on beaches in Prince William Sound and up to 450 miles away. Some of the oil does not appear to have biodegraded at all.

The Fukushima Daiichi reactor meltdown is still spilling radioactive materials into the Pacific, and the entire northern Pacific basin, including the waters around Hawai'i are now showing measurable levels of radioactivity. So are the fish that swim in those waters. Crops in Japan are also being effected by the radiation. The reactor is still leaking radioactives into the ocean, and the cleanup operations are damaging the countryside around the reactor. The full scale of this disaster has yet to be realized. But its effects will be felt for centuries.

http://fukushimaupdate.com

For an example of the long term results all you need to do is look at some of the resulting aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster.

http://rt.com/news/172708-chernobyl-ukra...ic-reserve

(07-17-2014 09:11 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Fukushima Daiichi reactor meltdown is still spilling radioactive materials into the Pacific, and the entire northern Pacific basin, including the waters around Hawai'i are now showing measurable levels of radioactivity. So are the fish that swim in those waters. Crops in Japan are also being effected by the radiation. The reactor is still leaking radioactives into the ocean, and the cleanup operations are damaging the countryside around the reactor. The full scale of this disaster has yet to be realized. But its effects will be felt for centuries.

http://fukushimaupdate.com

For an example of the long term results all you need to do is look at some of the resulting aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster.

http://rt.com/news/172708-chernobyl-ukra...ic-reserve

When they permanently cordon off the entire region around it like Chernobyl, I'll give these rumors of massive radiation leakage into the northern Pacific more credence.

(07-17-2014 11:15 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 09:11 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Fukushima Daiichi reactor meltdown is still spilling radioactive materials into the Pacific, and the entire northern Pacific basin, including the waters around Hawai'i are now showing measurable levels of radioactivity. So are the fish that swim in those waters. Crops in Japan are also being effected by the radiation. The reactor is still leaking radioactives into the ocean, and the cleanup operations are damaging the countryside around the reactor. The full scale of this disaster has yet to be realized. But its effects will be felt for centuries.

http://fukushimaupdate.com

For an example of the long term results all you need to do is look at some of the resulting aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster.

http://rt.com/news/172708-chernobyl-ukra...ic-reserve

When they permanently cordon off the entire region around it like Chernobyl, I'll give these rumors of massive radiation leakage into the northern Pacific more credence.

Just out of curiousity, how do you cordon off an entire ocean?
Do you cordon off all the oceanfront land that surrounds the ocean as well?
How do you prevent the contamination from one ocean from effecting all the world's oceans?
Do you build waterproof fences from the ocean floor to well above the surface, to compensate for tides and storm driven waves?

You really are naive about this subject, which your statement makes obvious. It was also obvious that you didn't read anything from either of the links I provided.

I've seen the results of minute levels of contamination, which can take years to show any negative effects, of which cancer is the most prevalent. After all, until I retired, I was working in Oak Ridge. It's not like radiation is unknown there, and there are areas around Oak Ridge that are not safe, and due to national security, many abandoned sites aren't marked, or even mapped.

I've seen friends die from radiation poisoning. I know a woman who worked at Y-12 while pregnant, and the resulting birth defects made the child's life a short one. The mother died from the resulting cancers not long after her daughter. It's not a nice way to go. And it doesn't take much to alter your life in ways you can't comprehend. You have to see it happen, or experience it for yourself to understand. It's clear that you don't understand it at all.

(07-17-2014 12:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 11:15 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 09:11 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Fukushima Daiichi reactor meltdown is still spilling radioactive materials into the Pacific, and the entire northern Pacific basin, including the waters around Hawai'i are now showing measurable levels of radioactivity. So are the fish that swim in those waters. Crops in Japan are also being effected by the radiation. The reactor is still leaking radioactives into the ocean, and the cleanup operations are damaging the countryside around the reactor. The full scale of this disaster has yet to be realized. But its effects will be felt for centuries.

http://fukushimaupdate.com

For an example of the long term results all you need to do is look at some of the resulting aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster.

http://rt.com/news/172708-chernobyl-ukra...ic-reserve

When they permanently cordon off the entire region around it like Chernobyl, I'll give these rumors of massive radiation leakage into the northern Pacific more credence.

Just out of curiousity, how do you cordon off an entire ocean?
Do you cordon off all the oceanfront land that surrounds the ocean as well?
How do you prevent the contamination from one ocean from effecting all the world's oceans?
Do you build waterproof fences from the ocean floor to well above the surface, to compensate for tides and storm driven waves?

You really are naive about this subject, which your statement makes obvious. It was also obvious that you didn't read anything from either of the links I provided.

I've seen the results of minute levels of contamination, which can take years to show any negative effects, of which cancer is the most prevalent. After all, until I retired, I was working in Oak Ridge. It's not like radiation is unknown there, and there are areas around Oak Ridge that are not safe, and due to national security, many abandoned sites aren't marked, or even mapped.

I've seen friends die from radiation poisoning. I know a woman who worked at Y-12 while pregnant, and the resulting birth defects made the child's life a short one. The mother died from the resulting cancers not long after her daughter. It's not a nice way to go. And it doesn't take much to alter your life in ways you can't comprehend. You have to see it happen, or experience it for yourself to understand. It's clear that you don't understand it at all.

Since you're sensitive about this I will drop it after this. We have different opinions on nuclear energy apparently and that's fine. I work in the industry, I have coworkers that were rushed to Fukushima within hours of the incident, and I simply have seen no legitimate sources to back up the articles in the fukushimaupdate.com page you listed as for the significant permanent contamination of the land and ocean in the area. I read several of the articles, most of which are more opinion pieces, and very few facts were posted in it to indicate that the northern Pacific has been significantly contaminated. Find me something from the BBC on this and I'll read it.

As for the cordoning off statement, I'm sure you realized I was speaking about the LAND around the Fukushima plant.

(07-17-2014 12:15 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 12:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 11:15 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 09:11 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Fukushima Daiichi reactor meltdown is still spilling radioactive materials into the Pacific, and the entire northern Pacific basin, including the waters around Hawai'i are now showing measurable levels of radioactivity. So are the fish that swim in those waters. Crops in Japan are also being effected by the radiation. The reactor is still leaking radioactives into the ocean, and the cleanup operations are damaging the countryside around the reactor. The full scale of this disaster has yet to be realized. But its effects will be felt for centuries.

http://fukushimaupdate.com

For an example of the long term results all you need to do is look at some of the resulting aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster.

http://rt.com/news/172708-chernobyl-ukra...ic-reserve

When they permanently cordon off the entire region around it like Chernobyl, I'll give these rumors of massive radiation leakage into the northern Pacific more credence.

Just out of curiousity, how do you cordon off an entire ocean?
Do you cordon off all the oceanfront land that surrounds the ocean as well?
How do you prevent the contamination from one ocean from effecting all the world's oceans?
Do you build waterproof fences from the ocean floor to well above the surface, to compensate for tides and storm driven waves?

You really are naive about this subject, which your statement makes obvious. It was also obvious that you didn't read anything from either of the links I provided.

I've seen the results of minute levels of contamination, which can take years to show any negative effects, of which cancer is the most prevalent. After all, until I retired, I was working in Oak Ridge. It's not like radiation is unknown there, and there are areas around Oak Ridge that are not safe, and due to national security, many abandoned sites aren't marked, or even mapped.

I've seen friends die from radiation poisoning. I know a woman who worked at Y-12 while pregnant, and the resulting birth defects made the child's life a short one. The mother died from the resulting cancers not long after her daughter. It's not a nice way to go. And it doesn't take much to alter your life in ways you can't comprehend. You have to see it happen, or experience it for yourself to understand. It's clear that you don't understand it at all.

Since you're sensitive about this I will drop it after this. We have different opinions on nuclear energy apparently and that's fine. I work in the industry, I have coworkers that were rushed to Fukushima within hours of the incident, and I simply have seen no legitimate sources to back up the articles in the fukushimaupdate.com page you listed as for the significant permanent contamination of the land and ocean in the area. I read several of the articles, most of which are more opinion pieces, and very few facts were posted in it to indicate that the northern Pacific has been significantly contaminated. Find me something from the BBC on this and I'll read it.

As for the cordoning off statement, I'm sure you realized I was speaking about the LAND around the Fukushima plant.

Cordoning off the land will have no effect on the radiation still leaking through rock into the water table, which flows directly into the ocean.

BTW, the BBC doesn't have much on the disaster, outside of their initial reports at the time of the disaster. However here is something recent from the University of California at Berkeley's radiation watch.

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2014/06/1...the-public

(07-16-2014 09:27 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  The Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska on March 24, 1989, was considered one of the worst man-made environmental disasters ever. Approximately 1,300 miles of coastline and 11,000 sq. mi. of ocean was impacted. Litigation resulted in an initial ruling against Exxon in the amount of $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages. After a lengthy appeals process ending with a US Supreme Court decision in 2008, the punitive damages were reduced to $507 million.

Quote: Both the long-term and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied. Prince William Sound's remote location, accessible only by helicopter, plane, or boat, made government and industry response efforts difficult and severely taxed existing plans for response. Immediate effects included the deaths of 100,000 to as many as 250,000 seabirds, at least 2,800 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbor seals, 247 Bald Eagles, and 22 orcas, and an unknown number of salmon and herring.

In 2003, fifteen years after the spill, a team from the University of North Carolina found that the remaining oil was lasting far longer than anticipated, which in turn had resulted in more long-term loss of many species than had been expected. The researchers found that at only a few parts per billion, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons caused a long-term increase in mortality rates. They reported that "species as diverse as sea otters, harlequin ducks and killer whales suffered large, long-term losses and that oiled mussel beds and other tidal shoreline habitats will take an estimated 30 years to recover.

In 2006, a study done by the National Marine Fisheries Service in Juneau found that about 9.6 kilometres of shoreline around Prince William Sound was still affected by the spill, with 101.6 tonnes of oil remaining in the area. Exxon Mobil denied any concerns over any remaining oil, stating that they anticipated a remaining fraction that they assert will not cause any long-term ecological impacts, according to the conclusions of the studies they had done: "We've done 350 peer-reviewed studies of Prince William Sound, and those studies conclude that Prince William Sound has recovered, it's healthy and it's thriving." However, in 2007 a NOAA study concluded that this contamination can produce chronic low-level exposure, discourage subsistence where the contamination is heavy, and decrease the "wilderness character" of the area.

The effects of the spill continued to be felt for many years afterwards. As of 2010 there were an estimated 23,000 US gallons (87 m3) of Valdez crude oil still in Alaska's sand and soil, breaking down at a rate estimated at less than 4% per year.

On March 24, 2014, the twenty-fifth anniversary of the spill, NOAA scientists reported that some species seem to have recovered, with the sea otter the latest creature to return to pre-spill numbers. Scientists who have monitored the spill area for the last 25 years report that concern remains for one of two pods of local orca whales, with fears that one pod may eventually die out. Federal scientists estimate that between 16,000 and 21,000 gallons of oil remains on beaches in Prince William Sound and up to 450 miles away. Some of the oil does not appear to have biodegraded at all.

On a side note. It is reported now that areas in which the clean up was done are in worse shape environmentally than areas left to natural means. Evidently the chemicals used to clean up the mess were just as bad as the oil.