Sunday, April 3, 2011
video of Hawaii tsunami damage
Though Hawaii tsunami damage was very very minor compared to Japan there is one species of birds that may have gone extinct during the tsunami.
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/03/29/hi.tsunami.damage.dnt.khnl
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/03/29/hi.tsunami.damage.dnt.khnl
Defiant Japanese boat captain rode out tsunami
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/03/japan.tsunami.captain/?hpt=C1
This is a very interesting video and story. It seems a 68 year old boat captain who lives out on one of the islands off of northeastern Japan felt the quake, and heard the tsunami warning but instead of running for higher ground like the rest of the people on the island, he ran for his boat. He knew if he didn't do this that his island would be isolated because all the boats would be destroyed or driven on shore. So, he tried to save his large 40 year old boat. His is the only boat on the island to survive the tsunami and now he supplies the whole island with food and gas for vehicles from the mainland. For 20 days he has been making hourly trips to the mainland to supply his island with food and necessities.
He describes what it was like to survive the tsunami. As he headed out towards the tsunami he said it was a 20 to 30 meter high wall of water.(20 meters is 65.61+ feet and 30 meters is:98.425+ feet) He didn't know if he or the boat would survive. As he crashed into the first tsunami wave, he said it began to break on him and his boat and he wasn't sure at this point whether he or the boat would survive. Somehow he made it through and then started his steep descent down the back of the wave. But this was only the first of 4 or 5 tsunami waves. He said he was pretty dizzy from the concussions of force upon his boat after the first one but having successfully survived the first one he used the same method to survive the others. After he spent the whole day pumping the water out of his engine room so he could stay afloat and functional he headed back home to his island.
He said the fires on the mainland at Kesunnunma city lit his island which was completely dark that night when he returned home to his island. Otherwise he couldn't see it it was so dark as all power to the island had been knocked out.
Now he is the only boat keeping his island people alive and making hourly trips to the mainland every hour and he is now a hero for Japan as they need one during these difficult times.
He is one of the few to ride a tsunami and to live to tell the tale.
There was another earthquake in Alaska in 1964 that mostly destroyed Anchorage, Alaska. It was a 9.2 Earthquake and the biggest then in recorded history. There was a similar story of a man in a fishing trawler with his I believe 10 year old son. I read this account in Reader's Digest in 1964 as I was then 16 years old then.
The man said he and his son looked out to sea and were within a few miles of shore there in Alaska fishing. There was a wall of water that he believes was about 100 feet high. The wave was coming fast and in the process of getting ready to break upon the shore so it wasn't a wall like the japanese man faced. It was a more gradual ascent rather than crashing into it like the Japanese captain had to. The American fishing trawler crawled up the face of the breaking 100 foot high wave and with the engine screaming at 110% he just barely made it over the crest before the wave broke. What the man said was that cresting the wave wasn't the hardest thing. He said when the wave broke it went up about 500 feet high into the land and ripped out of the ground hundreds and thousands of huge tall pine and fir trees. And the fisherman said the hardest thing was dodging all the trees with his boat so he wouldn't sink after the wave ripped them loose and dragged them all out to sea. He said this was very very difficult to dodge thousands of large trees and their root systems out to sea with him. He also said anyone on shore below 500 to 1000 feet in elevation didn't survive the tsunami where he was.
If you want to read about this quake:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Alaska_earthquake
Saturday, April 2, 2011
radiation and Aircraft
I was wondering whether the extra radiation in the air now has an effect on the aluminum skin of airplanes? The fact that the Southwest Airlines plane developed a 5 foot long rip above the passenger compartment at 34,000 feet made me wonder this. They say the main cause of this is the number of compressions and decompressions a plane goes through and not the mileage. Because each time the skin stretches and contracts it only has a certain life that it can withstand of compressions and decompressions when it goes to altitude and returns down to land.
That must have been pretty impressive when some of the crew and passengers passed out from trying to breathe air from 34,000 feet high. I have climbed as a mountain climber to over 14,000 feet and even then I noticed anything above 11,000 as sort of a slightly mind altering experience while I was climbing. It must have been really hard on some people until the pilot brought it down to about 10,000 feet because otherwise those who passed out might not be around anymore if he hadn't because you can't put an air mask on when you are unconscious.
That must have been pretty impressive when some of the crew and passengers passed out from trying to breathe air from 34,000 feet high. I have climbed as a mountain climber to over 14,000 feet and even then I noticed anything above 11,000 as sort of a slightly mind altering experience while I was climbing. It must have been really hard on some people until the pilot brought it down to about 10,000 feet because otherwise those who passed out might not be around anymore if he hadn't because you can't put an air mask on when you are unconscious.
Radioactive wild pigs and deer in Southern Germany from Chernobyl
I was reading how wild pigs(especially the ones who eat certain mushrooms) and some wild deer in southern Germany still are too radioactive to eat even today in Germany from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Hunters are required by law to go to government officials to see if their carcass(es) of wild pigs or deer is radioactive or not even today. I wonder if fishermen will have to check their fish in this way from the oceans of Japan still 25 years later. I guess that would be 2036 for Japan. They said the problem with wild animals in Germany was radioactive Cesium. Cesium has already made shellfish and many other fish in the Fukushima area inedible for a long long time into the future.
Here is one of the articles on this:
Here is one of the articles on this:
Germany's radioactive boars a legacy of Chernobyl
Short Term Choices becoming Long term de facto choices
As a young man often my choices would look like this: A friend, (male or female) might say, "Hey. Let's go do this." And so it was often an easy choice if I actually had the money right then to do that. However, as one makes a lot of adventurous decisions like this, one starts to find out that often these short term (a day, a weekend to a month kind of choices) often lead to more permanent things like where you live, who your friends are, and eventually who you are married to or who you have kids with or both.
The last kind of choice that was a bigger one than I thought at the time was in regard to buying a home. In this particular case, my wife, her father and I had to agree on the same home. I personally found that this was not going to work for me because I actually wanted to live somewhere I would be happy, my wife was trying to please both her father and I, and eventually after 1 year of her father and I not agreeing, I finally said, "Look. Too many people are dying. Your father could be next. Why don't you and your father find a house the two of you can agree on. Maybe that is the best thing to do." So I just stopped looking for houses because it never was my favorite thing to do anyway. I'm kind of the person like I said above where if I see something and I have the money I buy it. And this might take a day or a month but never any longer. So I went my merry way and forgot about it.
By the way I had told my wife her mother was going to die in November 1998 after spending Thanksgiving with my wife's Step Dad and Mom. My wife got hysterical and starting hitting me so I stopped talking about it. However, I was right. By January 1999 she found out she had incurable lung cancer and was gone by April 1999. She came with her oxygen tank to look at the house my wife and her Dad had agreed upon. Before she died her mother gave her seal of approval for the house. That was 12 years ago about now.
At the time most of my life had been spent by flying by the seat of my pants through jobs, businesses that I owned and through my first and second marriage. But my wife and her family did everything completely differently than anyone I had spent a lot of time with. The result is that since my wife and my skill sets are opposite we can deal easily with almost any kind of situation. My previous wife and I were almost exactly alike so this led to a lot of gaps in dealing with life. So, I guess from experience I can see that having opposite skill sets can be a long term survival necessity if you actually want your lives to work together in all meaningful ways.
But, I guess the point I'm trying to make is "Be very careful of the short term decisions you make. The long term consequences might not be what you think." For me, living now for 12 years in a large 2500 square foot home in an affluent area with a hot tub connected to our redwood deck where we can look up at the stars because being so near the ocean and away from city lights is really great. But it is not at all what I saw myself doing the last 12 years. So, I guess the best thing about it is it was a great home for my wife and daughter and I enjoyed the hot tub and the affluence and the safety of it all. But there is another side for me of feeling completely disconnected from myself and who I used to be. And that person is the one that has much more meaning for me than who I have had to adapt to to live this very very different life than I would have ever chosen myself. Once again, "Truth is stranger than Fiction".
The last kind of choice that was a bigger one than I thought at the time was in regard to buying a home. In this particular case, my wife, her father and I had to agree on the same home. I personally found that this was not going to work for me because I actually wanted to live somewhere I would be happy, my wife was trying to please both her father and I, and eventually after 1 year of her father and I not agreeing, I finally said, "Look. Too many people are dying. Your father could be next. Why don't you and your father find a house the two of you can agree on. Maybe that is the best thing to do." So I just stopped looking for houses because it never was my favorite thing to do anyway. I'm kind of the person like I said above where if I see something and I have the money I buy it. And this might take a day or a month but never any longer. So I went my merry way and forgot about it.
By the way I had told my wife her mother was going to die in November 1998 after spending Thanksgiving with my wife's Step Dad and Mom. My wife got hysterical and starting hitting me so I stopped talking about it. However, I was right. By January 1999 she found out she had incurable lung cancer and was gone by April 1999. She came with her oxygen tank to look at the house my wife and her Dad had agreed upon. Before she died her mother gave her seal of approval for the house. That was 12 years ago about now.
At the time most of my life had been spent by flying by the seat of my pants through jobs, businesses that I owned and through my first and second marriage. But my wife and her family did everything completely differently than anyone I had spent a lot of time with. The result is that since my wife and my skill sets are opposite we can deal easily with almost any kind of situation. My previous wife and I were almost exactly alike so this led to a lot of gaps in dealing with life. So, I guess from experience I can see that having opposite skill sets can be a long term survival necessity if you actually want your lives to work together in all meaningful ways.
But, I guess the point I'm trying to make is "Be very careful of the short term decisions you make. The long term consequences might not be what you think." For me, living now for 12 years in a large 2500 square foot home in an affluent area with a hot tub connected to our redwood deck where we can look up at the stars because being so near the ocean and away from city lights is really great. But it is not at all what I saw myself doing the last 12 years. So, I guess the best thing about it is it was a great home for my wife and daughter and I enjoyed the hot tub and the affluence and the safety of it all. But there is another side for me of feeling completely disconnected from myself and who I used to be. And that person is the one that has much more meaning for me than who I have had to adapt to to live this very very different life than I would have ever chosen myself. Once again, "Truth is stranger than Fiction".
hybrid electrical conversion kits
I was thinking if gas and diesel prices keep going up more and more people are going to want to convert their gas and diesel cars and trucks to electrical hybrids. My idea for this would be to replace the transmission area of a car with an electrical generator-electric motor combination. You would let the engine run on idle to generate the power and then rather than trying to put it into batteries just use the electricity on demand, the acceleration of the car would be done with a dimmer switch type of control. If you really needed extra power maybe one might need to accelerate the gas or diesel engine some to generate more power for hills or quick startups onto freeways.
This idea would be simply to take out the transmission of vehicles and replace it with a generator-electrical motor combination. One might have to change the rear end gear ratio to match the optimum for the electrical motor but you wouldn't need a transmission gear box because of the high range of speeds an electrical motor can operate at.
I think you will see these types of custom made devices being manufactured first on a custom basis and then later made by small companies and then possibly by car manufacturers as well, especially if gas prices and diesel prices continue to go up like they are. This would be a way to keep your gas guzzler, let it idle and still get 30 to 50 miles per gallon or more as gas and diesel prices continue to go through the roof just by taking out your transmission and replacing it with likely an equal sized generator-electrical motor combination. This particular idea works best with rear end drive systems.
However, there also might be a way to make this work for front wheel drive gas or diesels as well. The problem with transverse mounted engines with front wheel drives is they generally don't have the same space available for such a unit that a rear wheel drive does with a standard or automatic transmissions.
However, in thinking more about front wheel drive cars and trucks one might then need to change to a smaller engine built in combination with a generator-electric motor specifically designed to use the same engine mounts in your vehicle. In this way it could all still power the vehicle, be safe and still get the kinds of mileage that one could with something like a Prius.
If we see prices reach 5 to 7 Dollars a gallon for gas or diesel on the east coast of the U.S. this summer, something like what I'm talking about here would not only become economically feasible but possibly even necessary if people want to keep driving larger vehicles for work or play.
I think with this custom combo, mileage could reach 30 to 70 miles per gallon depending upon the size and weight of the vehicle.
In the end, necessity is the mother of invention.
This idea would be simply to take out the transmission of vehicles and replace it with a generator-electrical motor combination. One might have to change the rear end gear ratio to match the optimum for the electrical motor but you wouldn't need a transmission gear box because of the high range of speeds an electrical motor can operate at.
I think you will see these types of custom made devices being manufactured first on a custom basis and then later made by small companies and then possibly by car manufacturers as well, especially if gas prices and diesel prices continue to go up like they are. This would be a way to keep your gas guzzler, let it idle and still get 30 to 50 miles per gallon or more as gas and diesel prices continue to go through the roof just by taking out your transmission and replacing it with likely an equal sized generator-electrical motor combination. This particular idea works best with rear end drive systems.
However, there also might be a way to make this work for front wheel drive gas or diesels as well. The problem with transverse mounted engines with front wheel drives is they generally don't have the same space available for such a unit that a rear wheel drive does with a standard or automatic transmissions.
However, in thinking more about front wheel drive cars and trucks one might then need to change to a smaller engine built in combination with a generator-electric motor specifically designed to use the same engine mounts in your vehicle. In this way it could all still power the vehicle, be safe and still get the kinds of mileage that one could with something like a Prius.
If we see prices reach 5 to 7 Dollars a gallon for gas or diesel on the east coast of the U.S. this summer, something like what I'm talking about here would not only become economically feasible but possibly even necessary if people want to keep driving larger vehicles for work or play.
I think with this custom combo, mileage could reach 30 to 70 miles per gallon depending upon the size and weight of the vehicle.
In the end, necessity is the mother of invention.
Ways to solve our energy problems long term
U.S. energy consumption
Rather than waiting for the government to solve your energy problems (if they ever will), maybe it's time to solve your own energy problems. Maybe everyone cannot do this right now but if enough of us individually take responsibility it sets an example for all others and gets them to start thinking in this direction as well.
First of all, where I live in California, for now, electricity isn't the biggest problem. Gas and diesel prices are the biggest single problem(gas was $4.25 a gallon last time I bought it) because utility companies primarily use natural gas to heat water to make steam to generate electricity. Since natural gas prices are low and might even stay low electricity (at least for now isn't the problem like it was around 2000 when our state got into financial trouble paying state citizens utility bills when they became ridiculous for a while.
For now, that problem has gone away(at least for now).
So right now the biggest problem is gas and diesel. There are a few ways to handle this problem for those who have enough money to do it. For example, my god Daughter's boyfriend and she bought his parents Prius which gets between 40 to 70 miles per gallon and then they kept her car which is also a high mileage car so they have two cars for work.
But I'm thinking about people who can afford to set up new systems like myself. For example, I've toyed with the idea of going off the grid by buying a fuel cell electrical generation system like Google uses in Silicon Valley because putting solar cells on my roof isn't cost effective because living so near the coast there is a lot of clouds off the ocean and fog, especially during the summers here(Mark Twain: The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco). So, even though I might like solar cells on my roof it just isn't practical enough year around. However, like I said, electricity at least right now isn't the biggest problem it is gas and diesel.
I've thought about buying a Zap truck or car that is all electric but when I actually looked closer at this type of vehicle it is more suited to a business or company than most private individuals. Also, the problem I have with most electric vehicles is that I don't trust their electrical corona shielding. In other words, because of my father dying from electrical coronas from working around coronas from high voltage generation of power I'm very suspicious of even something like Prius, even though my God Daughter drives one and my cousin's wife drives a Lexus hybrid as well. When I've told my cousin and his wife about my concerns their response is, "Well. How long do we expect to live anyway? And for now at least we are burning less fossil fuels and keeping down the price of gas for our kids." In one way that is very noble of them.
So, I guess what I'm saying here is energy conservation is an individual effort. Only by each person trying to save both themselves money and trying to reduce fossil fuel consumption in order to keep prices as low as possible for everyone do we all economically survive here in the U.S.
In the meantime all of our individual plans need to be directed away from fossil fuels(gas and diesel) towards something both individually as well as collectively sustainable. (Gas and diesel prices inevitably will continue to rise in fits and spurts until they are priced right out of the market completely. And this actually is a good thing because it will allow us to convert to electrical vehicles (hopefully with internal lead shielding to prevent cancer of the occupants from coronas caused by large generators and large electrical motors). The nice thing about electricity is that it can be generated by solar, wind, natural gas, rivers, lakes, streams, geothermal, waves, or gas or diesel and maybe a few other things. So, because of this people are slowly moving towards all electric or almost all electric vehicles on air, land and sea as a result. This is inevitable unless some other form of useful engine is devised. So, each of our individual plans will aid the whole world to a much more economical and survivable energy future.
Rather than waiting for the government to solve your energy problems (if they ever will), maybe it's time to solve your own energy problems. Maybe everyone cannot do this right now but if enough of us individually take responsibility it sets an example for all others and gets them to start thinking in this direction as well.
First of all, where I live in California, for now, electricity isn't the biggest problem. Gas and diesel prices are the biggest single problem(gas was $4.25 a gallon last time I bought it) because utility companies primarily use natural gas to heat water to make steam to generate electricity. Since natural gas prices are low and might even stay low electricity (at least for now isn't the problem like it was around 2000 when our state got into financial trouble paying state citizens utility bills when they became ridiculous for a while.
For now, that problem has gone away(at least for now).
So right now the biggest problem is gas and diesel. There are a few ways to handle this problem for those who have enough money to do it. For example, my god Daughter's boyfriend and she bought his parents Prius which gets between 40 to 70 miles per gallon and then they kept her car which is also a high mileage car so they have two cars for work.
But I'm thinking about people who can afford to set up new systems like myself. For example, I've toyed with the idea of going off the grid by buying a fuel cell electrical generation system like Google uses in Silicon Valley because putting solar cells on my roof isn't cost effective because living so near the coast there is a lot of clouds off the ocean and fog, especially during the summers here(Mark Twain: The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco). So, even though I might like solar cells on my roof it just isn't practical enough year around. However, like I said, electricity at least right now isn't the biggest problem it is gas and diesel.
I've thought about buying a Zap truck or car that is all electric but when I actually looked closer at this type of vehicle it is more suited to a business or company than most private individuals. Also, the problem I have with most electric vehicles is that I don't trust their electrical corona shielding. In other words, because of my father dying from electrical coronas from working around coronas from high voltage generation of power I'm very suspicious of even something like Prius, even though my God Daughter drives one and my cousin's wife drives a Lexus hybrid as well. When I've told my cousin and his wife about my concerns their response is, "Well. How long do we expect to live anyway? And for now at least we are burning less fossil fuels and keeping down the price of gas for our kids." In one way that is very noble of them.
So, I guess what I'm saying here is energy conservation is an individual effort. Only by each person trying to save both themselves money and trying to reduce fossil fuel consumption in order to keep prices as low as possible for everyone do we all economically survive here in the U.S.
In the meantime all of our individual plans need to be directed away from fossil fuels(gas and diesel) towards something both individually as well as collectively sustainable. (Gas and diesel prices inevitably will continue to rise in fits and spurts until they are priced right out of the market completely. And this actually is a good thing because it will allow us to convert to electrical vehicles (hopefully with internal lead shielding to prevent cancer of the occupants from coronas caused by large generators and large electrical motors). The nice thing about electricity is that it can be generated by solar, wind, natural gas, rivers, lakes, streams, geothermal, waves, or gas or diesel and maybe a few other things. So, because of this people are slowly moving towards all electric or almost all electric vehicles on air, land and sea as a result. This is inevitable unless some other form of useful engine is devised. So, each of our individual plans will aid the whole world to a much more economical and survivable energy future.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Dog Survives 21 Days at sea alone off North Eastern Japan
On NBC News with Brian Williams tonight April 1st, 2011, a dog was found on top of floating roof and other debris from the tsunami for 21 days. How he survived that long no one knows. But he was rescued today alive and relatively well but very glad to see anything familiar that lives on land.
$5 to $7 a gallon this summer for gas?
If you are like me, you are looking at the the price at the gas pump (looked this week in California and it was $4.25) and it sort of took my breath away. But wait, yesterday, this week was March? And we aren't even into May yet? And sometimes gas cost about $1 more during the summer or more? And what does that mean? $5.25 or higher? So, given what is happening in Bahrain, and Yemen (right next to Saudi Arabia) and we get minimum $5 dollars a gallon to $7 a gallon (or more) this summer. And what does that do to everyone on earth including here in the U.S. and California where many of us live?
Let there be Incandescent light bulbs
Let There Be Light Bulbs
If you are young and ecological (I used to be young and ecological too) you might not see what all the fuss is about. Well, the fuss is that if you are over 40 years of age and don't want to go blind while reading with fluorescent lights or want to be made ill being forced to live around them, you wouldn't get the resistence to being forced to use all fluorescents. For example, most of the regular lighting bulbs in my house are now fluorescent. Unless I'm reading a book I think fluorescents are okay to save money even though I don't like them at all. I remember working as a computer programmer computer operator in 1968 and back then there were no windows because all computers cost millions of dollars back then. (Even though you probably have more computing power in your electronic calculator or laptop than we did with all those millions of dollars in computing power then). However, they only had fluorescent lighting and no windows to the outside at all (because they didn't want the windows broken and the computers stolen). We also had electrical coronas from the types of higher power usage computers than now. And because I was working 7 days a week at age 20 from midnight to noon, I eventually got sick. To this day I hate the long fluorescent lights of 4 to 8 feet long from those memories. In studies done with plants often they will get ill or even die if they only have fluorescent lighting. People are also adversely affected health wise from fluorescent lighting and tend to get sick and depressed more if they are exposed to constant fluorescent lighting. Likely there are higher rates of suicide as well when living with only fluorescent lighting.
So, for example, I open all the shutters to the windows facing my large back yard to bring in the daylight during the day and turn off all fluorescent lights because like plants people need the daylight to stay healthy because that is what we were designed for. We were not designed to live in fluorescent lighting. Nothing living is made happy by fluorescent lighting.
So, why should we be forced to buy ALL fluorescent lighting if all it does is take away our eyesight and make us ill?
It should be a matter of choice and not of being forced to do this. Otherwise it is only government enforced illness and blindness.
If you are young and ecological (I used to be young and ecological too) you might not see what all the fuss is about. Well, the fuss is that if you are over 40 years of age and don't want to go blind while reading with fluorescent lights or want to be made ill being forced to live around them, you wouldn't get the resistence to being forced to use all fluorescents. For example, most of the regular lighting bulbs in my house are now fluorescent. Unless I'm reading a book I think fluorescents are okay to save money even though I don't like them at all. I remember working as a computer programmer computer operator in 1968 and back then there were no windows because all computers cost millions of dollars back then. (Even though you probably have more computing power in your electronic calculator or laptop than we did with all those millions of dollars in computing power then). However, they only had fluorescent lighting and no windows to the outside at all (because they didn't want the windows broken and the computers stolen). We also had electrical coronas from the types of higher power usage computers than now. And because I was working 7 days a week at age 20 from midnight to noon, I eventually got sick. To this day I hate the long fluorescent lights of 4 to 8 feet long from those memories. In studies done with plants often they will get ill or even die if they only have fluorescent lighting. People are also adversely affected health wise from fluorescent lighting and tend to get sick and depressed more if they are exposed to constant fluorescent lighting. Likely there are higher rates of suicide as well when living with only fluorescent lighting.
So, for example, I open all the shutters to the windows facing my large back yard to bring in the daylight during the day and turn off all fluorescent lights because like plants people need the daylight to stay healthy because that is what we were designed for. We were not designed to live in fluorescent lighting. Nothing living is made happy by fluorescent lighting.
So, why should we be forced to buy ALL fluorescent lighting if all it does is take away our eyesight and make us ill?
It should be a matter of choice and not of being forced to do this. Otherwise it is only government enforced illness and blindness.
U.S. energy consumption
Governments and private citizens of the world are trying to move toward renewables to reduce oil costs which will destroy most countries economically if they stay with oil. Here is the present breakdown of U.S. Energy consumption:
37% oil
25% gas
21% coal
9% nuclear
8% renewables
And here is a breakdown of the present (8%) renewables
35%hydropower(water powered generation of electricity)
24%wood
20%biofuels
9%wind
6%biomass waste
5%geothermal
1%solar
So, as you can see from these charts we still have a long long way to go to get to even 50% renewables.
Source 10am pdt CNN TV CNN Newsroom April 1st 2011.
37% oil
25% gas
21% coal
9% nuclear
8% renewables
And here is a breakdown of the present (8%) renewables
35%hydropower(water powered generation of electricity)
24%wood
20%biofuels
9%wind
6%biomass waste
5%geothermal
1%solar
So, as you can see from these charts we still have a long long way to go to get to even 50% renewables.
Source 10am pdt CNN TV CNN Newsroom April 1st 2011.
Birth rates for Women in the U.S.
This is an interesting change and probably has more to do with wealth and time available to women after 40 as well as increasing good health longer and longer into life. Also, statistically it is also found that the longer one puts off childbirth the longer those people tend to live. So, as this becomes more well known people put off having children longer and longer.
The birth rate has increased for women 40 and above by 6%
However, it has decreased for women even more ages 20 to 24 by 9%
This last statistic I think has more to do with the difficulty of men and women this age getting jobs or getting financially supported if they aren't in college during these ages. And without a college degree it is extremely difficult to make enough money to feed and clothe and properly educate your children. So I think this statistic reflects these facts.
The birth rate has increased for women 40 and above by 6%
However, it has decreased for women even more ages 20 to 24 by 9%
This last statistic I think has more to do with the difficulty of men and women this age getting jobs or getting financially supported if they aren't in college during these ages. And without a college degree it is extremely difficult to make enough money to feed and clothe and properly educate your children. So I think this statistic reflects these facts.
The Real Costs of a Meltdown
There was a 1982 Study conducted by the U.S. Government regarding the actual costs in deaths and then 1982 dollars of a meltdown of a single reactor. These are quotes from CNN TV 10 am PDT broadcast of CNN Newsroom on April 1st, 2011. The Source quoted by CNN is: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commision.
First of all from a single reactor meltdown it was found that there would be 50,000 deaths and the cost then in 1982 dollars would be around $720 Billion dollars. The government capped the liability of Power plant operators as $12.6 Billion which is now and adjusted for inflation and American Taxpayers would pay everything else.
So in real terms it means that the American Taxpayers would get stuck with 50,000 dead, countless maimed and dying over the years and also stuck with 707.4 Billion dollar bill to pay themselves out of their own pockets. And this is just what one reactor melting down would cost.
There are newer studies which show that the 707.4 Billion dollars paid by taxpayers out of there own pocket is still valid today. And no homeowner insurance in the U.S. covers a meltdown by law. So, if your home is gone or too radiated to live in who pays for it?
First of all from a single reactor meltdown it was found that there would be 50,000 deaths and the cost then in 1982 dollars would be around $720 Billion dollars. The government capped the liability of Power plant operators as $12.6 Billion which is now and adjusted for inflation and American Taxpayers would pay everything else.
So in real terms it means that the American Taxpayers would get stuck with 50,000 dead, countless maimed and dying over the years and also stuck with 707.4 Billion dollar bill to pay themselves out of their own pockets. And this is just what one reactor melting down would cost.
There are newer studies which show that the 707.4 Billion dollars paid by taxpayers out of there own pocket is still valid today. And no homeowner insurance in the U.S. covers a meltdown by law. So, if your home is gone or too radiated to live in who pays for it?
All Radiation is not the same
Defining Half lives of radioactive isotopes
Cancer rates from 1950 to 2000: To see the radiati...
So, when officials of ANY country tell you that exposure rates are low, this is very misleading.
So, how can you protect yourselves?
If you are logical you would look in this way: First of all, what radiation could kill you and your family in the short run and then in the long run?
Some of the choices a person might make is: One: Don't live within 50 to 100 miles of any nuclear power plant or military facility that has or stores nuclear weapons, nuclear waste or that has any nuclear reactors. This protects a person and his or her family from possible problems in the future. Because almost all nuclear facilities aren't really as safe as anyone says. They might be as safe as everyone says but then how many Homer Simpsons are in any nuclear weapons crews or work at nuclear power plants in the first place? It only takes one.
Two: Though governments might say the radiation is low that is meaningful but not in the way you might think. First of all if radiation is growing at all where you live that is a keyword to say that the radiation in milk, meat, fish, poultry is going to increase your chances of cancer both now and in the future if you consume any of it. Because, you only need one particle that has a long enough half life to damage your body or the bodies of your children through their lungs or stomachs and into their systems. For example, no matter how manageable radiation levels are, if they are still increasing, one particle of radioactive iodine that you breathe in might give you cancer even though the half life is 8 days. One particle of Radioactive Cesium from a fish you ate might eventually give you cancer now or in the future. And the worst: one particle of radioactive plutonium from reactor number 3 will give whatever organisms death if it is in their bodies or lungs during the next 25,000 to 100,000 years. (the half life of plutonium 239 is 24,100 years).
Three: So, when government officials of any country say the radiation levels are low but we are finding it in our milk. That is a code word for "Stop Drinking milk and using milk products" because radiation levels might be low but one particle condensed through milk or meat might give you or your children cancer in the next 10 years more or less. So, if you are a wise logical person you will see this.
So, when they say, 'There are now higher levels of radiation in milk than normal' that is code to all intelligent people worldwide to stop or reduce milk and milk products. What this also means is that if it is in the milk, it is also in the meat as well. So, radiation is condensing in all the meats and fish and poultry that you are eating.
So, you might say, "Do I need to stop eating everything?" If you stop eating everything you might weaken yourself and become emotionally or physically unbalanced and be unable to function at all. So my advice would be to go "Vegan" vegetarian until the Fukushima power plant is encased in Cement for 10 days to 6 weeks. And that might be 3 to 6 months or more from now. If you don't do this you will probably still live through it. Going Vegan simply increases the chance that you will not get cancer from this incident worldwide until Fukushima is completely encased in cement for about 6 weeks time.
By going "Vegan" you stay strong and reduce your exposure to radiation as much as possible. "Is it possible to get cancer from some radiation even if you go Vegan?" I would say, "Yes" it is still possible. But what we are trying to do here is to reduce exposure to harmful radiation inside your body. Unless you wear a face mask that filters your air every day you can't completely protect your lungs. But you can reduce the amount of radiation that goes into your body during these times by going vegan and organic if possible.
Note: Wearing a face mask all the time likely would be counterproductive unless you are in Japan because it reduces the flow of new oxygen into your lungs. And especially children will panic if you force them to wear a face mask. So, I don't think a face mask is very useful for long periods unless you are in Japan in certain areas or if you are notified of higher than normal radiation or if your personal Geiger counter radiation detector is showing high levels and your are outside walking around.
Cancer rates from 1950 to 2000: To see the radiati...
So, when officials of ANY country tell you that exposure rates are low, this is very misleading.
So, how can you protect yourselves?
If you are logical you would look in this way: First of all, what radiation could kill you and your family in the short run and then in the long run?
Some of the choices a person might make is: One: Don't live within 50 to 100 miles of any nuclear power plant or military facility that has or stores nuclear weapons, nuclear waste or that has any nuclear reactors. This protects a person and his or her family from possible problems in the future. Because almost all nuclear facilities aren't really as safe as anyone says. They might be as safe as everyone says but then how many Homer Simpsons are in any nuclear weapons crews or work at nuclear power plants in the first place? It only takes one.
Two: Though governments might say the radiation is low that is meaningful but not in the way you might think. First of all if radiation is growing at all where you live that is a keyword to say that the radiation in milk, meat, fish, poultry is going to increase your chances of cancer both now and in the future if you consume any of it. Because, you only need one particle that has a long enough half life to damage your body or the bodies of your children through their lungs or stomachs and into their systems. For example, no matter how manageable radiation levels are, if they are still increasing, one particle of radioactive iodine that you breathe in might give you cancer even though the half life is 8 days. One particle of Radioactive Cesium from a fish you ate might eventually give you cancer now or in the future. And the worst: one particle of radioactive plutonium from reactor number 3 will give whatever organisms death if it is in their bodies or lungs during the next 25,000 to 100,000 years. (the half life of plutonium 239 is 24,100 years).
Three: So, when government officials of any country say the radiation levels are low but we are finding it in our milk. That is a code word for "Stop Drinking milk and using milk products" because radiation levels might be low but one particle condensed through milk or meat might give you or your children cancer in the next 10 years more or less. So, if you are a wise logical person you will see this.
So, when they say, 'There are now higher levels of radiation in milk than normal' that is code to all intelligent people worldwide to stop or reduce milk and milk products. What this also means is that if it is in the milk, it is also in the meat as well. So, radiation is condensing in all the meats and fish and poultry that you are eating.
So, you might say, "Do I need to stop eating everything?" If you stop eating everything you might weaken yourself and become emotionally or physically unbalanced and be unable to function at all. So my advice would be to go "Vegan" vegetarian until the Fukushima power plant is encased in Cement for 10 days to 6 weeks. And that might be 3 to 6 months or more from now. If you don't do this you will probably still live through it. Going Vegan simply increases the chance that you will not get cancer from this incident worldwide until Fukushima is completely encased in cement for about 6 weeks time.
By going "Vegan" you stay strong and reduce your exposure to radiation as much as possible. "Is it possible to get cancer from some radiation even if you go Vegan?" I would say, "Yes" it is still possible. But what we are trying to do here is to reduce exposure to harmful radiation inside your body. Unless you wear a face mask that filters your air every day you can't completely protect your lungs. But you can reduce the amount of radiation that goes into your body during these times by going vegan and organic if possible.
Note: Wearing a face mask all the time likely would be counterproductive unless you are in Japan because it reduces the flow of new oxygen into your lungs. And especially children will panic if you force them to wear a face mask. So, I don't think a face mask is very useful for long periods unless you are in Japan in certain areas or if you are notified of higher than normal radiation or if your personal Geiger counter radiation detector is showing high levels and your are outside walking around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)