From Wiki. Plumbbob was a series of tests; this vid documents one of them. The only hard numbers about actual human disease rates in the Wiki entry needs a citation:

Plumbbob released 58,300 kilocuries (2.16 EBq) of radioiodine (I-131) into the atmosphere. This produced total civilian radiation exposures amounting to 120 million person-rads of thyroid tissue exposure (about 32% of all exposure due to continental nuclear tests).

Statistically speaking, this level of exposure would be expected to eventually cause between 11,000 and 212,000 excess cases of thyroid cancer, leading to between 1,000 and 20,000 deaths.[3]

In addition to civilian exposure, troop exercises conducted near the ground near shot "Smoky" exposed over three thousand servicemen to relatively high levels of radiation. A survey of these servicemen in 1980 found significantly elevated rates of leukemia: ten cases, instead of the baseline expected four.[citation needed]

Word the question right on a survey and it will tell you anything you want it to.
Romney is a puppet and an idiot. (at least an idiot)

*promote the tone deafness.

Stupid survey.

I'll replace it with "something."

Back when the underlying data was featured prominently on some programs, I was curious as to how realistic these numbers truly are. The lowest quintile is listed as having 0.1% of all wealth, yet SNAP participation is at around 45 million. It doesn't seem plausible for the lowest quintile to have any positive wealth at all.

Was it a conscious decision to define wealth or to pick survey participants in a way that doesn't allow for negative wealth (aka debt) to be listed? Or was the entire thing just simplified to appeal to a broader audience?

For reference: wealth distribution in Germany listed the lowest two deciles at -1.6% and 0.0% respectively, if I remember correctly.

Mine was when the bodyguard was arming up to provide protection, and the lead scientist said something like "put that away, this is a scientific expedition!"

As if scientific exploration for hundreds of years didn't have fricking fracking guards as they went into unknown environments.

Still pisses me off.


>> ^redyellowblue:

First stupid moment for me was Worm eye dude who said. "6 hours of day light left. phhhh, lets suit up and go out there. I wanna open my birthday presents" Dude, you just landed on an alien planet in a spaceship hotel. Maybe take your time? Survey the area thoroughly before going ALL THE WAY inside.

First stupid moment for me was Worm eye dude who said. "6 hours of day light left. phhhh, lets suit up and go out there. I wanna open my birthday presents" Dude, you just landed on an alien planet in a spaceship hotel. Maybe take your time? Survey the area thoroughly before going ALL THE WAY inside.

@bmacs27

No doubt, the best deals get done. The two I have in mind as examples are either under construction or fully built. When you have firm tenant commitments with specific requirements there is money out there that will back the project. In one case an institutional investor partnered with the developer to fund the project. In the other the developers got cash from just about everywhere and anywhere they could to meet the equity requirement.

What happened in my market is a "flight to quality" or "flight to safety". Basically tenants and developers stopped looking at the green belt (developing outer edges) and started looking at the strongest parts of the local market. That means the CBD and established communities. These deals are harder, but they are safer. Thus the "easy" deals in the developing (speculative) communities ended.

The idea that there are a bunch of empty shopping malls isn't really true. Vacancy rates spiked several years ago yes, but since then the amount of new space to market (supply) has dropped.


When I recently surveyed four communities in Central, IL (Bloomington/Normal, Springfield, Decatur, & Champaign/Urbana) I found that there is very little available retail space. Same goes for the Chicago Loop.

I agree we need infrastructure investment but we also need let the market dictate where new construction is going to take place because each market is different. Location location location. If the fundamentals make sense we need to build.

2012 KT42 is an asteroid discovered by Alex R. Gibbs of the Mt. Lemmon Survey (part of the Catalina Sky Survey) with a 1.5-m reflector + CCD on May 28, 2012. The asteroid had a close approach to the Earth on May 29, 2012, approaching to only Distance: ~8950 miles / ~14,440 km above the planet's surface. This means 2012 KT42 came inside the Clarke Belt of geosynchronous satellites. As of May 28, 2012, the estimated 5 to 10 meter wide asteroid ranked #6 on the top 20 list of closest-approaches to Earth. There was no danger of a collision during the close approach. 2012 KT42 will pass roughly 0.01 AU (1,500,000 km; 930,000 mi) from Venus on 2012 July 8.[3]

It is estimated that an impact would produce an upper atmosphere air burst equivalent to 11 kt TNT,[4] roughly equal to Hiroshima's Little Boy. The asteroid would be vaporized as these small impacts occur approximately once per year. A comparable-sized object caused the Sutter's Mill meteorite in California on 2012 April 22. It was removed from the Sentry Risk Table on 2012 May 30.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_KT42

>> ^zombieater:

I like the idea of this survey, but the description mixes two different topics. The theory of natural selection and evolution have nothing to do with the origins of life on earth (the prevalent scientific theory belongs to abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). I believe this may be what gwiz touched on, in that numbers 2 and 4 also refer to evolution.
Perhaps we could ask a survey that asks about the origin of life on earth? Selections could include:
1) Creationism
2) Deism (Clockwork Universe Theory)
3) Abiogenesis
4) Panspermia Hypothesis
The Gallup poll to which you refer did not focus on the origins of life, rather how life has changed (or not changed) in our recent biological history. I doubt you meant that aliens have changed life since it first began, which is why I believe two different ideas are mixed here.


Your right, I did mix it up a bit. I tried to even it out a bit in a quick edit maybe 10 minutes afterwards when I fully re-read it (and the realization that it was slanted hit me; I also tried to make the religious stances sound more equalized--hard to do without evidence...). But, really I had it up for too long so I just left it be; or at the least I thought it was too long. I figured everyone would gather what there was to choose from and what I meant whether I made some mistakes or not. Even in my description of Evolution I made sure to make people realize that Darwin's old natural selection isn't the "exact" primer for everything in biology although a strong one. We've found much to our surprise that stranger things are going on in the lands of "Evolution" and natural selection, survival of the fittest, and other old adages taught in school as the MOST of the only things driving Evolution for the most part may be a little off--not completely--just that the window to our knowledge IS NOT closed and our horizons are broader than once thought thanks to modern scientists re-tooling their devices and machines to once again have a more thorough and "re-tooling" our look at Evolution for a harder "inside look" as well. It's more like an onion now with layers that peel off; each time you peel off one there's another ready to be peeled off... (I'll make sure I didn't get that confused in the poll, somewhere...)

As for choices two and four... I was also concerned that they both had Evolution (especially choice four as I listed it DIRECTLY, even though technically an Alien intelligence is bound to believe, perhaps, in fourteen different reasons for their existence and ours as well...so I may have "jumped the shark" so to say on that one altogether) as a primary tool in them as well as it really didn't differentiate them that much from straight up Evolution (and it did in fact make Evolution seem like the clear choice in many respects, unless you are a STOUT believer of the other two--no case was made for them). Your selection of choices certainly would have worked as well (though to be honest I think many would need to go to Wikipedia before they picked it ), but I did want to try to remain close to the Gallup Poll (as you discussed later) and you're correct in that I should have stayed away from the Evolution subject on those and focused on what their key beliefs, politics (if any), key ideas, and as I said earlier perhaps to even make a case for them--as much could be made. (That goes for @gwiz665s comment too as well, as you said; his comment noted the same discrepancy...) These are things to make sure I do on my next poll; but, I think everyone can make it through this one OK for now.

C'est la vie.

PS- My shift keys are broken and it's DRIVING me nuts. If it seems like I'm randomly not capitalizing letters that should be, that's why! Good thing I'm proof-reading right now or I would have had 10 or so just in this post alone!

I like the idea of this survey, but the description mixes two different topics. The theory of natural selection and evolution have nothing to do with the origins of life on earth (the prevalent scientific theory belongs to abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). I believe this may be what gwiz touched on, in that numbers 2 and 4 also refer to evolution.

Perhaps we could ask a survey that asks about the origin of life on earth? Selections could include:
1) Creationism
2) Deism (Clockwork Universe Theory)
3) Abiogenesis
4) Panspermia Hypothesis

The Gallup poll to which you refer did not focus on the origins of life, rather how life has changed (or not changed) in our recent biological history. I doubt you meant that aliens have changed life since it first began, which is why I believe two different ideas are mixed here.

See the link in the first comment.>> ^bobknight33:

I wounder what were the questions? and answers.
It would make a good survey for the sift community to see where we stand

I wounder what were the questions? and answers.

It would make a good survey for the sift community to see where we stand

I don't care about the video. Sebellius isn't the only speaker or interpreter of the law, and what its intent is. You do know she didn't write the law all by herself. She's one person of many who wrote it.

The video is her testimony about how the bill was drafted. It's also her department, and her baby, as she gave the final approval. It's a concept completely foreign to this administration "the buck stops here".

You can't just say it violates the establishment clause. You actually have to prove it does. Prove how it establishes a state sponsored religion. It doesn't. Nobody is compelled or pressured to use the pill at all. None, nada, whatsoever.

What I meant to say is the free exercise clause. Are you familiar with that? Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs violates that clause.

Oh, so when you feel like it passes the "balancing test", it passes the balancing test? It's clear as day coverage of contraception is in society's best interest. Birth control pills are used commonly often without a thing to do with preventing pregnancy. It benefits society as a whole. It's commonly used to regulate menstrual cycles, thereby reducing pain and cramps. It's also used to control endometriosis. My wife, a virgin until we were married, was on the pill for years before I even met her for both reasons.

If you had watched the video, you would have seen that she admitted that no balancing test was done for the mandate.

Tell me how in the hell (pardon my French) use of the pill in this case has a thing to do with religion? It doesn't. Women using birth control in this manner saves an already overburdened medical system from having to treat women with these kinds of issues efficiently, and saves the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity from sick days, and medical visits to try to deal with these issues otherwise.

But you only care to look at this issue strictly from your religious tented glasses and with your ignorant penis. Forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers the pill isn't forcing a religion on them. Allowing them to choose not to provide a health insurance plan is forcing their religious views on their employees, when it very often isn't a religious issue at all. 95% of women say they take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

There are lawsuits about Obamacare concerning religious freedom out there. So what? That doesn't mean the law will get declared unconstitutional on those grounds. There's cases out there claiming a bunch of laws are unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of those cases fail to be heard by the Supreme Court or lose if they do. You have no proof it violates the First Amendment.

By forcing religious institutions to violate their religious principles, they are violating the free exercise clause.

So if 38% of those surveyed weren't even considered in the results, how valid is this poll? I guess the margin of error is +/- 38%. LOL...

Here's another poll, not that the other one wasn't valid:

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/poll-americans-oppose-obama-birth-control-coverage-mandate/

So you're just not gonna address the fact that Obama has only come out against provisions of DOMA that contradict states being able to determine if a gay marriage is illegal, I see. Any attempt to repeal even just a small section of it is far left? OK, then favoring any provision in it makes you a hard right Nazi. You therefore are a Nazi. That's how ridiculous your argument is about DOMA.

You're misinformed:

"The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.

White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html

"And he hasn't changed his position 3 times on gay marriage unless you're too dense to understand what he's said on the topic. He believes that there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage; however, in the spirit of compromise, he thought that perhaps not labeling it as a marriage, but instead a civil union would be enough to bridge the gap between both sides, so that he could focus on other things. When that compromise finally showed it was not going to bridge the gap, he finally said he believes gay marriage is perfectly fine, but STILL reiterated he believes states should decide this, NOT the federal gov't. That is still a center-left view. The only parts of DOMA he wants to repeal are again the provisions that thwart states to decide, which force the federal gov't to never recognize a same sex marriage. Understand that... he is NOT saying he favors the federal gov't to ALWAYS regard a same sex marriage as legal, but only if that couple's STATE declares it legal. Survey says... MODERATE! It's not far left."

He was for it in 1996, undecided in 1998, in 2004 he said:

"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about..."

In 2008 he said

"“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

Then he was "evolving". Then he came out in support of it. Actually he changed his position more than 3 times.

"FOCA does NOT establish abortion as a fundamental right. You want proof? Can you go anywhere in the US and get an abortion unless under certain provisions today? YES! Roe v. Wade established it as a fundamental right. This is WITHOUT FOCA!

Would it invalidate freedom of conscience laws for religious organizations? NO.

Read the bill:

Prohibits a *federal, state, or local government entity* from..."

IE, religious organizations providing health care will not be compelled to perform abortions. Only gov't entities are under this obligation.

Mandatory parental involvement nullification... BS!

Minors do not have the same rights as adults. A 16-year-old can have a curfew law applied to them, even though such a law would be against the fundamental rights of an adult. That's a basic law precedent, dude.

Late term abortion restrictions being nullified is BS...

"Declares...that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to... terminate a pregnancy *prior to fetal viability*; or terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability *when necessary to protect her life or her health*."

IE, you can't have an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy because you simply don't want the baby. You're full of it.

Laws that require ultrasounds and counseling? Yep, you're right, FOCA would likely prevent this, and most people are against a legal adult from being forced to have their vaginas probed against their will. You're saying prohibiting this is extreme left? SERIOUSLY?!

http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html

>> ^heropsycho:

I don't care about the video. Sebellius isn't the only speaker or interpreter of the law, and what its intent is. You do know she didn't write the law all by herself. She's one person of many who wrote it.

You can't just say it violates the establishment clause. You actually have to prove it does. Prove how it establishes a state sponsored religion. It doesn't. Nobody is compelled or pressured to use the pill at all. None, nada, whatsoever.

Oh, so when you feel like it passes the "balancing test", it passes the balancing test? It's clear as day coverage of contraception is in society's best interest. Birth control pills are used commonly often without a thing to do with preventing pregnancy. It benefits society as a whole. It's commonly used to regulate menstrual cycles, thereby reducing pain and cramps. It's also used to control endometriosis. My wife, a virgin until we were married, was on the pill for years before I even met her for both reasons.

Tell me how in the hell (pardon my French) use of the pill in this case has a thing to do with religion? It doesn't. Women using birth control in this manner saves an already overburdened medical system from having to treat women with these kinds of issues efficiently, and saves the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity from sick days, and medical visits to try to deal with these issues otherwise.

http://news.health.ufl.edu/2012/18504/multimedia/health-in-a-heartbeat/women-taking-birth-control-pills-for-reasons-other-than-contraception/

But you only care to look at this issue strictly from your religious tented glasses and with your ignorant penis. Forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers the pill isn't forcing a religion on them. Allowing them to choose not to provide a health insurance plan is forcing their religious views on their employees, when it very often isn't a religious issue at all. 95% of women say they take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

There are lawsuits about Obamacare concerning religious freedom out there. So what? That doesn't mean the law will get declared unconstitutional on those grounds. There's cases out there claiming a bunch of laws are unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of those cases fail to be heard by the Supreme Court or lose if they do. You have no proof it violates the First Amendment.

Your poll, you missed out on one little thing in it...

"*Among the 62 percent of Americans who have heard about the mandate*, 48 percent said they support an exemption for religiously affiliated institutions if they object to the use of contraceptives, the survey found. Forty-four percent said the groups should be required to cover contraceptives like other employers."

So if 38% of those surveyed weren't even considered in the results, how valid is this poll? I guess the margin of error is +/- 38%. LOL...

And it doesn't matter because majority rule doesn't determine whether something is unconstitutional. Majority votes don't tell what is good policy for the US necessarily either.

So you're just not gonna address the fact that Obama has only come out against provisions of DOMA that contradict states being able to determine if a gay marriage is illegal, I see. Any attempt to repeal even just a small section of it is far left? OK, then favoring any provision in it makes you a hard right Nazi. You therefore are a Nazi. That's how ridiculous your argument is about DOMA.

And he hasn't changed his position 3 times on gay marriage unless you're too dense to understand what he's said on the topic. He believes that there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage; however, in the spirit of compromise, he thought that perhaps not labeling it as a marriage, but instead a civil union would be enough to bridge the gap between both sides, so that he could focus on other things. When that compromise finally showed it was not going to bridge the gap, he finally said he believes gay marriage is perfectly fine, but STILL reiterated he believes states should decide this, NOT the federal gov't. That is still a center-left view. The only parts of DOMA he wants to repeal are again the provisions that thwart states to decide, which force the federal gov't to never recognize a same sex marriage. Understand that... he is NOT saying he favors the federal gov't to ALWAYS regard a same sex marriage as legal, but only if that couple's STATE declares it legal. Survey says... MODERATE! It's not far left.

FOCA does NOT establish abortion as a fundamental right. You want proof? Can you go anywhere in the US and get an abortion unless under certain provisions today? YES! Roe v. Wade established it as a fundamental right. This is WITHOUT FOCA!

Would it invalidate freedom of conscience laws for religious organizations? NO.

Read the bill:

"Prohibits a *federal, state, or local government entity* from..."

IE, religious organizations providing health care will not be compelled to perform abortions. Only gov't entities are under this obligation.

Mandatory parental involvement nullification... BS!

Minors do not have the same rights as adults. A 16-year-old can have a curfew law applied to them, even though such a law would be against the fundamental rights of an adult. That's a basic law precedent, dude.

Late term abortion restrictions being nullified is BS...

"Declares...that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to... terminate a pregnancy *prior to fetal viability*; or terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability *when necessary to protect her life or her health*."

IE, you can't have an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy because you simply don't want the baby. You're full of it.

Laws that require ultrasounds and counseling? Yep, you're right, FOCA would likely prevent this, and most people are against a legal adult from being forced to have their vaginas probed against their will. You're saying prohibiting this is extreme left? SERIOUSLY?!

So he's not an extreme liberal, but these views are extreme liberal, and you believe he's likely to take off his costume and become the true hardcore communist everyone should fear in his second term... but he's NOT an extreme liberal?

Dude, which is it?

>> ^shinyblurry:


Did you watch the video and read the commentary? If you have then you should have understood that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which will take precedence. It will be thrown out in court.
That is why there is what they call the balancing test, which Kathleen admitted she didn't factor in our her decision. Disallowing seat belts, on balance, would not be in our best interest.
There are lawsuits specifically challenging the contraceptive mandate, and it will be thrown out for violating the establishment cause
Not according to this poll:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/po
ll-americans-divided-over-contraception-mandate/
Apparently you know very little about FOCA. It would establish abortion as a fundamental right, and nullify states laws concerning parental involvement, restrictions on late term abortions, conscience protection laws for health care providers, bans on partial birth abortions, conscience laws for institutions, laws requiring counseling and also ultrasounds. It would compel taxpayer funding through state and federal welfare programs, employee insurance plans, and military hospitals. It would apparently force faith-based hospitals and health care facilities to perform abortions as well.
That's just scratching the surface.

I'll say it for the third time, and I hope you will read it this time. I don't think Obama is necessarily an extreme liberal, although I think he has those tendencies. I don't think he is a traditional democrat, and that there is a lot that is unknown about his particular agenda; an agenda we will discover on his second term.
>> ^heropsycho: