Why all the failures to natural disasters?

it

he

it

We would be lucky with 8.1. Recorded history did not survive the last big one in LA.

In the Ring of Fire, (which include LA and SF):

1. Chile 1960 05 22 9.5
2. Prince William Sound, Alaska 1964 03 28 9.2
3. Off the West Coast of Northern Sumatra 2004 12 26 9.1
4. Near the East Coast of Honshu, Japan 2011 03 11 9.0
5. Kamchatka 1952 11 04 9.0
6. Offshore Maule, Chile 2010 02 27 8.8
7. Off the Coast of Ecuador 1906 01 31 8.8
8. Rat Islands, Alaska 1965 02 04 8.7
9. Northern Sumatra, Indonesia 2005 03 28 8.6
10. Assam - Tibet 1950 08 15 8.6
11. Andreanof Islands, Alaska 1957 03 09 8.6
12. Southern Sumatra, Indonesia 2007 09 12 8.5
13. Banda Sea, Indonesia 1938 02 01 8.5
14. Kamchatka 1923 02 03 8.5
15. Chile-Argentina Border 1922 11 11 8.5
16. Kuril Islands 1963 10 13 8.5

Too much government.

Too much government.

Too much government.

Too much government.

Too much government AND too many people dependent on it.

We're on a downward spiral, but if the Tea Party and other sane people can get the Communists out of the Capital, we might have a prayer.

Thanks, Rich

Can I clear a few acres for veggies and set traps for edible critters?

Thanks, Rich

Or, we could reprocess them into new fuel, if we hadn't handed the asylum keys over to the psychotics.

Thanks, Rich

GlamGlam is just another nym for AlwaysWrong.

Thanks, Rich

A 3G LIM up the side of Everest or K-2 would be a start. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

That ship has sailed many years ago. The problem is the bureaucrats and NIMBYs - the "terrorists" can just buy bombs from Russia or China.

Hope This Helps! Rich

Or maybe use the existing one in New Mexico:

Cheers! Rich

You could just lay it there in a pile, put up a chain-link fence, and put signs on the fence that say in Strine and Aborigine, "If you go over this fence YOU WILL DIE!!!!! .

Cheers! Rich

every

So you're saying that it's intentional? Black helicopters keeping you awake at night?

Typical leftist.

In fact it was not just predicted over 85 years ago (C.J. Fox in

"Calculation shows that doubling or tripling the amount of Co2 into the atmoshphere increases the average surface temperature by about 4° and 7°K respectivly..." -- E.O. Hulburt "The Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere of the Earth," Physical Review, vol. 38, Issue 10, pp. 1876-1890

"The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature." -- S.G. Callendar, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 64:223 (1938)

"As the air gets warmer, sea water will get warmer too, and CO2 dissolved in it will return to the atmosphere. More water will evaporate from the warm ocean, and this will increase the greenhouse effect of the CO2. Each effect will reinforce the other, possibly raising the temperature enough to melt the icecaps of Antarctica and Greenland, which would flood the earth's coastal lands." -- Suess and Revelle, _Time_ Magazine "One Big Greenhouse." (May 28, 1956)

"Arctic may become navigatable due to increased atmospheric CO2." Testimony of Commander Roger Revelle, U.S. Congress, House 84 H1526-5, Committee on Appropriations, Hearings on Second Supplemental Appropriation Bill (1956), pp. 474, 473.

Death

ces.

in every

rbed for

d the

. Ask

awake

They knew about the leaks for days. You don't think they could have pump it out instead of "leaking" into the ocean?

Meanwhile, Obama has been said to put a stop to the Yucca Mountain waste site project. I think that was a political decision to gain votes from Nevada residents. Maybe O's advisors said that would cause little loss of votes from those living near plants that would have to keep on storing spent fuel rods on-site for whatever more years...

One thing I have heard of is some requirement that nuclear waste must be retrievable and monitorable. I think that requirement is an artificial obstacle by anti-nukers, since that blocks dumping nuclear waste someplace where it is gone for good. That blocks vitrifying it and then dumping it into salt domes depleted of their oil, followed by plugging a mile or 2 of borehole with concrete. That would block dumping it into the sun, where not even a billion devoted ingenious terrorists can grab it.

I would propose that the Feds allow a state having a nuclear waste disposal site to be allowed to have some degree of a tax on waste from other states, on basis of REMs or Roengens of radiation expected to be produced by radioactive decay events in the waste over the next 1,000 years. Let that tax be high enough to get a few other states in a good mood to allow nuclear waste disposal sites within their borders.

How about getting states into a bidding war for price to put out a welcome mat for out-of-state nuclear waste? A lot of them need money, with 10% or whatever annual rate of inflation in health insurance premiums by their state and local government employees including public school teachers!

every

for

Pumped it where, exactly?

y, Death

places.

kms in every

sturbed for

eard the

it. Ask

awake

Holding tanks. Tankers delivering the original flesh water. But these are expensive options, and they knew it.

OK, drill the hole 1.5 or 2 km deep. That's been done before. Problem solved!

That is for solutions for removing waste from pollution issues and terrorist accessibility issues.

I have seen the obstacle - an artificial one probably by anti-nukers, requirement of the waste in question to be monitorable and retrievable.

There are available freight-train-transportable containers that are designed to survive even horrific train wrecks. Price and lead time appear to me likely to be high, but they are available.

Otherwise, transport by trucks surrounded by a dozen or two police cars, and if USAF or something similar overhead or surrounding is needed for sufficient security, that's merely a bill to pay.

Suppose some rogue nation or terrorist group achieves a nuclear bomb, and can get it into France.

Would they blow up one of France's many nuclear power plants, or detonate it in "center city" Paris or wherever destroys maximum number of the hospitals in Paris at 9:15 AM on a weekday?

I think that if a rogue nation or a terrorist group gets "The Bomb" and limited to a very small number of them, they will put a lot more than a few man-minutes of thought into putting once of these where it will do the most harm. I seem to think with a mere .1 man-hour of thinking here, nuking a nuclear power plant won't cause nearly as much harm as nuking the "downtown area" of a major city, or a near-major-highway urban stadium hosting a major sporting event.

Furthermore, I think that nuclear reactor sites become less attractive to terrorists once off-site storage or usage of their waste becomes available.