I can spot a rise in the creek, especially Turkey Creek behind my dad's house. But how does one measure a millimeter of sea level?
|
I can spot a rise in the creek, especially Turkey Creek behind my dad's house. But how does one measure a millimeter of sea level?
Nebraska Flooding Threatens Nuclear Plant - Yahoo! News
Floods threaten Nebraska nuclear plants - Washington Times
http://www.mbari.org/staff/oreilly/s...asurement.html
Jean-Michel Cousteau : Ocean Adventures . In-depth: Climate Change and the Marine Environment | PBS
Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2,000 years - Telegraph
Just food for thought.
Rivers and Flooding Module 3 Environmental Geology
Quote:
Urbanization Effects on Flooding
Urbanization has had a major impact on river systems! Many towns and cities are located next to major rivers and their tributaries. Many of these cities are sitting smack in the middle of flood plains! Highways, streets, parking lots, sidewalks, and buildings now cover large areas of ground surface-areas that "use to" absorb excess rain water, vegetated areas that slowed a stream's discharge rate.
Now the hard-covered surfaces act as conduits for excess stormwater to rapidly travel over. The time between the peak rainfall and peak discharge (called lag time) decreased drastically! The result? Increased flooding!! And, if the lag time is short enough, "flash flooding" may occur. Major disaster!
Airspace Over Flooded Nebraska Nuclear Power Plant Still Closed
"Asked about the FAA flight ban, Hanson it was due to high power lines and "security reasons that we can't reveal." He said the flight ban remains in effect."
Security reasons?
Security reasons that's breaucraticesses for get out of there
They tried not telling you anything in Japan, and we all know how well that worked. The foreign aid boats had to retreat to a safe distance, and be scrubbed to prevent contamination.
Wouldn't want anyone to lose money, never mind the other costs...
Fukushima Nuclear Fuel Leaking Into Groundwater, Tepco Says Barrier Too Expensive, Will Hurt Stock Price | Myweathertech.com
I just can't help but wonder how the compliant press would be reporting this if the President's name was Bush. 1993 another flood did damage to the Cooper plant . But the President then was Bill Clintoon so although it was covered ;it did not become a major story.
The head of the NRC will be there Monday to inspect their flood preparations. That tells me that they don't see this as urgent. This is definitely not Japan. The Japanese did not have the prep time to deal with a rushing wall of water . The Nebraska plants are prepared for the flooding .
This is also not Japan in that the operators of the Nebraska plants are not covering anything up.
BTW ;I'm surprised the press has lost interest in the Japanese plants. The crisis is far from over . They got filters for the cooling water ;but the filters have failed . That means eventually they will fill the basement with contaminated water and will have no choice but to pump it into the Pacific.
The Russians are suggesting the Chernobyl solution. That was enlisting suicide helicopter pilots to dump lead and concrete on the reactors to seal them.
We all know the solution, Tom, no more nuclear plants. So the Japs can encase their little disaster in concrete and go back to what? Generating electricity from coal. I feel a boom coming on, must go and buy some coal shares and ditch my uranium, oops! I forgot, those are already worth nothing
Maybe they should have built the concrete, and lead enclosure before they had a problem. We humans do things so backward, then wonder what happened when it goes wrong. Then we have to go through it again, and again until we get it right. Safety first, then buy the stock!
I won't be investing in nuclear. You have just outlined the capitalistic, least cost model. We once had an airline with a perfect safety record owned by our government. What happened to it, it was privatised, now it is plagued with safety problems and they are saying they will operate from Asia. Least cost model, least safe model, least service model. I wouldn't buy the stock now.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
It's the same thing with coal, and oil, profits before people, and even after people DIE, they roll them aside and keep making money. Do people really have to die or get injured so companies can make a profit?
Qantas is one of the highest rated airlines for safety and overall performance.
Profits are good . A company that doesn't profit doesn't exist long or hire employees for long. Energy profits are especially good . Most pension plans and 401-Ks are directly or indirectly invested in them.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
And think of all the money they will save on pensions if the emplyees don't live long enough to quailify to get any...Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'd like to see the stats that shows being in the energy industry is a more dangerous occupation than some other more PC acceptable industries . I imagine it is probably in line or safer than agriculture,construction and transportation .
Of the most dangerous jobs in the U.S. there isn't anything in the energy industry in the top 10. Sanitation workers, including recycling collectors, was no. 7.
So because the job doesn't make a list we should regard the deaths as the cost of doing business? That works great if you are a corporation, but not so great if its your loved on that died in preventable accidents. Especially when you find that company in violation of safety standards that were ignored, or the fines were insufficient to make changes for a safer environment.
Like the BP oil spill, or the mining disaster in Virginia, or the refinery explosions in Texas to name a few, or even including the millions exposed over the years to dangerous chemicals, or materials who develop life threatening conditions, that change there lives and that of their families. Like coal miners, or residents of communities that living over sites of natural gas deposits, that they use frakking as a means to extract the gas.
They could do better, and we all know it, no matter the industry, or occupation.
Don't be so dramatic, Tal. No one is excusing occupational injuries or deaths.
Safety is my field so I know the lengths corporations go to in order to insure a safe work place for their employees and the contractors they use. I see both ends of it as a seller of safety equipment and as a contractor - in oil country - held to those high safety standards required to set foot on their property. Those standards are what keeps the energy industry out of the top 10 most dangerous jobs.
To my mind it is a question of attitude. Of course profits are good, if they are generated responsibly. And yes there are Companies who have a genuine regard for the welfare of both their own employees and those of the general world community.
Unfortunately there are also many companies for whom profit is all at any expense. Unproperly tested products, cost-cutting exercises without a thought to the consequences etc. For other companies health and safety issues are about doing whatever minimum they need to tick the boxes without real regard for whether they work. Probably part of the reason why some health and safety rules have gone so far beyond common sense as to be a joke. As long as we don't get sued mentality.
There are still companies responsible for massive chemical leaks, tearing up natural resources without thought, failing to build in contingency safety plans etc. The indirect negative consequences of these activities won't get them on most dangerous job lists but the impact is still real.
That may have once been true Tom but recent performance has a list of problems that doesn't reassure me and management's intention to move maintenance and operational bases to Asia means it will become mediocre.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
They are now more interested in pursuing cut price operation than they are of providing a premium service
You don't often get to see the other side of the argument
Australia headed for disaster: Monckton
And ex this is the other side of the coin to your throwing garbage into the air argument which of course is garbage
Here's some more on the other side of the argument, The University of East Anglia you remember those of climategate fame has agreed to realise its data
UK watchdog: University must share climate data
This of course is not without some coaxing
The UN has completed its study of what it will take for the entire world to go green - $76 trillion, or $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years.
Ok, have at it.Quote:
Two years ago, U.N. researchers were claiming that it would cost “as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade” to go green. Now, a new U.N. report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years.
So let's do the math: That works out to a grand total of $76 trillion, over 40 years -- or more than five times the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States ($14.66 trillion a year). It’s all part of a “technological overhaul” “on the scale of the first industrial revolution” called for in the annual report. Except that the U.N. will apparently control this next industrial revolution.
The new 251-page report with the benign sounding name of the “World Economic and Social Survey 2011” is rife with goodies calling for “a radically new economic strategy” and “global governance.”
Throw in possible national energy use caps and a massive redistribution of wealth and the survey is trying to remake the entire globe. The report has the imprimatur of the U.N. with the preface signed by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon – all part of the “goal of full decarbonization of the global energy system by 2050.”
Make no mistake, much of this has nothing to do with climate.
The press release for the report discusses the need “to achieve a decent living standard for people in developing countries, especially the 1.4 billion still living in extreme poverty, and the additional 2 billion people expected worldwide by 2050.” That sounds more like global redistribution of wealth than worrying about the earth’s thermostat.
Actually that's correct, it has mostly to do with an expanding population growth and energy demands that are not sustainable. I urge people to read the actual PDF instead of taking Fox News' version of it.Quote:
Make no mistake, much of this has nothing to do with climate.
From what I had read. There is no problem sustaining nor keeping up with the growth. The outline is that it would as currently applied increase green house gases as the result of increased production.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
What did you read ?
Ref:
Summary
The recent food crises have revealed deep structural problems I ¨ n the global food system and
The need to increase resources and foster innovation in agriculture so as to accelerate food
Production. Food production will have to increase between 70 and 100 per cent by 2050 to feed
A growing population. With current agricultural technology, practices and land-use patterns, this
Cannot be achieved without further contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution
And land degradation. The consequent environmental damage will undermine food productivity
Growth.
The link which I provided.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
So who is going to pay this $1.9 trillion per year and to whom?
No one has to follow their research recommendations, you know that, it's a choice.
I fail to see how that answered the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Those dumb enough to follow the UN plan... But, those who follow the excon plan'll MAKE money.
excon
Well that that's your failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Spreading resources and ideas and solving problems isn't redistibution of wealth, its working for the common good.Quote:
That sounds more like global redistribution of wealth than worrying about the earth’s thermostat.
It's a complex problem. Spending trillions to benefit everyone, is a drop in the bucket as compared to fighting over dwindling resources with an ever expanding population.
Tal, spreading resources and ideas is fine, we've been doing that for quite some time and it's done little to change circumstances for poor countries but maintain power and lifestyle for the ruling class. Then we send UN peacekeepers into these troubled countries who rape and abuse the populace. I'm sure this UN plan will be just as useful as everything else they do, with the added benefit of throwing the rest of us back to the stone age.
Exactly how does it throw the rest of us back to the stone age?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
And, THAT'S the reason why we MUST continue to throw our trash into the air..
Uhhh... By the way, you either think the UN is inept, or you think they can "throw us back to the stone age".. I didn't know you was afraid of them..
excon
Aren't you tired of that straw man? We've knocked it down over and over and yet you keep propping it back up.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Never said I was afraid of the UN, but wasn't it you that said something about "those dumb enough to follow" them?Quote:
Uhhh... By the way, you either think the UN is inept, or you think they can "throw us back to the stone age".. I didn't know you was afraid of them..
How about explaining your "stone age" straw man?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Must I engage the sarcasm font for you, too?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I guess excon will have to do for you as well. :rolleyes: By the way it's not sarcasm what you did there, it's called hyperbole and does not lend well to civilised discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Do you have anything better to do than police the boards?
Quit whining. Geez...Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:20 PM. |