>> ^doorworker:

what an fool.
Erik Larson has a great book on the 1900 Galveston hurricane. Crazy, crazy tale.
Many thousands were killed...yet the moral imbecile above figures this means "the local people...survived without FEMA."
Hey Ron Paul fanboys--yr pipsqueak hero will never be more than a loony non-entity in our broken gummint's 'lower house'. Which is more than he deserves.


And who are you a fanboy of? Who will fix the problems?

I am neither fanboy of nor do I think RP is a god. However, I think our culture is far worse than this "loony" man... Lazy, divisive, entitled, children with too much to lose. And those are our better sides.

So what fix do you have if any?

But now @Yogi and @blankfist

Everything needs more money...when does it end? Education, needs more money. Roads and bridges? Needs more money. Energy? Money. Wealthy people need their tax breaks, poor people do too. We need money in healthcare, we need money...money...money...money...

I need my money in a box, I need my money with a ass, I do like my money here or there, I do like my money with a Nair, that Uncle Sam I am does like his money!

what a fool.
Erik Larson has a great book on the 1900 Galveston hurricane. Crazy, crazy tale.
Many thousands were killed...yet the moral imbecile above figures this means "the local people...survived without FEMA."

Hey Ron Paul fanboys--yr pipsqueak hero will never be more than a loony non-entity in our broken gummint's 'lower house'. Which is more than he deserves.

The early 1900s had some really hilarious engineering.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Let's agree to disagree then - and you might want to have a look at this document that gives a better rebuttal to some of your arguments than I could.

>> ^Skeeve:

1. We have these things called laws. Unless the laws are bad (which can happen) and are changed (which is possible) people are expected to abide by them. These people broke the law, therefore it is the government's responsibility to charge them or change the law.
2. Prior to 1900 a significant portion of the 10% of New York children who died before their 5th birthday died because of contaminated milk. After pasteurization the infant mortality rate dropped by two thirds. So yes, think of the children.
3. Thousands died of a typhoid outbreak in 1913 that was spread partially through the drinking of unpasteurized milk. It's not being hyperbolic to say it could happen again.
It sounds like your mind is made up on this issue, so this is my last post on the subject. I agree that the original bust was stupid and heavy handed, but I also agree with the prosecution of these people.
>> ^dag:
To say that these people are placing the public at risk for drinking raw cow's milk is ludicrous hyperbole and the kind of scare-mongering bullshit that would do the Department of Homeland Security proud.
Perhaps we should go to Level Orange in response to these Lacto-terrorists. Think of the children! Duct tape your windows to prevent raw milk from seeping in!
>> ^Skeeve:
I realize that the average person isn't going to buy their food at this place, but what about the thousands who will come into contact with a person who does?
These people are effectively choosing to become carriers of disease. Not all of them will get sick, and not all of those who do will pass it on, but it is inevitable that eventually one of the "club" members will pass on a staph infection or tuberculosis or worse.
As for it being about corporate hegemony, bullshit; no one is shutting down farmers markets, coop farms, etc. This is about people knowingly flaunting federal laws and getting slapped for it.
>> ^dag:
Yes, but this wasn't being sold at your local supermarket. This was a club of people voluntarily choosing an alternative lifestyle that they (rightfully IMO) believe provides health benefits. You are more likely to get salmonella at your local Olive Garden. This is really about corporate hedgemony, I mean WTF - guns drawn? That isn't good for anyone's health. >> ^Skeeve:
While the raid was heavy-handed, I completely agree with the prosecution of people like this.
We have organizations like the FDA and Canadian Food Inspection Agency for a reason - to minimize the public health risks associated with the food supply including the transmission of animal diseases to humans.
These people may feel they have the right to eat contaminated food but, just like the anti-vaccine crowd, they don't think about the possible transmission of disease to others.
There are perfectly legal ways to grow/produce, acquire and eat whatever food you want, there's no reason to flaunt laws that are there for a reason.

1. We have these things called laws. Unless the laws are bad (which can happen) and are changed (which is possible) people are expected to abide by them. These people broke the law, therefore it is the government's responsibility to charge them or change the law.

2. Prior to 1900 a significant portion of the 10% of New York children who died before their 5th birthday died because of contaminated milk. After pasteurization the infant mortality rate dropped by two thirds. So yes, think of the children.

3. Thousands died of a typhoid outbreak in 1913 that was spread partially through the drinking of unpasteurized milk. It's not being hyperbolic to say it could happen again.

It sounds like your mind is made up on this issue, so this is my last post on the subject. I agree that the original bust was stupid and heavy handed, but I also agree with the prosecution of these people.

>> ^dag:

To say that these people are placing the public at risk for drinking raw cow's milk is ludicrous hyperbole and the kind of scare-mongering bullshit that would do the Department of Homeland Security proud.
Perhaps we should go to Level Orange in response to these Lacto-terrorists. Think of the children! Duct tape your windows to prevent raw milk from seeping in!
>> ^Skeeve:
I realize that the average person isn't going to buy their food at this place, but what about the thousands who will come into contact with a person who does?
These people are effectively choosing to become carriers of disease. Not all of them will get sick, and not all of those who do will pass it on, but it is inevitable that eventually one of the "club" members will pass on a staph infection or tuberculosis or worse.
As for it being about corporate hegemony, bullshit; no one is shutting down farmers markets, coop farms, etc. This is about people knowingly flaunting federal laws and getting slapped for it.
>> ^dag:
Yes, but this wasn't being sold at your local supermarket. This was a club of people voluntarily choosing an alternative lifestyle that they (rightfully IMO) believe provides health benefits. You are more likely to get salmonella at your local Olive Garden. This is really about corporate hedgemony, I mean WTF - guns drawn? That isn't good for anyone's health. >> ^Skeeve:
While the raid was heavy-handed, I completely agree with the prosecution of people like this.
We have organizations like the FDA and Canadian Food Inspection Agency for a reason - to minimize the public health risks associated with the food supply including the transmission of animal diseases to humans.
These people may feel they have the right to eat contaminated food but, just like the anti-vaccine crowd, they don't think about the possible transmission of disease to others.
There are perfectly legal ways to grow/produce, acquire and eat whatever food you want, there's no reason to flaunt laws that are there for a reason.

@Mazex

Well, where your claim about brainwashed people falls apart is that if Jesus was made up (which no reputed historian would claim), or His resurrection wasn't true, his disciples certainly wouldn't have martyred themselves for that lie. Being direct witnesses of the fact, you can't claim they were brainwashed. So yeah.

I posted the historical reliability of the bible because it shows its not just cooked up, as you tried to claim. It's highly intricate, and I dare say it would be actually be more miraculous for holding up so reliably if it wasnt true. 100 percent historical accuracy is pretty compelling, I think..it indicates that these are honest eye witness accounts we're dealing with.

Here are some interesting science facts that the bible fortold thousands of years before science knew anything about it..pretty good for made up isnt it?

The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing.”

Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea

Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled” and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” long before science understood its function.

Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest.

The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.

The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.” In the 19th century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars – that’s a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along – “He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name” (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was God’s judgment on man’s wickedness.

The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent – just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.

Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Origin of the different “races” explained (Genesis 11). As Noah’s descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established “a weight for the wind.” In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.

Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.

Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!

Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with God’s Word.

A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, “unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.” (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells “give their lives” to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain

Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him – pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?

The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.

Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if God’s commands were followed.

Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in God’s image.

@JiggaJonson

Yes, fair enough

Here are some examples of material on the other side of things:

"[In the US] Women with college degrees can be expected to complete their childbearing with 1.6-2.0 children each; 1.7 for non-Hispanic white, 1.6 for non-Hispanic black, and 2.0 for Hispanic women. For women with less education the total expected number of children are: 3.2 children for those with 0-8 years of education; 2.3 children for those with 9-11 years of education and 2.7 for high school graduates."

http://library.adoption.com/articles/mothers-educational-level-influences-birth-rate.html

"The relation between fertility and intelligence has been consistently negative for successive birth cohorts from to 1900 to 1979, indicating the presence of dysgenic fertility for all of the 20th century studied thus far."

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/...

Many sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

It seems like it should probably be noted that relying on fertility rates alone will underestimate the degree of change in genetic frequencies because groups also vary in the length of their generations. Most of us see our impulsive high school classmates who start families early with little planning (e.g. generation length: 15-25 years), and then watch other driven & long-term thinking classmates not reproduce until their early thirties, if ever (e.g. generation length: 28-40 years). I'm 31, and virtually no one in my high school class has reproduced yet, aside from the ones who did so in their teens or early twenties.

As someone who has watched California go from one of the most-skilled states in the country to one of the least-skilled states (sometimes even coming in 50th place out of 50 states) purely due to changes in the population, I'd be surprised at any hypothesis that suggests there's no change in genetic frequencies occurring.

It doesn't bother me to say that because I'd bet my life that reprogenetics will phase out gaps in IQ and other socially valued traits, but critical mass on that probably won't occur until the latter half of the century.

Siftbot reports Cthulhu is too big for our tiny emoticon size (but I think siftbot's just scared).

>> ^spoco2:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink">criticalthud: "your figures are great, and show a marked increase in seismic activity, especially in the last 5 years."
Um, no they don't.
8-9.9 Mag earthquakes: have just hung around 0-1 every year with a couple of years having 2, and one 4. And it's not ramping up or anything, there were NONE in 2008.
7-7.9 : Hanging around the teens to low twenties every year with some very low ones in the last few years.
etc. etc.
Have a look at the graphs, look at the total energy from earthquakes. See how compared to 1900 it's LOWER? See how in the last half of the last decade it's DROPPED?
Really, the figures show NOTHING like an upward trend AT ALL.
So just give it up trying to suggest that the facts support what you're saying.
I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening, I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying to reduce our impact FAR quicker than the monolithically slow speed at which things are being done. And that we couldn't have already been largely running on renewable energy already if the governments had actually put some effort in. But the figures are not supporting what you're saying, so really stop trying to say they do.
That's all I'm saying, stop using your perception that there are more earthquakes etc. and look at the figures and learn to read data properly. Individual year spikes mean nothing, look at trends.


energy is one measurement. overall number is another. i hope you are right. i'm not the only one looking at this possibility tho.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2317.abstract

@criticalthud: "your figures are great, and show a marked increase in seismic activity, especially in the last 5 years."

Um, no they don't.

* 8-9.9 Mag earthquakes: have just hung around 0-1 every year with a couple of years having 2, and one 4. And it's not ramping up or anything, there were NONE in 2008.
* 7-7.9 : Hanging around the teens to low twenties every year with some very low ones in the last few years.

etc. etc.

Have a look at the graphs, look at the total energy from earthquakes. See how compared to 1900 it's LOWER? See how in the last half of the last decade it's DROPPED?

Really, the figures show NOTHING like an upward trend AT ALL.

So just give it up trying to suggest that the facts support what you're saying.

I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening, I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying to reduce our impact FAR quicker than the monolithically slow speed at which things are being done. And that we couldn't have already been largely running on renewable energy already if the governments had actually put some effort in. But the figures are not supporting what you're saying, so really stop trying to say they do.

That's all I'm saying, stop using your perception that there are more earthquakes etc. and look at the figures and learn to read data properly. Individual year spikes mean nothing, look at trends.

>> ^guymontage:

Criticalthud,the links you posted dont seem very credible and while they do use actual data, its their interpretation of said data were they lose credibility. http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm
Just at a glance, this site claims there are more earthquakes now than ever, because in the 1970 there were around 4000 earthquakes, and in 2002 there were just over 23 000 earthquakes. Probability does play a role in science, but so does critical thinking. When i see these numbers the first thing that comes to mind is, "Well no kidding! Instruments in 2002 are probably orders of magnitude more sensitive than they were 30 years ago!" Technological progress alone can easily explain these numbers. Now days we can detect even the tiniest earthquakes almost anywere, unlike in the 40 years ago.
I checked wikipedia as i typed this, and yep, here is a quote confirming my thoughts exactly;
"The number of seismic stations has increased from about 350 in 1931 to many thousands today. As a result, many more earthquakes are reported than in the past, but this is because of the vast improvement in instrumentation, rather than an increase in the number of earthquakes."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake#Size_and_frequency_of_occurren
ce
If the author of the web site you quote has done so little research, you can barely take anything he or she writes as credible.

The site also lists 6 earthquakes over a magnitude of 7.0 that occurred in 2002, but the average number of earthquakes per year in the 1900s over 7.0 is 18. So by the figures he is going by, the author should state that earthquakes are decreasing! How ever this line of thinking just shows a lack of understanding of probability.
If the yearly average is as low as 18, then the law of large numbers indicates that the standard deviation will be large enough to affect the number of earthquakes on a yearly basis enough that some years there will be several more than 18 and some years several less. In other wards if one year there are only 10 and some years later there are 24, its still normal.
More over, one must consider geography and probability of the location of earthquakes. The location of 90% of the worlds earthquakes occurs along the ring of fire. However a lot of the ring of fire is not near large cities susceptible to widespread damage. Most of it is in the middle of nowhere. some years large earthquakes will occur close to high population areas, and other years most of the earthquakes will occur too far to cause any harm. on the years that several earthquakes happen to occur near populated areas, it might seem like earthquakes are increasing, but its just probability. This also would be normal.


fantastic. i would be very happy if science could disprove this theory. but we're still looking at probability.

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^rebuilder:
>> ^criticalthud:
Seismic activity has increased

Source, please.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2439&from=rss_home
"Scientists say 2010 is not showing signs of unusually high earthquake activity. Since 1900, an average of 16 magnitude 7 or greater earthquakes — the size that seismologists define as major — have occurred worldwide each year. Some years have had as few as 6, as in 1986 and 1989, while 1943 had 32, with considerable variability from year to year."
Increasing population densities do mean earthquakes will be more devastating than before.

yes
http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm
i'm not a geological scientist, but i think we should be concerned


*sigh*... you're doing the common alarmist and conspiracy theorist thing of ONLY looking at sites which are non professional. ONLY believing people who take whatever data there is and come to YOUR conclusion. Ignoring any that use ACTUAL proper science and CORRECT data analysis to disprove your line of thinking. You do this saying 'I don't trust the major sources of information'... which just means that you only believe those that don't grasp it properly.

Sorry, but it doesn't work like that:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php

Criticalthud,the links you posted dont seem very credible and while they do use actual data, its their interpretation of said data were they lose credibility. http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm

Just at a glance, this site claims there are more earthquakes now than ever, because in the 1970 there were around 4000 earthquakes, and in 2002 there were just over 23 000 earthquakes. Probability does play a role in science, but so does critical thinking. When i see these numbers the first thing that comes to mind is, "Well no kidding! Instruments in 2002 are probably orders of magnitude more sensitive than they were 30 years ago!" Technological progress alone can easily explain these numbers. Now days we can detect even the tiniest earthquakes almost anywere, unlike in the 40 years ago.

I checked wikipedia as i typed this, and yep, here is a quote confirming my thoughts exactly;
"The number of seismic stations has increased from about 350 in 1931 to many thousands today. As a result, many more earthquakes are reported than in the past, but this is because of the vast improvement in instrumentation, rather than an increase in the number of earthquakes."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake#Size_and_frequency_of_occurrence
If the author of the web site you quote has done so little research, you can barely take anything he or she writes as credible.


The site also lists 6 earthquakes over a magnitude of 7.0 that occurred in 2002, but the average number of earthquakes per year in the 1900s over 7.0 is 18. So by the figures he is going by, the author should state that earthquakes are decreasing! How ever this line of thinking just shows a lack of understanding of probability.

If the yearly average is as low as 18, then the law of large numbers indicates that the standard deviation will be large enough to affect the number of earthquakes on a yearly basis enough that some years there will be several more than 18 and some years several less. In other wards if one year there are only 10 and some years later there are 24, its still normal.

More over, one must consider geography and probability of the location of earthquakes. The location of 90% of the worlds earthquakes occurs along the ring of fire. However a lot of the ring of fire is not near large cities susceptible to widespread damage. Most of it is in the middle of nowhere. some years large earthquakes will occur close to high population areas, and other years most of the earthquakes will occur too far to cause any harm. on the years that several earthquakes happen to occur near populated areas, it might seem like earthquakes are increasing, but its just probability. This also would be normal.

>> ^rebuilder:

>> ^criticalthud:
Seismic activity has increased

Source, please.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2439&from=rss_home
"Scientists say 2010 is not showing signs of unusually high earthquake activity. Since 1900, an average of 16 magnitude 7 or greater earthquakes — the size that seismologists define as major — have occurred worldwide each year. Some years have had as few as 6, as in 1986 and 1989, while 1943 had 32, with considerable variability from year to year."
Increasing population densities do mean earthquakes will be more devastating than before.


yes
http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm
i'm not a geological scientist, but i think we should be concerned