Not that far out I guess. To my knowledge, most rigs that get in trouble seem to go down. Well that is trouble enough that it makes news, I am sure little stuff happens all the time. But catastrophic failure seems like that of a plane, the forces at play tear and burn it with such ferocity these is little you can do to stop it. Most of those places are not only dealing in crude, but in gases, and once that starts burning out of control I don't know if it is even possible to suppress.

Even if we stop all domestic oil use, there's still a huge economic incentive to produce more oil and sell it on the world market. Increased tax revenue is hard to give up for those who care about budget deficits.

Of course there's the environmental side too. We may be able to prevent future spills, but using oil products for fuel still produces greenhouse gases whether it's burned by us or someone else.

The 'reach' here for some people on the fence is not that the Earth's climate is rapidly changing (it clearly is), and its not even that human activities are having an effect on climate (they clearly are), but its simply that climate prediction is so complicated and relies on so many unknown factors that its impossible to tell people exactly what steps must be taken.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations

"With the release of the revised statement[90] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[2][3]

Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include opinions that the earth has not warmed, or that warming is attributable to causes other than increasing greenhouse gases."

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Though, fluids don't compress so they don't behave exactly the same, but they are rather similar.

liquids don't compress, gases do. Liquids and gases are fluids in different phases. If you compress a gas enough, or you cool it down enough, most of them will become liquid. And if you lower the pressure or heat up a liquid enough, liquids will turn into a gas! But for the most part their dynamics (the way they move) can be quantified by the same set of rules.

Here's a study referenced off Wikipedia.
I know chlorine evaporates from water pretty quickly. Fluorine and chlorine are both halogens gases and both exist as salts in water so since studies say it doesn't build up I'm guessing something takes fluorine out of the equation like it does for chlorine. Pharmaceuticals on the other hand are complex compounds, not just salts so I think that's why they stick around. I took 2 chemistry classes in college so take that with a grain of salt ;-)

>> ^ButterflyKisses:
This article brings up a good point and raises a few more questions:
How is mass water fluoridation affecting the water table?
Not to mention that studies have shown that we now take in various levels of pharmaceuticals due to waste water recycling. Doesn't this also compound and ever more increase the amount of fluoride in the water as the water is continually recycled and fluoride is continually added? This same water is also used in products like soda pop, fruit juices, etc.
I wonder if any studies of this aspect have been done.
This is a very interesting topic in my opinion because it directly affects us all.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^Stormsinger:
Density isn't affected by gravity, after all.
Gravity affects pressure, which in turn affects density.
Solids and liquids don't compress as easily as gases, but they do compress. The amount of compression depends on the materials involved, though in this case I doubt the effect would be noticeable.
I think the atmospheric pressure on Jupiter at an altitude where the temperature is normal for us (~21C) is around 10atm, which should be fine as long as it doesn't break part of the lamp. I could imagine a situation where the red liquid gets trapped at the top, but I couldn't predict how likely that would be.


Point to you. I'd forgotten about compressibility. That said, I agree that 3G's is not likely to affect the density noticeably, especially when the continued function of the lamp actually only depends on the difference of the compressibility of the two liquids staying less than the heat-driven density changes.

The problem is definitely a bit deeper than I'd thought, but I'd still be willing to put significant money on the lamp continuing to function under quite a bit more G-force than Jupiter's.

>> ^Stormsinger:
Density isn't affected by gravity, after all.

Gravity affects pressure, which in turn affects density.

Solids and liquids don't compress as easily as gases, but they do compress. The amount of compression depends on the materials involved, though in this case I doubt the effect would be noticeable.

I think the atmospheric pressure on Jupiter at an altitude where the temperature is normal for us (~21C) is around 10atm, which should be fine as long as it doesn't break part of the lamp. I could imagine a situation where the red liquid gets trapped at the top, but I couldn't predict how likely that would be.

Neat idea using jato's as a retro rocket. I guess drafting into your own exhaust gases is a bit much for the work horse c-130. Good idea though.

This is not surprising at all. Germany has them, too!

Some recent developments are really cool. Brodowin makes some that have an inflated airbubble down the side, that adds stability and also functions as s handle. Also they have a folded in base (similar to Capri Sun), so they can actually stand up.

According to their website the packaging is very light (16grams), so it causes less waste. On top it produces less greenhouse gases, and also uses less energy and water in the manufacturing process compared to cartons or bottles. So they ARE less harmful to the environment!

Also I always thought keeping the light out adds to the preservability, so I wonder why the Canadian ones are transparent.

>> ^syncron:
Makes sense I suppose. The alcohol evaporated into a gas as it heated inside the closed container. When the container burst, the flammable gases made contact with heated metal components of the microwave, which caused it to ignite and explode.


You mean the heated elements in the back i guess? Because i'm under the impression there is no metal in the microwaving-area of a microwave as it sparks like shit off the remotest covering of even gold leaf on a cup or glass. So i assume the gases would have to disperse through the back to find some heated metal components (presumably a circuit board or some kind of wire?)

Makes sense I suppose. The alcohol evaporated into a gas as it heated inside the closed container. When the container burst, the flammable gases made contact with heated metal components of the microwave, which caused it to ignite and explode.

>> ^rebuilder:
Seems to me this would be pretty much what you'd expect for a building with a largely glass facade. Glass panes are pretty fragile, so when such a building collapses, you'd expect the glass to fall apart quite uniformly on all sides, regardless of how uniform the destruction of the support structures was. Nothing will come through a solid structure until said structure is destroyed. A collapse would most definitely result in a drastic increase of pressure inside the building, forcing smoke and gases out wherever they can exit. Combine a downward cascade of bursting glass panes with a pressurized interior, and this is what you get. The expulsion of gases could only be asymmetric if the bursting of glass were, and that seems highly unlikely to be the case.
Beyond that, I don't see the logic of the Bush administration conspiring to blow up the towers in this manner. Two planes were itentionally crashed into the WTC. If they wanted an excuse to start a war, introduce PATRIOT act etc., that would be quite sufficient. There's little extra benefit to making sure the towers come all the way down, and plenty of risk. I don't buy the idea that the towers were rigged to blow.


here ya go rebuilder:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Building-the-World-Trade-Center-Towers-1811
watch this.
it is a documentary (choggie's post ironically)which it details the construction of the towers.
specifically pay attention to the architects and engineers when they discuss how the towers will react to MULTIPLE plane crashes into the tower.
let me know when you are done so we can go over things like physics.
after that we shall move onto the fairly large archives of "false flag operations".

again ..i am not saying that this was a government job.
what i AM saying is that to reject any possibility of that being the case is just naive.
there is a very strong possibility.
history alludes to that fact over and over and over.

Seems to me this would be pretty much what you'd expect for a building with a largely glass facade. Glass panes are pretty fragile, so when such a building collapses, you'd expect the glass to fall apart quite uniformly on all sides, regardless of how uniform the destruction of the support structures was. Nothing will come through a solid structure until said structure is destroyed. A collapse would most definitely result in a drastic increase of pressure inside the building, forcing smoke and gases out wherever they can exit. Combine a downward cascade of bursting glass panes with a pressurized interior, and this is what you get. The expulsion of gases could only be asymmetric if the bursting of glass were, and that seems highly unlikely to be the case.

Beyond that, I don't see the logic of the Bush administration conspiring to blow up the towers in this manner. Two planes were itentionally crashed into the WTC. If they wanted an excuse to start a war, introduce PATRIOT act etc., that would be quite sufficient. There's little extra benefit to making sure the towers come all the way down, and plenty of risk. I don't buy the idea that the towers were rigged to blow.

As far as the "theory vs law" argument, one is not a stronger version of the other. The problem is that, after looking around for a bit, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the definitions.

Here is the explanation I have received from people in the fields of chemistry and physics:


Law: A statement of observation. Gravity has a certain effect, gases behave certain ways under certain conditions, etc. These observations have been tested and shown to be consistent.

Theory: An attempt to explain observed behavior. There is a Law of Gravity (observation) and several Theories of Gravity (attempted explanations for the Law of Gravity). We know that objects have mass and are attracted to one another, but there are still holes in our understanding of why.


On a similar note, there is a difference between a belief in gods (or deities) and a belief in young-earth creationism. One exists in the gaps of current knowledge, the other directly contradicts current knowledge.

>> ^dgandhi:
...While I agree with that in theory, I challenge you to name one scientific institution which makes all its employees e-mails, code and raw data sets public.
The fact of the matter is that we live in an IP crazed world, and universities and research institutions hold on to intellectual property because their presidents/boards of directors/funders require them to.
Every idea is guarded, and yes, this does significant harm to the scientific process, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the CRU is committing scientific fraud.
THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS HERE IS IF CRU IS COMMITTING FRAUD, no amount of ad-hominem will make their findings fraudulent, only pre-existing suppressed scientific evidence can do that.
These folks need to stop their media blitz and go find the data that they are so sure exists, anything else is psudo-scientific nonsense, and is undeserving of attention.


I don't disagree, and I actually think that it is fine for them to keep data, methods, etc. private while they are being studied. But at the point that they want anyone to take action on them, it has to be opened up. I just mean that the burden of proof needs to be on the AGW supporting people, and if they want us to take action to prevent "catastrophic climate change" at some point in the future, they had better be able to show beyond any reasonable doubt that:
A) Our current use of fossil fuels and other energy sources that emit CO2 and other gases contribute to a greenhouse effect AND
B) The effects of CO2 output and any increased greenhouse gases will have serious, major implications in the climate, and those implications are fully understood and provable.

For item B there to be proven, the prediction models have to be complete and reliable. People using Keplerian formulas can tell you where the moon or other satellites will be in the sky 10 days, 1 year, or 100 years from today with almost perfect accuracy. Weathermen are frequently wrong about what the temperature will be tomorrow. I know that isn't a completely fair analogy, but the I think that the Global Warming models need to stand up to this level of scrutiny and a lot more, particularly if they want us to take major actions based on them.