648 Dead, 322 Hurt in Iraq Bridge Stampede

[Walsingham]

213374U, you raise enough points to cause me to re-examine my stance at the next opportunity.

 

However, I stand by my earlier statement for the time being. In particular i question whether we would have the adaptability you tout under the conditions of social anarchy which would accompany such a nuclear disaster. Our greatest achievements rely on complex systems functioning, and such complex systems are inherently vulnerable to disharmony among the human operators concerned. A vault, and its attendant systems, such as hydroponics and recycling, could fail as easily from a mental breakdown as a mechanical one. Just look at the damage a handful of peasants can do to an oil-refinery for illustration.

 

If either of us had hard data on this subject it would be rather stupid to go publishing it online, in any case.

 

Also, bear in mind that weapons aren't the only potential source of nuclear disaster. A reactor core meltdown can be far far worse. You may not be old enough to remember Chernobyl, but that could have been far far worse, and it was very bad.

 

~

 

I don't agree about the issue of monopolies. i am not alking about exclusive rights to whole planets, but exclusive rights to areas defined around settlements that could be used for exploitation later. Right now there is noreason for anyone to be the first people to Mars or wherever because they are obliged to help everyone else follow. Europe didn't manage to circle the globe in colonies in barely 150 years by agreeing to share nicely.

[metadigital]

What's all this sharing nonsense? Don't you get dibs on whatever bit of the solar system you grab? Like Total Recall?

 

(Wasn't Outland a great film?!)

 

(That reminds me of the astrologer who recently file suit against NASA for crashing the probe into that comet; she complained that it affected all her predictions ... )

[Calax]

would we want a postapocolyptic world like mad Max or Fallout?

[Walsingham]

Shouldn't she have predicted the probe hitting the comet? And if you can change fate by crashing probes into comets I want to know precisely how, and I want a crate or three of probes ready to launch in the next 24 hours.

[metadigital]

I hope you aren't arguing for astrology.

 

To think that an arbitrary group of stars (and in some cases whole galaxies), that aren't even within a close grouping of each other except if viewed from our neck of the woods, have some sort of effect or even correlatory existence, is just barmy.

 

I always thought the modern astrologer apologists used the non-causal, correlatory excuse. So just smashing a probe into a planetiod wouldn't affect us, but it would throw off all the observations and subsequent predictions ...

[Calax]

And I can never tell which group I should go for... somtimes I'm aries somtimes Taurus...

[Walsingham]

I hope you aren't arguing for astrology.

 

To think that an arbitrary group of stars (and in some cases whole galaxies), that aren't even within a close grouping of each other except if viewed from our neck of the woods, have some sort of effect or even correlatory existence, is just barmy.

 

I always thought the modern astrologer apologists used the non-causal, correlatory excuse. So just smashing a probe into a planetiod wouldn't affect us, but it would throw off all the observations and subsequent predictions ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think I understand. But I can say I don't believe in astrology. Well, excepting The Onion's astrologer. He is always right on the money. I was implying that this woman was kind implying a retro-phrenological standpoint - i.e. I predicted what your personality would be based on the shape of your skull, but then you got tonked on the noggin and all bets are off; also I can define your personality by tapping your bonce with tiny hammers.

[metadigital]

Well, afaik, once the logical conclusions of Newton and his pesky theory of gravity had made the astrologers think quickly, they came up with the concept that (for reasons that may remain conveniently unknown) the "stars" are able to predict what happens to large sections of our communities in some sort of synchronity (i.e. some sort of galactic large-scale version of quantum entanglement).

 

(Interestingly enough, Newton believe in astrology and alchemy. He was certainly "of his time". And a ****.)

[Walsingham]

(Interestingly enough, Newton believe in astrology and alchemy. He was certainly "of his time". And a ****.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

ROFL

[EnderAndrew]

BTW there are modern scientists who think that "Nuclear Winter" concept is a flawed theory, and that there aren't going to be massive dust clouds. We did get crystal clear satellite photos after the bombs were dropped in Japan, and there were no massive dust clouds.

[Calax]

No, but it could generate a heat sink of the coasts that causes the temp to drop even though there's sunlight.

[Drakron]

The problem is not flawed... you see we HAD a nuclear winter of sorts when Tambora exploded and since the dust blocked the sun for weeks there were drops in temperature that resulted in a uncommon cold weather that lead to failed crops.

 

The Year without a Summer

 

The longer term effects of Tambora were felt across the globe. In addition to the large quantities of ash, rocks and dust ejected by the volcano, over 200 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide gas were propelled into the stratosphere. This had the effect of limiting the amount of sunlight that reached the ground, so that temperatures, particularly across the Northern Hemisphere, began to fall dramatically4. Monsoon season was interrupted in India, possibly leading to a deadly outbreak of cholera that insinuated its way across the globe. Europe experienced widespread crop failures just as it was recovering from the effects of the Napoleonic Wars. Ireland had its first great famine. Devastating floods hit China. In North America, 1816 is remembered as 'the year without a summer', when snow fell during June and frost was still widespread during the month of July.

 

Source:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A781715

[EnderAndrew]

If there is a dust cloud blocking out the sun, we could have nuclear winter. The debate it seems is whether or not nuclear war would create such a dust cloud.

 

I'm not a physics geek, but I've read several scientists are now dismissing the dust cloud theory.

[213374U]

That mechanism is well understood and accepted. It's not clear that large amounts of thermonuclear blasts would cause that effect, though.

[Drakron]

Its expected, there was enough nuclear testing to determine the fallout effect.

 

Of course the only way to be sure would be to create one but I doubt we want to be wiped out just to prove someone wrong ...

[213374U]

Its expected, there was enough nuclear testing to determine the fallout effect.

That sounds awfully like one of those "you take my word for it" comments. I suppose you have data to back your claims?

[Drakron]

http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/nuclear_...and_fallout.htm

 

Radiation poisoning would also be a factor, remenber Chernobyl and its long reaching effects.

 

and:

 

http://www.the-spa.com/jon.roland/vri/nwaos.htm

 

And you have to take their word for it since only way to prove it would be to create a gobal fallout effect, some dispute the nuclear winter claims but then again we have people disputing evolution.

 

"Edited"

[213374U]

*snip*

 

Radiation poisoning would also be a factor, remenber Chernobyl and its long reaching effects.

 

and:

 

*snip*

None of those offer definite evidence. And you obviously don't understand how the mechanism works, as it's not the debris of the "nuclear mushroom" that would block out the sun.

 

And, at any rate, the paper compares it to the C-T event, in which only ~50% of all species became extinct. I have already debated that point, you should read the thread before replying.

 

 

And you have to take their word for it since only way to prove it would be to create a gobal fallout effect, some dispute the nuclear winter claims but then again we have people disputing evolution.

Not really. If it was so evident, it would have become clear during tests of the larger nuclear devices. It didn't really, and it's speculation at this point. The paper you linked to clearly states that it would depend on the "number, yield, and type of target", adding even more conditions to it. That without mentioning our really limited understanding of atmospherical and meteorological mechanisms on a global scale.

 

While I accept it may be a consequence of nuclear warfare, there are still too many unknowns to take it as gospel.

 

So yeah, while there are people disputing evolution, nuclear winter isn't nearly as accepted OR necessary as evolution.

[EnderAndrew]

I dispute evolution, as would Charles Darwin if he were alive. At least I dispute the way evolution is taught.

 

Charles Darwin wrote that evolution occured as a necessity to survive. If the Galapogos finches showed us anything, it's that the parent species disappeared when evolution became a necessity to survive.

 

When I took Biology, we studied the phylogenic tree, and how pond scum became human. Except most of the steps along the way are species that exist today.

 

We know for a fact that evolution occurs because we observe it. In just a few generations, we can see brand new traits occur in insects that exist a few generations prior.

 

However, again, those that do not adopt these traits often die out.

 

Pure random mutation does occur as well, so really there are two types of evolution. But the random mutation often does is not nearly as wide-sweeping.

 

Yet people credit Darwin for the concept of evolution where frogs were a step on the phylogenic tree towards the development of human beings. According to Darwin's theories, frogs would not be in the same ecosystem as humans if frogs were a step along the line towards human evolution, let alone other primates.

 

I know it takes an AWFUL long time inbetween leaps according to the theories, but given the millions of species out there, over the past few centuries, wouldn't one of those species have made a huge leap?

 

If I am to believe that tube worms suddenly became snakes, or that fish crawled out of the ocean, then why haven't we seen anything to suggest something like that occured?

[Calax]

I dispute evolution, as would Charles Darwin if he were alive.  At least I dispute the way evolution is taught.

 

Charles Darwin wrote that evolution occured as a necessity to survive.  If the Galapogos finches showed us anything, it's that the parent species disappeared when evolution became a necessity to survive.

 

When I took Biology, we studied the phylogenic tree, and how pond scum became human.  Except most of the steps along the way are species that exist today.

 

We know for a fact that evolution occurs because we observe it.  In just a few generations, we can see brand new traits occur in insects that exist a few generations prior.

 

However, again, those that do not adopt these traits often die out.

 

Pure random mutation does occur as well, so really there are two types of evolution.  But the random mutation often does is not nearly as wide-sweeping.

 

Yet people credit Darwin for the concept of evolution where frogs were a step on the phylogenic tree towards the development of human beings.  According to Darwin's theories, frogs would not be in the same ecosystem as humans if frogs were a step along the line towards human evolution, let alone other primates.

 

I know it takes an AWFUL long time inbetween leaps according to the theories, but given the millions of species out there, over the past few centuries, wouldn't one of those species have made a huge leap?

 

If I am to believe that tube worms suddenly became snakes, or that fish crawled out of the ocean, then why haven't we seen anything to suggest something like that occured?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Neanderthals dissapeared very fast afther homo sapien appeared.

[EnderAndrew]

Actually I just read last week, that there were some remains to suggest the two were living together at the same time in Europe. Let me see if I can dig up the article.

 

And even if humans shifted genotypes to homo sapien, it is still not a huge leap that the phylogenic tree suggests. We teach that all humans were originally loose acids sloshing around in primordial soup becoming the first proteins.

 

Edit:

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1450949.htm

[Hildegard]

Not really. If it was so evident, it would have become clear during tests of the larger nuclear devices. It didn't really, and it's speculation at this point. The paper you linked to clearly states that it would depend on the "number, yield, and type of target", adding even more conditions to it. That without mentioning our really limited understanding of atmospherical and meteorological mechanisms on a global scale.

 

While I accept it may be a consequence of nuclear warfare, there are still too many unknowns to take it as gospel.

 

So yeah, while there are people disputing evolution, nuclear winter isn't nearly as accepted OR necessary as evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well it all stands what you said that we don't know excatly 100% what consequences would a nuclear conflict cause, but ~5000 nuclear explosion would certainly cause global effects....would it be fatal to all man kind or not is debatable....

[EnderAndrew]

I don't doubt massive nuclear war would likely kill off the vast majority of humanity.

 

There have been major asteroids, ice ages, etc. and yet all life on the planet has not been destroyed. That is a hefty task and I think that is the contention.

[Calax]

Actually I just read last week, that there were some remains to suggest the two were living together at the same time in Europe.  Let me see if I can dig up the article.

 

And even if humans shifted genotypes to homo sapien, it is still not a huge leap that the phylogenic tree suggests.  We teach that all humans were originally loose acids sloshing around in primordial soup becoming the first proteins.

 

Edit:

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1450949.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but very quickly afterwords they flat out went buh bye. Thats the sort of thing we're studying in History right now. One of the kids brought up that we did know all the missing information: the book of Genisis.... the teacher just stared at him and went into some bs talk about why he doesn't use the Bible as a historical reference.

[EnderAndrew]

The Bible is a funny thing. On one hand, it has described lost cities which we lated discovered with incredible accuracy. We even found Noah's Ark right where the Bible said it was.

 

Yet, if you take the Bible very literally, and assume it is a DIRECT chronicle with no missing information from the first human to today, the chronicle of humanity is a mere 5,000 - 10,000 years assuming 30 year generation gaps. Then again, the Bible also lists some people living hundreds of years, but we just throw that out the window.

 

What is metaphor and what is literal?

 

People can take and choose what portions of the Bible they want to present whatever interpretation they want. In a period of one week I saw two seperate people try to prove to me that the Bible proved their views. They quoted the same verse from Matthew.

 

One said the verse proved aliens exist. The next guy said it proved the Book of Mormon.

 

In certain aspects the Bible can be a good historical reference, and a very bad historical reference. Beyond that I won't venture on this forum.