- Home
- Communities
- Tools
- Resources
Stop the global warming
Discussion Categories: Environment, Well Being
Track this discussion.
This is a popular to do! Only the last 20 comments are currently displayed. Click to view all of the comments in this to do.
cypher, there is a problem with your plan. global warming cannot be stopped without the average joe changing his lifestyle. we must understand that society as we know it is not sustainable. if we refuse to change, the world will change it for us.
I realize that. I don't personally refuse to change, but then again, I don't consider myself the "Average Joe". From what I've observed, people are willing to recognize the environmental impact of our ways, but are always looking to offload the responsibility to somebody else.
The average joe solution for global warming is to trade in their gas guzzling auto for a hybrid or electric car. While it can be debated whether or not this actually helps in the long run, it is merely shifting the responsibility away from the consumer. So instead of directly being responsible for the emissions given off by their car (which is miniscule in comparisson with that of industy), they shift the responsibility to the power company. When somebody asks them to do their part, they claim, "I am! I bought a hybrid car!"
Meanwhile the energy savings of using the hybrid or electric car probably arent really all that much considering that a huge percentage of north american electricity is generated from gas or coal. It could be argued that you're consuming more energy (and producing more emissions/environmental impact) because of the inefficiencies in producing the electricity and *storing* it in the massive battery banks of your car (which also don't last forever and are probably quite difficult to handle environmentally, requiring even more energy to be spent to either recycle them or process them in to a state that can be safely disposed of).
So while people recognize the need to change, they really don't. Instead of spending more money on a highly impractical electric or hybrid vehicle (how does heating work? electric heting?), people need to simply drive less. Instead of driving to work by yourself every day in your car, why not take a bus, car-pool, or ride your bike?
Simmilarily focus needs to be centered around industry. In this day and age coal and gas fired generating stations are unacceptable (imho). Nuclear power is by far a superior source of electricity, which does have issues, but dealt with accordingly can be very environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, the general public is scared by nuclear technology and fear Chernobyl and other simmilar nuclear catastrophes which are virtaully impossible with modern reactors.
Anyway.. that's my rant for the day.
We've learned a lot from our mistakes with regard to nuclear power.
Firstly, Chernobyl was a poorly designed reactor. They used treated water as a coolant, which has (I believe I have the term right) a positive void coefficient. What this means is that when it heats up beyond a certain temperature, bubbles can form. When a bubble forms on the threshold of the reactor and the coolant, that local area increases in temperature because there is no longer any coolant making direct contact. This increases temperature further and thus more bubbles form. Eventually this positive feedback causes the entire reactor to be covered with bubbles and thus isolated from the coolant. When this happens the reactor went out of control and the results are what we know as the Chernobyl catastrophe today. Modern designs have a coolant with a negative void coefficient which means that these bubbles won't form on the threshold. A second problem with Chernobyl was the fact that when the coolant isn't doing its job (for whatever reason), the nuclear reaction spirals out of control. In modern nuclear reactors in this event, instead of going out of control the reaction simply stops.
The second major problem with Chernobyl was the fact that the people manning it were not qualified to be running a nuclear reactor. Essentially they hired a bunch of Operating Engineers (same title as the people who operate the Boilers and Chillers at the UofM), gave them a weekend crash course in nuclear physics, and let them go.
Don't quote me on the above, I may be wrong about some of the minor details, I'm trying to recall from some documentary and articles that I've seen/read.
.....and there was no underground storage where the reactor would crash/fall into to be buried before things went out of control completely... etc-etc...
Here it comes, i gonna reveal a secret: there was an illegal experiment taking place. Certain (to my mind not that uneducated) people would receive some great government favour (etc-etc) if things went right. And the ones who did not like the idea were told to shut up (we are talking about USSR in 1986).
There are many bad guys (locals or outsiders) around, you never know...
Burlakova, E. B. (1999). Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe on Human Health. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
International Atomic Energy Agency. (1996). One Decade After Chernobyl: Summing up the Consequences of the Accident. Austria: IAEA.
Koropeckyj, I. S. (1990). Development in the Shadow: Studies in Ukrainian Economics. Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press.
Marples, D. R. (1996). Belarus: From Soviet Rule to Nuclear Catastrophe. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Medvedev, Z. A. (1990). The Legacy of Chernobyl. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company.
Medvedev, G. (1993). No Breathing Room: The Aftermath of Chernobyl. New York: Basic Books, A Division of HarperCollinsPublishers.
Medvedev, G. (1991). The Truth About Chernobyl. New York: Basic Books, A Division of HarperCollinsPublishers.
Moynagh, B. (1994). The Legacy of the Chernobyl: Its Significance for the Ukraine and the World. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 21. Retrieved February 20, 2006, from EBSCOhost database (academic Search Elite).
Park, C. C. (1989). Chernobyl: The Long Shadow. London and New York: Routledge.
Silver, L. R. (1987). Fallout from Chernobyl. Toronto: Deneau Publishers & Company Ltd.
Sol’chanyk, R. (1992). Ukraine, From Chernobyl' to Sovereignty: a collection of interviews. Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press.
I think Menvedev guy emphasazied on it the most....
...no, just a victim of a class assignment
...anyway, how about we forget about nuclea energy and build bunch of freen buildings (and plant grass on the roofs of the old ones) to save some electroenergy and save the world, lol
The new engineering building is supposed to have a green roof on certain sections. They were planning on putting up this super genetically modified grass that groes under absolutely any conditions and never needs to be watered fertilized or seeded.
Not sure if they ran out of money or not before reaching that part though. he he he
Maybe if we just got everybody on the day side of the earth to jump at precisely the same time, we could push the planet a bit farther from the sun and thus cool it down.
If we could push it far enough to add an extra day to our year then we could make the new day "Earth Day" or something.
Didn't you see those two movies, Deep Impact and Armageddon? The solution is obviously to send up a crack oil drilling team and have them dig a hole and drop a nuke to split the big asteroid open.
Alternatively, we could start building a big underground shelter for our best scientists and a lottery selection of citizens to populate.
More seriously, I've heard recently that NASA is planning missions to test the feasibility of altering the course of an asteroid with a nuclear device. If we do this far enough from the earth, only a slight change will be necessary to achieve a miss.
This is a popular to do! Only the last 20 comments are currently displayed. Click to view all of the comments in this to do.
| Stop the global warming | Sep 25, 2006, 5:11 pm |
...so after I die I could tell God that I saved the planet
...and hope that it was not against his plans
...and hope that it was not against his plans
 |
*TETYANA* Send Email View Profile Add as contact |
| Re: Stop the global warming | Oct 3, 2006, 3:28 pm |
Quote:
Step 1) Unequivocally prove that global warming is actually occuring and that it is caused by man.
Step 2) Convince the public that global warming is actually occuring and that it is caused by man.
Step 3) Formulate a plan that can be implemented without the average joe having to change their lifestyle (The majority of people won't be willing to change the way they live).
Step 4) ????
Step 5) PROFIT!
Quote:
...so after I die I could tell God that I saved the planet
...and hope that it was not against his plans
...so after I die I could tell God that I saved the planet
...and hope that it was not against his plans
Step 1) Unequivocally prove that global warming is actually occuring and that it is caused by man.
Step 2) Convince the public that global warming is actually occuring and that it is caused by man.
Step 3) Formulate a plan that can be implemented without the average joe having to change their lifestyle (The majority of people won't be willing to change the way they live).
Step 4) ????
Step 5) PROFIT!
cypher, there is a problem with your plan. global warming cannot be stopped without the average joe changing his lifestyle. we must understand that society as we know it is not sustainable. if we refuse to change, the world will change it for us.
|
asdf Add as contact |
| Re: Stop the global warming | Oct 3, 2006, 4:31 pm |
I'll jump into this one. This is all written from a human centric vision of the planet and its prupose ... that the planet is here for us humans ... which kind of leads back into the God question 
Whatever happens to the planet in the long term will be beneficial for some species and not beneficial for others. It used to be said that nuclear war would be bad for humans but great for cockroaches. If we are interested in trying to keep the environment in its current state, i.e. beneficial to humans then cypher's steps 1 and 2 are the start.
Whatever happens to the planet in the long term will be beneficial for some species and not beneficial for others. It used to be said that nuclear war would be bad for humans but great for cockroaches. If we are interested in trying to keep the environment in its current state, i.e. beneficial to humans then cypher's steps 1 and 2 are the start.
| Re: Stop the global warming | Oct 3, 2006, 4:34 pm |
Quote:
cypher, there is a problem with your plan. global warming cannot be stopped without the average joe changing his lifestyle. we must understand that society as we know it is not sustainable. if we refuse to change, the world will change it for us.
cypher, there is a problem with your plan. global warming cannot be stopped without the average joe changing his lifestyle. we must understand that society as we know it is not sustainable. if we refuse to change, the world will change it for us.
I realize that. I don't personally refuse to change, but then again, I don't consider myself the "Average Joe". From what I've observed, people are willing to recognize the environmental impact of our ways, but are always looking to offload the responsibility to somebody else.
The average joe solution for global warming is to trade in their gas guzzling auto for a hybrid or electric car. While it can be debated whether or not this actually helps in the long run, it is merely shifting the responsibility away from the consumer. So instead of directly being responsible for the emissions given off by their car (which is miniscule in comparisson with that of industy), they shift the responsibility to the power company. When somebody asks them to do their part, they claim, "I am! I bought a hybrid car!"
Meanwhile the energy savings of using the hybrid or electric car probably arent really all that much considering that a huge percentage of north american electricity is generated from gas or coal. It could be argued that you're consuming more energy (and producing more emissions/environmental impact) because of the inefficiencies in producing the electricity and *storing* it in the massive battery banks of your car (which also don't last forever and are probably quite difficult to handle environmentally, requiring even more energy to be spent to either recycle them or process them in to a state that can be safely disposed of).
So while people recognize the need to change, they really don't. Instead of spending more money on a highly impractical electric or hybrid vehicle (how does heating work? electric heting?), people need to simply drive less. Instead of driving to work by yourself every day in your car, why not take a bus, car-pool, or ride your bike?
Simmilarily focus needs to be centered around industry. In this day and age coal and gas fired generating stations are unacceptable (imho). Nuclear power is by far a superior source of electricity, which does have issues, but dealt with accordingly can be very environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, the general public is scared by nuclear technology and fear Chernobyl and other simmilar nuclear catastrophes which are virtaully impossible with modern reactors.
Anyway.. that's my rant for the day.
| Re: Stop the global warming | Oct 3, 2006, 5:09 pm |
Quote:
About Chernobyl... I had a chance to do a research paper on it last year. "Nuclear catastrophes are impossible with modern reactors" was almost exactly what was said to public by government official… even after everybody knew one of the reactors is unfixable!
Even though the problem of Chernobyl catastrophe was the whole communists' system itself, as well as irresponsibility of particular individuals, how can you KNOW something like that will not happen again, how can you TRUST somebody claiming nuclear power is safe?
You see, i'm originally from Ukraine myself, was born shortly after the Chernobyl explosion (don't have horns on my head, i swear) and i got to go to school with some kids that were effected by the radiation. The News were often showing kids my age suffering, families moving leaving everything behind... mushrooms growing almost 2 meters high… All that electro energy totally did not worth it!!!
...And one of the problems of our new super-cool environment-friendly vehicles is that their design is ugly! People do not like them (especially guys for some reason), they look funny... for a modern American citizen...
Quote:
cypher, there is a problem with your plan. global warming cannot be stopped...
...Unfortunately, the general public is scared by nuclear technology and fear Chernobyl and other simmilar nuclear catastrophes which are virtaully impossible with modern reactors.
Anyway.. that's my rant for the day.
cypher, there is a problem with your plan. global warming cannot be stopped...
...Unfortunately, the general public is scared by nuclear technology and fear Chernobyl and other simmilar nuclear catastrophes which are virtaully impossible with modern reactors.
Anyway.. that's my rant for the day.
About Chernobyl... I had a chance to do a research paper on it last year. "Nuclear catastrophes are impossible with modern reactors" was almost exactly what was said to public by government official… even after everybody knew one of the reactors is unfixable!
Even though the problem of Chernobyl catastrophe was the whole communists' system itself, as well as irresponsibility of particular individuals, how can you KNOW something like that will not happen again, how can you TRUST somebody claiming nuclear power is safe?
You see, i'm originally from Ukraine myself, was born shortly after the Chernobyl explosion (don't have horns on my head, i swear) and i got to go to school with some kids that were effected by the radiation. The News were often showing kids my age suffering, families moving leaving everything behind... mushrooms growing almost 2 meters high… All that electro energy totally did not worth it!!!
...And one of the problems of our new super-cool environment-friendly vehicles is that their design is ugly! People do not like them (especially guys for some reason), they look funny... for a modern American citizen...
|
*TETYANA* Send Email View Profile Add as contact |
| Re: Stop the global warming | Oct 3, 2006, 6:04 pm |
the problem with hyrbids, electric cars, ethanol and hydrogen is that they are not a solution to the problem. the problem is energy, and the above listed are just different ways of using the same energy, oil.
everything we do involes oil, from the clothes on our backs, to the food on your table. the books we read in class, and the light we have read by for the past thousand years or more.
as i stated before, we have to change as a society to survive, not just habits and the love of automobilia and convienient transportationwe have to learn to work WITH the earth, not against it. we have to stops skirting the big issue here.
nuclear energy is in no way an enviromentally safe means for creating energy. period. that is simply passing off the problem to our children, and their children, and all the insects that will inherit the earth. only when we find ways of breaking the laws of physics and doing away with things like half-lives will nuclear energy become an enviromentally safe option.
everything we do involes oil, from the clothes on our backs, to the food on your table. the books we read in class, and the light we have read by for the past thousand years or more.
as i stated before, we have to change as a society to survive, not just habits and the love of automobilia and convienient transportationwe have to learn to work WITH the earth, not against it. we have to stops skirting the big issue here.
nuclear energy is in no way an enviromentally safe means for creating energy. period. that is simply passing off the problem to our children, and their children, and all the insects that will inherit the earth. only when we find ways of breaking the laws of physics and doing away with things like half-lives will nuclear energy become an enviromentally safe option.
|
asdf Add as contact |
| Re: Stop the global warming | Oct 3, 2006, 9:06 pm |
Quote:
About Chernobyl... I had a chance to do a research paper on it last year. "Nuclear catastrophes are impossible with modern reactors" was almost exactly what was said to public by government official… even after everybody knew one of the reactors is unfixable!
Even though the problem of Chernobyl catastrophe was the whole communists' system itself, as well as irresponsibility of particular individuals, how can you KNOW something like that will not happen again, how can you TRUST somebody claiming nuclear power is safe?
About Chernobyl... I had a chance to do a research paper on it last year. "Nuclear catastrophes are impossible with modern reactors" was almost exactly what was said to public by government official… even after everybody knew one of the reactors is unfixable!
Even though the problem of Chernobyl catastrophe was the whole communists' system itself, as well as irresponsibility of particular individuals, how can you KNOW something like that will not happen again, how can you TRUST somebody claiming nuclear power is safe?
We've learned a lot from our mistakes with regard to nuclear power.
Firstly, Chernobyl was a poorly designed reactor. They used treated water as a coolant, which has (I believe I have the term right) a positive void coefficient. What this means is that when it heats up beyond a certain temperature, bubbles can form. When a bubble forms on the threshold of the reactor and the coolant, that local area increases in temperature because there is no longer any coolant making direct contact. This increases temperature further and thus more bubbles form. Eventually this positive feedback causes the entire reactor to be covered with bubbles and thus isolated from the coolant. When this happens the reactor went out of control and the results are what we know as the Chernobyl catastrophe today. Modern designs have a coolant with a negative void coefficient which means that these bubbles won't form on the threshold. A second problem with Chernobyl was the fact that when the coolant isn't doing its job (for whatever reason), the nuclear reaction spirals out of control. In modern nuclear reactors in this event, instead of going out of control the reaction simply stops.
The second major problem with Chernobyl was the fact that the people manning it were not qualified to be running a nuclear reactor. Essentially they hired a bunch of Operating Engineers (same title as the people who operate the Boilers and Chillers at the UofM), gave them a weekend crash course in nuclear physics, and let them go.
Don't quote me on the above, I may be wrong about some of the minor details, I'm trying to recall from some documentary and articles that I've seen/read.
| Sigh. | Oct 4, 2006, 8:13 am |
Fine then. Don't argue. Be like that. Lol.
|
Magicant View Profile Add as contact |
| Re: Stop the global warming | Oct 4, 2006, 4:03 pm |
Quote:
We've learned a lot from our mistakes with regard to nuclear power.
Firstly, ChChernobylas a poorly designed reactor. They used treated water as a coolant, which has (I believe I have the term right) a positive void coefficient. What this means is that when it heats up beyond a certain temperature, bubbles can form. When a bubble forms on the threshold of the reactor and the coolant, that local area increases in temperature because there is no longer any coolant making direct contact. This increases temperature further and thus more bubbles form. Eventually this positive feedback causes the entire reactor to be covered with bubbles and thus isolated from the coolant. When this happens the reactor went out of control and the results are what we know as the ChChernobylatastrophe today. Modern designs have a coolant with a negative void coefficient which means that these bubbles won't form on the threshold. A second problem with ChChernobylas the fact that when the coolant isn't doing its job (for whatever reason), the nuclear reaction spirals out of control. In modern nuclear reactors in this event, instead of going out of control the reaction simply stops.
The second major problem with ChChernobylas the fact that the people manning it were not qualified to be running a nuclear reactor. Essentially they hired a bunch of Operating Engineers (same title as the people who operate the Boilers and Chillers at the UoUofM gave them a weekend crash course in nuclear physics, and let them go.
Don't quote me on the above, I may be wrong about some of the minor details, I'I'mrying to recall from some documentary and articles that I'I'veeen/read.
Quote:
About Chernobyl... I had a chance to do a research paper on it last year. "Nuclear catastrophes are impossible with modern reactors" was almost exactly what was said to public by government official� even after everybody knew one of the reactors is ununfixable
Even though the problem of ChChernobylatastrophe was the whole cocommunists'ystem itself, as well as irresponsibility of particular individuals, how can you KNOW something like that will not happen again, how can you TRUST somebody claiming nuclear power is safe?
About Chernobyl... I had a chance to do a research paper on it last year. "Nuclear catastrophes are impossible with modern reactors" was almost exactly what was said to public by government official� even after everybody knew one of the reactors is ununfixable
Even though the problem of ChChernobylatastrophe was the whole cocommunists'ystem itself, as well as irresponsibility of particular individuals, how can you KNOW something like that will not happen again, how can you TRUST somebody claiming nuclear power is safe?
We've learned a lot from our mistakes with regard to nuclear power.
Firstly, ChChernobylas a poorly designed reactor. They used treated water as a coolant, which has (I believe I have the term right) a positive void coefficient. What this means is that when it heats up beyond a certain temperature, bubbles can form. When a bubble forms on the threshold of the reactor and the coolant, that local area increases in temperature because there is no longer any coolant making direct contact. This increases temperature further and thus more bubbles form. Eventually this positive feedback causes the entire reactor to be covered with bubbles and thus isolated from the coolant. When this happens the reactor went out of control and the results are what we know as the ChChernobylatastrophe today. Modern designs have a coolant with a negative void coefficient which means that these bubbles won't form on the threshold. A second problem with ChChernobylas the fact that when the coolant isn't doing its job (for whatever reason), the nuclear reaction spirals out of control. In modern nuclear reactors in this event, instead of going out of control the reaction simply stops.
The second major problem with ChChernobylas the fact that the people manning it were not qualified to be running a nuclear reactor. Essentially they hired a bunch of Operating Engineers (same title as the people who operate the Boilers and Chillers at the UoUofM gave them a weekend crash course in nuclear physics, and let them go.
Don't quote me on the above, I may be wrong about some of the minor details, I'I'mrying to recall from some documentary and articles that I'I'veeen/read.
.....and there was no underground storage where the reactor would crash/fall into to be buried before things went out of control completely... etc-etc...
Here it comes, i gonna reveal a secret: there was an illegal experiment taking place. Certain (to my mind not that uneducated) people would receive some great government favour (etc-etc) if things went right. And the ones who did not like the idea were told to shut up (we are talking about USSR in 1986).
There are many bad guys (locals or outsiders) around, you never know...
|
*TETYANA* Send Email View Profile Add as contact |
| what's your source | Oct 4, 2006, 4:40 pm |
what's your source for this secret illegal experiment?
| Re: what's your source | Oct 5, 2006, 11:41 am |
Quote:
what's your source for this secret illegal experiment?
what's your source for this secret illegal experiment?
Burlakova, E. B. (1999). Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe on Human Health. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
International Atomic Energy Agency. (1996). One Decade After Chernobyl: Summing up the Consequences of the Accident. Austria: IAEA.
Koropeckyj, I. S. (1990). Development in the Shadow: Studies in Ukrainian Economics. Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press.
Marples, D. R. (1996). Belarus: From Soviet Rule to Nuclear Catastrophe. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Medvedev, Z. A. (1990). The Legacy of Chernobyl. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company.
Medvedev, G. (1993). No Breathing Room: The Aftermath of Chernobyl. New York: Basic Books, A Division of HarperCollinsPublishers.
Medvedev, G. (1991). The Truth About Chernobyl. New York: Basic Books, A Division of HarperCollinsPublishers.
Moynagh, B. (1994). The Legacy of the Chernobyl: Its Significance for the Ukraine and the World. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 21. Retrieved February 20, 2006, from EBSCOhost database (academic Search Elite).
Park, C. C. (1989). Chernobyl: The Long Shadow. London and New York: Routledge.
Silver, L. R. (1987). Fallout from Chernobyl. Toronto: Deneau Publishers & Company Ltd.
Sol’chanyk, R. (1992). Ukraine, From Chernobyl' to Sovereignty: a collection of interviews. Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press.
I think Menvedev guy emphasazied on it the most....
|
*TETYANA* Send Email View Profile Add as contact |
| Re: what's your source | Oct 5, 2006, 3:52 pm |
Wow.. that's quite the list.. you must be an expert on the subject.
| Re: what's your source | Oct 6, 2006, 2:27 pm |
Quote:
Wow.. that's quite the list.. you must be an expert on the subject.
Wow.. that's quite the list.. you must be an expert on the subject.
...no, just a victim of a class assignment
...anyway, how about we forget about nuclea energy and build bunch of freen buildings (and plant grass on the roofs of the old ones) to save some electroenergy and save the world, lol
|
*TETYANA* Send Email View Profile Add as contact |
| Re: what's your source | Oct 6, 2006, 3:24 pm |
Quote:
and plant grass on the roofs of the old one
and plant grass on the roofs of the old one
The new engineering building is supposed to have a green roof on certain sections. They were planning on putting up this super genetically modified grass that groes under absolutely any conditions and never needs to be watered fertilized or seeded.
Not sure if they ran out of money or not before reaching that part though. he he he
Maybe if we just got everybody on the day side of the earth to jump at precisely the same time, we could push the planet a bit farther from the sun and thus cool it down.
If we could push it far enough to add an extra day to our year then we could make the new day "Earth Day" or something.
| Re: what's your source | Oct 7, 2006, 12:13 pm |
Quote:
ok, i'm with ya!
BUT only under one condition: you get all those people jump on the northern part of Manitoba to move it a bit south... an equator line would be nice... bacause of our planet will coool down, imagine what would happen to our winters here...
Quote:
.... if we just got everybody on the day side of the earth to jump at precisely the same time, we could push the planet a bit farther from the sun and thus cool it down. If we could push it far enough to add an extra day to our year then we could make the new day "Earth Day" or something.
.... if we just got everybody on the day side of the earth to jump at precisely the same time, we could push the planet a bit farther from the sun and thus cool it down. If we could push it far enough to add an extra day to our year then we could make the new day "Earth Day" or something.
ok, i'm with ya!
BUT only under one condition: you get all those people jump on the northern part of Manitoba to move it a bit south... an equator line would be nice... bacause of our planet will coool down, imagine what would happen to our winters here...
|
*TETYANA* Send Email View Profile Add as contact |
| History of OIl | Oct 11, 2006, 9:09 pm |
check out Robert Newmans, History Of Oil, for a funny and informative view on the history of oil, and the future of the earth without it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967&q=brief+history+of+oil
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967&q=brief+history+of+oil
|
asdf Add as contact |
| end of the world in 2036 | Dec 15, 2006, 9:40 pm |
I just heard on some radio news at work this week that US government is giving huge money away to the one who creats ANY idea how to stop the asteroid that will hit Earth in 2036 and (again)/or in 2038...
http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=117125
...and people knew about it for years, Nostradamus was bubbling about 2036...
may be our global warming debate is just a waste of time anyway
what do you think, people?
http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=117125
...and people knew about it for years, Nostradamus was bubbling about 2036...
may be our global warming debate is just a waste of time anyway
what do you think, people?
|
*TETYANA* Send Email View Profile Add as contact |
| Re: end of the world in 2036 | Dec 19, 2006, 9:51 am |
Quote:
I just heard on some radio news at work this week that US government is giving huge money away to the one who creats ANY idea how to stop the asteroid that will hit Earth in 2036 and (again)/or in 2038...
http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=117125
...and people knew about it for years, Nostradamus was bubbling about 2036...
may be our global warming debate is just a waste of time anyway
what do you think, people?
I just heard on some radio news at work this week that US government is giving huge money away to the one who creats ANY idea how to stop the asteroid that will hit Earth in 2036 and (again)/or in 2038...
http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=117125
...and people knew about it for years, Nostradamus was bubbling about 2036...
may be our global warming debate is just a waste of time anyway
what do you think, people?
Didn't you see those two movies, Deep Impact and Armageddon? The solution is obviously to send up a crack oil drilling team and have them dig a hole and drop a nuke to split the big asteroid open.
Alternatively, we could start building a big underground shelter for our best scientists and a lottery selection of citizens to populate.
More seriously, I've heard recently that NASA is planning missions to test the feasibility of altering the course of an asteroid with a nuclear device. If we do this far enough from the earth, only a slight change will be necessary to achieve a miss.
| we do not really know | Jul 1, 2009, 10:39 am |
The Earth is always changing, it will continue to do so. We can not stop that. We were once under glaciers here, species have gone extinct before. The Earth will survive (we may not)
Dosent it seem odd that the
Dosent it seem odd that the
|
|\/|17c|-| View Profile Add as contact |
© 2005 UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2 Canada
Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2 Canada
