Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

There is no evidence to support this.
The state records of Japan show the opposite; the government was very
opposed to surrender.
There were *some* Japanese officials who wanted to end the war (just
like in *any* government of the time [and the present, too]), but
that's not "the Japanese."

The Japanese government wasn't so sure about that.
I'm not guessing here; the documents exist. The Japanese documents.

Exactly; the Bomb convinced the Japanese government that they could
not win.
Until the Bombs were dropped, the government of Japan had no such
conviction.

 

No way we can know.

Ed

 

Have you thought this through? The Chinese use some fairly brutal
methods of birth control and they have had limited success.

Just think of what that world would be like. Who provides, who
divides, who's the king?

Use the resources to expand our civilization into the rest of the
universe. The 16th century Europeans faced a similarly discouraging
trip into a forbidding wilderness, yet it brought the greatest bounty
civilization has ever seen.

 

This is the argument that has always been presented by the politicians
who made the decision and most of the people who write the history
books. I am not at all sure it is true. Of course there is no way to
what would have happened the atom bombs have not been used, or used in a
demonstration on an uninhabited island. No doubt the destruction at
Nagasaki and Hiroshima was spectacular, but it was not greater than the
damage inflicted on Tokyo or other Japanese cities by conventional air
raids and incendiary raids.

Suppose the Japanese had called our bluff and not surrendered after
Nagasaki? We didn't have another bomb readily available. And if we did,
do you think Truman was prepared to obliterate all of Japan?

As I see it, the important thing was a clear admission of defeat by the
Japanese Emperor. Now maybe the dropping of the atom bombs was the
overwhelming event that he required in order to surrender with a clear
conscious. I personally don't think this was the case, but I wasn't
there at the time and the historical record is debatable. We (being
American) tend to give credence to the evidence that supports the
position that the dropping of the bombs was necessary to save lives.
This may actually be the case, but I think it would be wise to consider
the possibility that other less far reaching decisions would have
achieved the same results.

Personally I am glad the war ended when it did. My Father was stationed
on a picket destroyer that would have been involved in the invasion.

Ed

 

I'm game. Warm up the warp drive.

I suspect the Incas, Myans, Cherokees, etc., might not be as
appreciative of the expansion of Western Civilization as you are. Also,
despite the people who left Europe to come to America, I don't think the
population of Europe decreased as a result.

Ed

 

See the 'The rising Sun" by John Toland(sp?) he goes over the attempt
to overthrow the emperor and fight on.

How do you do this when you have *TWO* bombs if doesn't work?

Exactly, conventional bombing by hundreds of B29s had the same effect.
The idea was to make it appear as if B29s would be droping atom bombs
by the 100s.

If any of German Uranium oxide made it through, San francesco would have
been hit by a dirty bomb.

I've been over this subject many times and have read articles saying
the bombs did not have to be dropped. But using the information those
authors use, it still comes out on the side of using the Abomb. Generally
all one needs to do is add up the estimations of japanese dead. Even
low invasion predictions are higher than the high A-bomb estimates.

 

California says dfferent. Quite often.
The distributiion grid in most cities simply can't handle the added
load of charging electric cars without some sort of system to
distribute the load differently than just turning on when the driver
gets home and plugs in.
Whether this is done with a box in the home, or a system in the car,
it's an added cost. And it's not being discussed to the consumer that
I can see.

Hardly. Nuclear is a viable solution, except that it pisses the
tree-huggers off.

That was part of my point. Gas will work fine for some time yet. As
well, there is no technology to replace it in the near (10+ years) in
any case.

Phoenix is going ahead with a grade-level light rail system.
There have bene estimates (by the proponents) that no more than 2% of
*ALL* the city's drivers will use it, and they so far have not
addressed the fact that grade level rail will further tie up traffic
at intersections.
Ah, well, it's bound to make some people rich.

They don't work well in the tunnel between LA and Hawaii.

Haven't forgotten it at all. I've been saying for years that hybrids
should be driven by diesels. Much more efficient than gas engines for
that use.

It's more than accelleration; the diesel just isn't sexy enough.
Hybrids could be advertised as actual economy cars, and the diesel
would fit that niche quite nicely, except for their image.
Advertising would be key here, since commuting cars just don't need
the accelleration today's hybrids offer.

Unfortunately, they won't be paying less for those solutions.
Busses, light rail and subways (except for those already in place)
will be very expensive. Only buses will use the infrastructure already
in place, and they are very slow, unless expresses are used.
Light rail/subways will have to be either built or expanded, a very
expensive proposition.

In many places, and for many people, the walk just isn't a viable
alternative.
Many cities in the SW and west are just too hot for many months for
walking more than a few blocks.

Some do those things now.
Unfortunately, moving closer to the workplace tends to lead to crowded
conditions which many hate.
Or, we *could* use the island system, with workplaces and housing
forming their own small integrated communities, but that doesn't seem
to be something that is done much here, even though the impetus for it
exists.
You're certainly right in much you say, but the solution will be more
of a shift in the way people do things, rather than a major shift in
just technology.
Liek I said, the solution will be very expensive.

 

For a bottle system to work, the fire needs to be very localized.
Gas tends to spread quickly; I've not seen a bottle system in use that
actually does more than offer a sense of "at least there's a system on
board", as opposed to actually controlling a gas fire after a wreck.

 

I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
cities as the ocean rises.
[/QUOTE]

Interestingly, 2 of the companies that are the biggest producers of fossil
fuels -- BP and Shell -- agree global warming is occurring and that action
needs to be taken on it now, not later.

 

And your data is where?

No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current warming.

 

That would be interesting. Like how many Republicans have family members
who've had abortions, or are gay.

 

Very few say global warming isn't happening.
Very weak attempt at a strawman there, Lloyd.

 

In 1963 the Thames and the Rhine froze over. These were exceptional events.
Did we have a mini Ice Age then?

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
[......]
[.....]

..............

 

Unfortunately my memory is patchy about WHO (not the UN WHO...) made the
claims, but I seem to remember scare stories in my student days (the
seventies) about global cooling, some emanating from quite respectable
sources.

I just had a quick look at the Club of Rome website archive, but it doesn't
seem to have been them.

DAS

 

Nuclear power is not the answer, unfortunately. In Britain in the
fifties/sixties it was promoted as the ultimate source of cheap power, but
we have had nothing of the sort; it was just a chimera. The company that
was left with the nuclear power stations after privatisation needs large
state subsidies just to keep going. And we can't close it down because we
don't what to do with the nuclear materials. All European countries (except
maybe France) have put nuclear power on hold or have decided against it.

Not only can accidents happen in the west (Three Mile Island, among others),
there are huge issues of waste disposal. AFAIK, no waste from UK nuclear
reactors has been permanently stored anywhere. And when does nuclear
material with a half-life of centuries finally degrade into harmless
components?

I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first opponents of
wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame them?), but
nuclear power is not, either.

DAS

 

How big a wind farm do we need to power Manhattan? And San Francisco...and
Atlanta...and Paris...and London..?

DAS

 

Me. I can blame them. Wind power is presently *the* best, cleanest answer
by far. The specious "bird cuisinart" claims are weak at best and serve
only to fuel supposition that forced austerity is the goal, rather than
the stated goal of reducing pollution and consumption of nonrenewable
fuels.

DS

 

Speaking as a conservative, I think that investing in energy efficiency
is a good thing in and of itself, and has its own merit. What I don't
support is government mandates that stress the economy by setting
impossible goals for a given technology state, use of excessive amounts
of tax dollars, and the scare tactic of claiming that coastal cities are
going to flood- because its far from proven that they are. I also
disapprove of liberals broad-brushing conservatives as being opposed to
everything that is environmentally sound- we aren't. We're just opposed
to environmental placebos like electric cars and solar cell farms- which
make good press but (so far) will cause more environmental harm than
good in the long run. Examples of things that aren't a waste of money
and effort? Hybrid cars, wind power, geothermal power, combined-cycle
solar power (capturing solar heat to drive turbines), co-generation
facilities.... quite a big list, actually.