What is the need of people to label, and put people down, instead of arguing the facts/opinion?

It is a Machiavellian way of discrediting truth that hinders an agenda.

---

There's another reason that it may not be feasible to rocket nuclear waste into space. In the case of nuclear reactors from our subs that are scrapped, the reactors are encased in sealed containers and taken by barge up the Columbia to Hanford. these containers are huge and heavy (lead and concrete, I believe). It would take an extremely large rocket to get those into space. Do they need all of that to go into space? Maybe not, but for safe handling while moving to a rocket base? Probably.

I'm sure the engineers tasked with the problem will be able to find an appropriate solution that exceeds the safety standards and the cost factor will take care of itself eventually. Or screw it and come up with another solution! I don't care ;) Personally, I'm holding out for Mr. Fusion. :-D

Quoted from an article in todays local newspaper.

The report also found that rising sea levels are putting people and food supplies in vulnerable coastal regions like India, Bangladesh and the Mekong Delta in Vietnam at risk and could lead to a new wave of refugees.

I've lived an hours drive from the Oregon Coast all of my life. As a small boy we went camping at the same spot (Waxmyrtle CG) on a coastal estuary (Siltcoos River). The campground is only a couple of feet above the high tide water line. The campground is at the head of the estuary and tidewater is ~2 miles up stream from there where it is stopped by a dam.

We've been camping in the same spot now, since the late 40's, and still do at least twice each year. I can say that the sea level at that spot has not changed any perceptible amount during all that time.

Water pouring in to the seas from Antarctica and Greenland are raising sea levels in the Bay of Bengal but not in the Pacific along the Oregon Coast?

How is that possible?

---

Jack

"Where's the condom's? Who cares!"

*twitches*

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Seriously? You are comparing abortions to the systematic, industrial mass murder of Jews, gays and gypsies by one of the vilest regimes in human history. Do you have any clue how incredibly offensive that statement is? Well, what am I saying, of course you don't have a clue or else you wouldn't have made such a terrible comparison.

Who made THAT comparison?

Guy made that comparison.

No he didn't.

All he stated is that, in his opinion, Soros and Planned Parenthood have 'dirty hands'.

You made the comparison.

Guess you didn't read his post.

First, if you look at the demographics of what's happening at Planned Parenthood, and second if you look at the numbers, you'll see numbers larger than the numbers produced by Hitler's holocaust. And I mean 10X larger.

He literally compared it to the holocaust. He said it was even worse than the holocaust. Unless you are arguing that the holocaust is now a neutral unit of measurement. We go from handful, to dozen to truckloads to a holocaust. Makes sense, doesn't actually mean anything, doesn't imply anything, doesn't try to establish a link between something you think is bad to one of the worst crimes in human history.

EDIT: Oops, now I missed the post where you said you missed his post. In that case, forget what I said.

Or screw it and come up with another solution!

For now the solution is wrap it up, store it and let the future figure it out. The future is a great place to send our problems as we don't have to pay for it. Ukraine will be paying for Chernobyl and I will be paying for Three Mile Island for the next 240,000 years.

---

All the more reason to make sure accidents don't happen. I'm sure with enough practice and oversight, firing off a simple rocket shouldn't always result in exploding in the atmosphere.

You'd say the same about Space Shuttles and rockets. And how often has it gone wrong in the past few decades? It just takes one weak bolt or one electric spark to cause the thing to explode, and there are quite a few bolts and electric parts on a rocket that size.

It costs millions because they're engineering for re-use and human consumption (such as retro-rockets to slow down a craft to dock, for example). If the rockets are made for a one-way trip, a lot less engineering would be required, save for safety of explosion.

Right, because those unmanned space probes are cheap. And getting them into space is also peanuts.

All the more reason to make sure accidents don't happen. I'm sure with enough practice and oversight, firing off a simple rocket shouldn't always result in exploding in the atmosphere.

You'd say the same about Space Shuttles and rockets. And how often has it gone wrong in the past few decades? It just takes one weak bolt or one electric spark to cause the thing to explode, and there are quite a few bolts and electric parts on a rocket that size.

Sure does. No argument that it isn't dangerous.

It costs millions because they're engineering for re-use and human consumption (such as retro-rockets to slow down a craft to dock, for example). If the rockets are made for a one-way trip, a lot less engineering would be required, save for safety of explosion.

Right, because those unmanned space probes are cheap. And getting them into space is also peanuts.

Goes back to: because the government and very few private companies are doing it. There's no economy of scale.

I will be paying for Three Mile Island for the next 240,000 years.

I'll help for as long as I can. ;)

---

Jack

I've lived an hours drive from the Oregon Coast all of my life... I can say that the sea level at that spot has not changed any perceptible amount during all that time...

Who are you going to believe, your own eyes or what you are told? Venice Italy should be under water very soon. When that happens people will listen to the "changers". "Changers" your day will come; soon I'm told. 60 years or so is not a long time for those who believe.

---

Goes back to: because the government and very few private companies are doing it. There's no economy of scale there currently.

Even with an economy of scale it would be pretty damn expensive. Building rockets is expensive. Especially if those rockets are just throw aways that you can only use once. Which also cost tons of fuel. Its just not profitable for anyone to build that many rockets to send up all that nuclear waste every so many years. And if they were to pass off the cost to the consumer, well, no way I would pay for nuclear energy with that bill. Probably cheaper to go for solar and wind energy. Better as well, and less of a waste of money and resources.

Goes back to: because the government and very few private companies are doing it. There's no economy of scale there currently.

Even with an economy of scale it would be pretty damn expensive. Building rockets is expensive. Especially if those rockets are just throw aways that you can only use once. Which also cost tons of fuel. Its just not profitable for anyone to build that many rockets to send up all that nuclear waste every so many years. And if they were to pass off the cost to the consumer, well, no way I would pay for nuclear energy with that bill. Probably cheaper to go for solar and wind energy. Better as well, and less of a waste of money and resources.

Solar isn't a viable option for many areas, and wind just doesn't generate enough electricity to make it worthwhile.

I tend to believe what I see, or don't see, in this case. If the land ice is melting and glaciers are receding as fast as "they" say it is, why isn't the sea level rising along the Oregon coast? It's impossible for it to be rising enough to cause problems elsewhere in the world and leave the Oregon coast un-scathed. Our beaches look the same as they always have.

If the glaciers are receding, the water is going somewhere. Is it refreezing somewhere else? I guess I'll remain skeptical of global warming until I see some lowland flooding from normal tides. Storm surges and tsunami's don't count.

---

Jack

Goes back to: because the government and very few private companies are doing it. There's no economy of scale there currently.

Even with an economy of scale it would be pretty damn expensive. Building rockets is expensive. Especially if those rockets are just throw aways that you can only use once. Which also cost tons of fuel. Its just not profitable for anyone to build that many rockets to send up all that nuclear waste every so many years. And if they were to pass off the cost to the consumer, well, no way I would pay for nuclear energy with that bill. Probably cheaper to go for solar and wind energy. Better as well, and less of a waste of money and resources.

Solar isn't a viable option for many areas, and wind just doesn't generate enough electricity to make it worthwhile.

There were plans to put wave generators off the Oregon coast, but our government regulations drove them to Australia. Reported a couple of weeks ago in our local paper. Don't know if that was a good option or not, but now we may never know.

---

Jack

I tend to believe what I see, or don't see, in this case. If the land ice is melting and glaciers are receding as fast as "they" say it is, why isn't the sea level rising along the Oregon coast? It's impossible for it to be rising enough to cause problems elsewhere in the world and leave the Oregon coast un-scathed. Our beaches look the same as they always have.

If the glaciers are receding, the water is going somewhere. Is it refreezing somewhere else? I guess I'll remain skeptical of global warming until I see some lowland flooding from normal tides. Storm surges and tsunami's don't count.

Actually its the storm surges where you will first start to notice the difference, and areas like Bangladesh or even Louisiana which is below sea level.

Also, you may not be aware, but the sea level is not the same all over the world, so some areas will see the changes sooner than others. For example, the west coast sea level is higher than the east coast sea level. So you own local observations are not sufficient, what you need is data from all over the globe.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Also, you may not be aware, but the sea level is not the same all over the world,

"Sea level" is a unit of measure the whole world round. Tides are not the same the whole world round if that is what you mean.

---

Also, you may not be aware, but the sea level is not the same all over the world,

"Sea level" is a unit of measure the whole world round. Tides are not the same the whole world round if that is what you mean.

I just looked it up and the East Coast (semidiurnal tide) will be in better shape than the West Coast (mixed semidiurnal tide) if the sea level raises. So if things are OK in Oregon they are better at the Jersey Shore, Snooki notwithstanding.

---

Also, you may not be aware, but the sea level is not the same all over the world,

"Sea level" is a unit of measure the whole world round. Tides are not the same the whole world round if that is what you mean.

I just looked it up and the East Coast (semidiurnal tide) will be in better shape than the West Coast (mixed semidiurnal tide) if the sea level raises. So if things are OK in Oregon they are better at the Jersey Shore, Snooki notwithstanding.

I really depends on what is going on with the sea floor, the weather, the prevailing winds and temperature, whether the land you are on is rising or sinking, gravitational forces and so on. Some parts of the world will not notice much difference with a couple of feet sea rise, and some will. Some will only notice the problem during storm surges.

Sea levels vary around the world due to lots of different factors. I'm on a big hill. I'll be great. Does that mean I shouldn't care?

Edit: I find your reference to Jersey Shore odd as they are currently still rebuilding it from the storm surge. Hurricanes will get more violent as the ocean warms up.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Edit: I find your reference to Jersey Shore odd as they are currently still rebuilding it from the storm surge. Hurricanes will get more violent as the ocean warms up.

When and where? The Jersey Shore was rebuilt because it is a money maker. The Jersey Shore has been washing away and cumming back since before recorded time. When Sandy made land fall she was not a hurricane. It was a combination of high tide and storm surge being forced into narrowing channels. Though the storm's winds were not that high it moved towards land slowly building up a surge equal equal to a category 4 hurricane.

BTW, for the many decades I've been at the Shore Sea Isle City was and still is 6 feet above sea level as it has been since 1882 when it was founded. So it comes down to what do I believe, what I see or what I'm told.

---

Solar isn't a viable option for many areas, and wind just doesn't generate enough electricity to make it worthwhile.

That too is generally just an engineering problem. One that is easier and cheaper to solve than sending rockets filled with radioactive waste up into space every 5 years...