Slalom: a timed race (as on skis or in an automobile or kayak) over a winding or zigzag course past a series of flags or markers broadly : movement over a zigzag route.

Closed loop zigzag?

The 1mSv per year is the max the employees at the dump/recycling plant can be exposed to, so leeching more than that into public water systems seems impossible unless I'm missing something. This comes mainly from solid scale deposits removed from the closed loop systems.
Average employees in German plants seemed to get around 3 mSv/yr on their table.

At Fukushima, According to TEPCO records, the average workers’ effective dose over the first 19 months after the accident was about 12 mSv. About 35% of the workforce received total doses of more than 10 mSv over that period, while 0.7% of the workforce received doses of more than 100 mSv.
The 10mSv was the estimated average exposure for those who evacuated immediately, not the area. Because iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days, the local exposure levels dropped rapidly, but because caesium-137 has a half life of 30 years, contaminated areas will be "hot" for quite a while, and are still off limits as I understand it.

Sort of...., most of the area surrounding Chernobyl is just above background levels after major decontamination including removal of all soil, but many areas closer to the plant are still being measured at well above safe levels to this day, and unapproachable, while others may be visited only with monitoring equipment, dose meters, and only for short times. It's not back to background levels everywhere, with measurements up to 336uSv/hr recorded in enclosed areas and abandoned recovery equipment (the claw used to dig at the reactor for instance)....no where near that low at the plant itself. Places like the nearby cemetery which couldn't have the contamination removed still measure higher than maximum occupational limits for adults working with radioactive material. The radiation levels in the worst-hit areas of the reactor building, including the control room, have been estimated at 300Sv/hr, (300,000mSv/hr) providing a fatal dose in just over a minute.
http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/

Don't get me wrong, I support nuclear power. I just don't believe in pretending it's "safe". That's how Chernobyl happened....overconfidence and irresponsibility. If we consider it unacceptably disastrous if it goes wrong, we might design plants that can't go wrong...The tech exists.

So you can't possibly live on less than $15/hr? I feel like maybe that's more an issue of your money management skills then.

Sure, $6/hr is probably not enough. But it wasn't too long ago when 15 was a pretty decent wage. And kids living with mommy don't exactly require the same kind of "living wage" as they don't have any real expenses. So now, you raise the bottom to 15, and these kids now make more money. What about those who were making 15 before? Suddenly they're making minimum wage. I'm sure that makes them feel swell! Everyone should get a boost, not just those at the bottom. Probably a combination of that and a bit of a sliding scale to a certain maximum, along with tax reforms to close loop holes for those gaming the system.

TL:RD: Flush mix tap for few seconds after not being used for hours. Count to three.

I would say that it is still advisable to flush out the stagnant water from pipes before drinking the water. Not a lot, until you feel the temperature to change. Reason is that while the warm water is now sanitary, it is still warm. Warm stagnant water goes bad pretty quickly, the pipes are NOT clean on the inside. If you have ever seen water mains pipes, you would probably boil your water, brit filter it and most likely perform an exorcision. It's bad, it is really really bad.. The main reason why the water stays drinkable is movement. Moving water is safe, the bacteria that lives on moving water is mostly harmless to us. But 15C to 22C is called "the death zone"; bacteria that thrives on moist conditions, between those temps is the most deadly we can find. E.Coli, Botulinum etc. all explode with those condition. So you take warm water to wash up that last tea, it stays in the pipes and you get a nice shot of bacteria first thing in the morning. Or you keep the tap on for ten seconds, flush out the main colony and then drink a fresh cold water; i'm sure this little trick will add years in to your life (just the fresh glass of water and the feeling we get from that should do the trick..)

But the days of flushing the whole length of pipe several times a day is unnecessary. Only important when it has sit for hours after running hot water thru that particular piece of pipe, maybe just few meters or few seconds. And even then most likely it's 100% safe but the gunk that sits in the pipes is DIRTY.. ffs, we got some wooden main lines still in use in the old town (built around circa 1600).. BTW, the water from those wooden pipes.. excellent, specially in the winter as it is just super cold, totally clear of all bacteria, it's like spring water. But that is mostly because they have been in use for hundreds of year, all the time with moving, cold, clean water running thru them. It's bacterial colonies work with us cleaning it.

Compare that to the other pipe system running thru our homes here: the main heating water that heats our homes, that water is so toxic that every cut you have while working with them, just a drop and you will get infected. It takes minutes and the cut will swell up. And the only really difference is that the heating system is on closed loop, with warm water and it sits for half a year stagnated.. It is still "clean" water, looks clean, doesn't smell. But that stuff is equal to biological warfare..

Why i know this? Well, i'm ex-junkie. Knowing what kind of water you inject to your veins is pretty fucking important if you wanna stay alive.

1) Winning Votes = Advertising
2) Advertising = Funding
3) Funding = Rich People / Corporations
4) Rich People Funding = Rich People Obligation


This is never going to change. The system between money and advertising is a closed loop and advertising is protected as a constitutional 'freedom of speech'.

Well the only way there could be a world-wide flood is if the ice caps melted. The earth is a closed loop and I'm pretty sure if ALL of the water in the atmosphere were to fall upon the ground, it wouldn't be able to cover the land (especially submersing the highest mountain).

>>A widely held but incorrect view. Limited global population MUST be the desired outcome or humans will exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth. Relying on the promise of new technologies is a naive recipe for possible disaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
If you want to talk assumption, you're assuming that maximum relative wealth is the desired outcome. Pretty selfish, eh?
Baby boomers leaving the workforce is really only a problem because of Social Security and health care costs and an unbalanced worker to retiree ratio. That ratio will change over time and we'll probably have a period of austerity as it changes back to something resembling equilibrium. The baby boom being correlated with economic growth/decline is really not proof that increased population causes increased wealth. There are many other factors involved which have nothing to do with population.
Wealth is obviously not directly tied to population, or the United States wouldn't have vastly higher wealth with such a relatively low population density compared to the rest of the world. If you mean overall world wealth, perhaps that's true, since more people = more work = more promises to pay back debts, but when you're talking about a closed loop system, it's all relative. So, if you take the view that more world population means more poor people for rich countries to exploit, that would be true, but then you also have to assume infinite resources and an undamageable environment.



@mgittle "So, if you take the view that more world population means more poor people for rich countries to exploit, that would be true, but then you also have to assume infinite resources and an undamageable environment."

The rich exploting the poor is like a wolf eating a chicken... Natural, human and even necessary. There would be no rich if all were on equal terms. We would not have science, medicine, machinary or such on the same scale. Sure, happenstance would bring about these things eventually, but that is the same as a wolf getting through the chicken coop eventually too.

At least that is MO.

Those two billion would gladly exploit the rich and become what they detest or envy so much.

>> ^mgittle:

>> ^Sniper007:

A widely held but incorrect view. Limited global population MUST be the desired outcome or humans will exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth. Relying on the promise of new technologies is a naive recipe for possible disaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
If you want to talk assumption, you're assuming that maximum relative wealth is the desired outcome. Pretty selfish, eh?
Baby boomers leaving the workforce is really only a problem because of Social Security and health care costs and an unbalanced worker to retiree ratio. That ratio will change over time and we'll probably have a period of austerity as it changes back to something resembling equilibrium. The baby boom being correlated with economic growth/decline is really not proof that increased population causes increased wealth. There are many other factors involved which have nothing to do with population.
Wealth is obviously not directly tied to population, or the United States wouldn't have vastly higher wealth with such a relatively low population density compared to the rest of the world. If you mean overall world wealth, perhaps that's true, since more people = more work = more promises to pay back debts, but when you're talking about a closed loop system, it's all relative. So, if you take the view that more world population means more poor people for rich countries to exploit, that would be true, but then you also have to assume infinite resources and an undamageable environment.


If there is a carrying capacity for the earth, humanity has not even come close to it. I'd say the limit is somewhere in the hundreds of trillions, based on the fact that it only takes 1/5 of a acre to feed an entire family a vegetarian diet. This is not a theoretical figure, it is currently being done. I'd say the earth is grossly underpopulated based on the obscene amount of lawn space (and golf courses) in existence.

Just drive somewhere (anywhere) for 10 miles, and tell me how much un-utilized, or under-utilized SPACE you see in your immediate vicinity. I'm not talking tilled, fertilized farmland. I'm talking empty parking lots, front lawns, abandoned buildings, etc. All those places need some human who is willing to engage in the proper behavior and responsibly utilize that space. The world is not overpopulated with bodies. It's 'over populated' with the wrong mindset and work ethic.

I didn't mean to imply that maximum relative wealth is a desired outcome. It is not.

I do agree, population growth is certainly NOT the only ingredient needed for an increase in sheer economic wealth. Though, for the families who engage in it, it can be the very definition and 'object' of their wealth and their increase in quality of life (though it may lead temporarily to a decrease in economic abundance). But the question of how to increase monetary wealth for most of the world is an entirely vain one that ought not to be entertained as it is relying on to many insidious assumptions.

It is sufficient to recognize that large families are NOT a plague, and go on living your own life as best as you know how. As to that discussion, ethical standards cannot be philosophically advanced by empirical data. Philosophy is inherently and necessarily theoretical.

>> ^Sniper007:

He's assuming limited global population is the desired outcome. It just so happens that limiting your population growth is what will take the blue box to below the 'sandal people'. The tremendous economic growth has risen and fallen in the US following exactly in line with the demographic phenomenon called the baby boom. Now that the baby boomers are leaving the work force, the entire US financial house of cards is falling.
This guy has NO CLUE what he's talking about. Wealth is CREATED by humanity. If you limit humanity's growth, you limit wealth's growth.
If he's worried about 'climate change', then he should realize that it's not the number of people, but their behavior which (potentially) affects that. In FACT, there are humans which by living their lives (ironically, in a lifestyle manner not unlike the 'sandal people') have a POSITIVE effect on their local climates, and thus the global climate (sic).


A widely held but incorrect view. Limited global population MUST be the desired outcome or humans will exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth. Relying on the promise of new technologies is a naive recipe for possible disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity

If you want to talk assumption, you're assuming that maximum relative wealth is the desired outcome. Pretty selfish, eh?

Baby boomers leaving the workforce is really only a problem because of Social Security and health care costs and an unbalanced worker to retiree ratio. That ratio will change over time and we'll probably have a period of austerity as it changes back to something resembling equilibrium. The baby boom being correlated with economic growth/decline is really not proof that increased population causes increased wealth. There are many other factors involved which have nothing to do with population.

Wealth is obviously not directly tied to population, or the United States wouldn't have vastly higher wealth with such a relatively low population density compared to the rest of the world. If you mean overall world wealth, perhaps that's true, since more people = more work = more promises to pay back debts, but when you're talking about a closed loop system, it's all relative. So, if you take the view that more world population means more poor people for rich countries to exploit, that would be true, but then you also have to assume infinite resources and an undamageable environment.

When I was 16, I was all in favor of increasing the minimum wage, but then I grew up.

Minimum Wage makes no sense. The economy is a closed loop. If wages are pushed up, prices are pushed up, and you have no benefit. You simply can't lift one end without expecting the other to rise. And now in our globalized economy, companies will simply pull up stakes and head somewhere cheaper. Or automate, as in this example. So you have higher prices with fewer jobs. It's stupid, and short-sighted.

It's all well and good to ensure good working conditions, but meddling with prices only looks good to people who can't see past their paychecks.

from Wikipedia:

Asked about creationism, Langan has said:

"I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible."

Langan has said he does not belong to any religious denomination, explaining that he "can't afford to let [his] logical approach to theology be prejudiced by religious dogma." He calls himself "a respecter of all faiths, among peoples everywhere."

Very interesting.

I've seen this before, on youtube, but the discussion here was a great read.
Worthy of a *promote, methinks.

Geeeez, it's simple. CO2 rises either because of (lagging) warming or at least indirectly tied to warming. It doesn't matter how CO2 get there (nature or manmade) or how warming happens (solar output, cloud cover, or CO2).

Fact is that there are catastrophic cycles where warming happens and eventually ice ages happen. There are some feedback mechanisms involved (both open loop and closed loop). One of those feedback mechanisms is CO2. Humans have artificially pushed the CO2 levels to near record highs.

Either it doesn't matter and the planet with deal with it (like pushing a waiter carrying a tray of plates) or the extra CO2 will cause major climate problems. It doesn't seem too crazy to err on the side of caution.

Imagine you notice fever and high body temp seem to be somewhat correlated over your lifetime of observing fevers come and go. It may not matter that the flu causes it. It may not matter that putting you in a sauna doesn't cause fevers. What does matter is that you don't want to see how hot and how long you can stay in a sauna because you really don't want to get a fever and then sit around in a sauna.

LOL, upvote for the closed loop tag

"There many things that neither science or faith can fully explain. And this why spirituality exists. "

Exactly. Spirituality and the religions that extend from it serve to explain that which cannot be explained. In other words it's shit people made up in order to provide explanations, build up their own authority, and control the minds of the masses. Wishful thinking in a pretty package, backed up by closed-loop reasoning.

"I don't believe that religion should exist without science, nor science without religion."

Science vs Religion is an example of the logical fallacy of the false dilemma. They are not mutually exclusive, nor does one require the other.

Religion is completely irrelevant to science. It's about as relevant to science as astrology is to astronomy, or alchemy is to chemistry. Meaning, the only way they are related is that knowledge of science tends to eradicate belief in religion for most people, as science supercedes religion on the hierarchy of rationality. So there is a negative causal relation but no entwinement. Religion can go away completely and science will not suffer one bit.

Your comment on this story are the comments that made sense to me, and I am with you when you say a car that is powered by water should be the dream of most people on the planet. Unless you sell oil then your dream would be to hope it never happens.

In reply to your comment:
“ Hello, just wanted to comment on fuel cells, as some of the information posted about them isn't quite right. Fuel cells are not batteries, they are load-following electricity generators. As and when a fuel, in the case of hydrogen fuel cells, hydrogen, is fed into what is usually a stack of cells, electricity and H20 are created via a simple electro-chemical process (like the reverse of electrolysis). Hydrogen is not energy intensive to isolate except when it is reformed from hydro-carbons via certain methods (this is perhaps why certain people seem to be taking a shine to fuel cells right). In fact, Hydrogen can be obtained easily from solar panels & wind power with an electrolyser, but best of all, from waste. In a completely zero emission system, anaerobic digesters, pyrolysis and hydrogen fuel cells (pretty much in that order) can work in harmony to turn almost any waste into electricity and pure water in a closed loop in terms of the energy required to run each element. It's true that some fuel cells do use exotic materials, most all of them use platinum for example, and of course these being either mined or toxic materials are not friendly to people or the planet and should be avoided in clean energy solutions. Cenergie have developed a solution to this in a fuel cell system which uses only commodity materials and is 100% recyclable. If you'd like to find out more about fuel cells and clean waste to energy systems, have a poke around www.cenergie.com, it's cute and full of info. I can't comment on this man's technology, although given the state of our planet, we might champion technology which makes water, instead of burning it up. Power for peace, alkagirl*”