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.

*Heavy sigh*
No. They don't say that. The science has evolved in the last 5 years. (Edit: Might check how old and out of date that ipcc report is, btw. Please note you ignore all science done since the 2014 IPCC report you reference that used melting equations and extrapolated rather than measured data sets, data and models they admit are incomplete. They have not updated their sea level estimates since the fifth assessment, which itself raised them approximately 60% over the fourth, which raised them significantly from the third...... Other nonpolitical scientific groups have adjusted the findings to include up to 6.5' or higher rise by 2100 under worst case conditions, the path we're firmly on today.)

Even if you were correct, and I don't agree one bit you are, is just under a 3' rise not bad enough for you in the next 70 years? That's at least 140 million people and all coastal habitats displaced, with more to come. I and others expect worse, but surely that's disaster enough for you, isn't it? The world couldn't deal with one million Syrians, 140 million coastal refugees, and whatever number of non coastal climate refugees fleeing drought or flood sure seems an unavoidable planetary disaster. That doesn't consider the two billion people who rely on Himalayan glaciers for their water, glaciers in rapid retreat.

I guess you dismiss the science from NOAA based simply on it being presented in Forbes without reading it then....so I should just dismiss the IPCC, another non scientific economically focused group discussing science?

Here's some more science then. Edit: Seems most CURRENT projections using up to date data are more in line with my expectations than yours.

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-metre-sea-plausible.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48337629

https://time.com/5592583/sea-levels-rise-higher-study/

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5056

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/sea-level-in-the-5th-ipcc-report/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Note the updated chart near the top showing more current projections compared to ipcc predictions.

*my content?*

No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.

I think the "sport" pilot designation is a disaster waiting to happen. Not enough training for vehicles that are as dangerous as any regular single engine piston aircraft.

It's an awesome machine.

Seriously though, is this the best we can do with that engine? What's with the ecological disaster every time it's started?

Maybe we could replace the engine with a forest fire.
It would be less polluting if they just ran it with an oil spill.
If only they can figure out how to start it by clubbing baby seals.
Instead of a pony engine can we just inject children with cancer?

I think the focus should be aimed toward those who have been injured physically, emotionally and mentally from all forms of violence whether it is natural disaster, crime, abuse, sickness etc. The people who have been broken and have lost hope need to be picked up and repaired and brought back to a better reality of caring and belonging.

Those are the ones who have seen enough of fighting and killing and need to know they are not forgotten. They need to there are good people without anger in there hearts. Someone on their side.

They've seen enough punishment from those who have no answers. Force should be used to save lives, not punish lives, otherwise you are the thing they fear.

Not all bad people are bad. They become afraid or don't know how to get or ask for help. No one wants to look weak.

People need inspiration and the knowledge that they are loved and OK and that their numbers are growing.

I know all this sounds like wishful thinking and fantasy, dreams come true for the good, the bad and the ugly.

All alone, or in two's
The ones who really love you
Walk up and down outside the wall
Some hand in hand
And some gathered together in bands
The bleeding hearts and the artists
Make their stand
And when they've given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall

Isn't this where

Roger Waters

Being able to articulate what the scientific method is, and unambiguously, unfailingly supporting it across the board should be a litmus test for politicians.
Today, I expect >1/2 don't even know what a litmus test is.

If you can't pass a 7th grade biology class, can't tell an ion from a prion, or can't tell the difference between verified scientific fact and religious dogma, that should disqualify you from any form of leadership, from the pta to the presidency. Ruling from dogmatic ignorance is always a recipe for disaster.

Sorry, Bob, your dude is either a moron or liar. (The woman screaming at him from off camera isn't much better.)
I had my proof when he lied "best case scenario, 10 ft sea level rise in 40-50 years, worst scenario is 100ft."

That is absolutely not even close to the prediction. Most accepted predictions are in the 2-3 ft sea level rise range by 2100, not 10-100 ft by 2060. Since he is so incredibly wrong about the basics, I have no doubt he's just as wrong or worse in his understanding of the science and not worth my time.....his lack of understanding a temperature change that takes thousands or tens of thousands of years is less destructive than one of equal magnitude taking decades reinforces that assumption.

His proof it's not real....he hasn't noticed it on the prospectus for condominiums or bank loans in Miami...not that he's read many but he's certain not a single fucking one mentions sea level rise....but that's absolutely bullshit, they do. Prices in low lying areas have steadily dropped since 2000 specifically because of increasing chances of flooding, while higher, previously low income areas are becoming gentrified. Hurricane and flood insurance rates have also skyrocketed because insurance companies do factor in climate change, which would be noted in a condo sales prospectus or bank loan. He's quite simply lying.

Don't think it went unnoticed that you didn't address the question a whit.

So let's have those names, your bloodline will not be saved from the disaster you help cause.

OK, hold the fucking phone here. This video is just a disaster. It is flippant and glossing over the facts of what actually happened. This story is a favorite of mine, so I have done a lot a reading on it.

This happened in 1983 (36 years ago).

>> Do planes seriously not have a fuel gauge?

There is specifically a digital fuel gauge processor on that plane, and it was malfunctioning. There was an inductor coil that wasn't properly soldered onto the circuit board. At that time, planes were allowed to fly without a functioning digital fuel gauge as long as there was a manual check of the fuel in tanks and the computer was told the starting fuel.

The problem is that fuel trucks pump by volume and planes measure fuel by weight. The fueling truck converted the volume to kilograms and then converted to pounds. He should not have used both. In 1983 ground crews were used to converting volume to pounds. The 767 was the first plane in Air Canada's fleet to have metric fuel gauges.

The line in the video "the flight crew approved of the fuel without noticing the error" glosses over how it is actually done. The pilot was passed a form that contained the numbers and calculations from the ground crew that stated that 22,300 kg of fuel was loaded on the plane. The math was wrong, but unless the pilots re-did the numbers by hand, there wouldn't be anything to jump out at them. He accepted the form and punched those numbers in to the computer.

The 767 was one of the first planes to eliminate the Flight Engineer position and replace it with a computer. There was no clear owner as to who does the fuel calc in this situation. In this case, it fell to the ground crew.

>> I would hope there is a nit more of a warning system than the engines shutting off.

If there was a functional digital fuel gauge, it would have showed them missing half their fuel from the start, and the error would have been caught. Because there wasn't, the computer was calculating and displaying the amount of fuel based on an incorrect start value.

That is another problem with this video. It states that "they didn't even think about it until ... and an alarm went off signalling that their left engine had quit working."

Fuck you, narrator asshole.

In this case, low fuel pump pressure warnings were firing off before the engines shut down. They were investigating why they would be getting these low pressure warnings when their calculated fuel values (based on the original error) showed that they had enough fuel.

>> I can't believe the pilot's were given an award for causing an avoidable accident.

The pilots did not cause it. They followed all the proper procedures applicable at that time, 1983. It was only due to their skill and quick thinking that the pilots landed the plane without any serious injuries to passengers.

They ran simulations in Vancouver of this exact fuel and flight situation and all the crews that ran this simulation crashed their planes.

"Bad math can kill you." Flippant, correct, but still not quite applicable to this situation. Air Canada did not provide any conversion training for dealing with kilograms and the 767. Not the ground crew, nor the pilots, were trained how to handle it. They were expected to "figure it out". That, and the elimination of the Flight Engineer position, set these situations up for disaster.

Oh HELL no. Anyone who accepts her endorsement or worse, her "help" should be run out of the election immediately, don't pass go, don't collect $200. Go away Hillary, you already cost us 4 years of Trump, if you do it again you deserve the lynching you'll receive from his base.

Like many ideas that might have saved the planet, they only stood a chance of working if you removed any choice.
Since that's not the norm in most places, I've understood we are doomed almost since I first heard of over population exceeding the sustainable food production levels, then along came global warming and ocean acidification. I understand that most people today are not capable of long term responsibility....making decisions based on how they effect their great grandchildren. It only took one century of living for today to set up a situation that threatens to destroy the planet. I see less than no hope of staving off disaster, instead of even trying we're firing all rockets at 110% to speed up the process and arguing over possibly turning down the thermostat next year.

*news

110 Dead; Search Continues for 238 Missing

Related artice: https://weather.com/news/news/2019-01-25-brazilian-mining-dam-collapses-vale-sa

A similar accident happened with the same company in 2015:

http://www.mining.com/vale-several-years-to-recover-from-brazil-mine-disaster/

*worldaffairs

Hm. Maybe. Putting aside for the moment that the original film was nearly perfect and needed no sequels or reboots, Jason Reitman probably will have more respect for the series and won't let it become the soulless Hollywood Reboot-O-Tron disaster that the 2016 version was.

Take the basic concept, do something new with it, and it might turn out to be a good film. Can't say I'm excited or anything though. The Ghostbusters intellectual property by itself isn't anything special.

Who is dumb enough to still listen to that delusional fraud lie about everything? I would love to see the average IQ of a Trump supporter studied....that could be step one towards intelligence testing for voting rights, something we need to avoid repeating this disaster.
If your grandfather said the type of deluded irrational nonsense he spouts daily, you would have them institutionalized....and that would be appropriate.
Time to make him prove he's mentally fit for office in court.....Pence too. If he swears he believed Trump, he's unfit. If he swears he knew Trump was lying and a fraud but went along with the frauds, he's unfit.

Yeah, I saw something that suggested this was filmed in July, so you'd think there was more information. All the news I can find on it, just report about the "viral video", with no results on when and where for sure. You'd think that the company itself, or people there that day, would have seen it gone viral and put info out by now... though unless it was the company itself, it'd be harder to vet.

I'd wager the driver was okay in the cage, might have broke a bone or two, but otherwise was okay. The guy in yellow on the right would be the bigger concern, as he was buried. Near the very end you see somebody in black making a run across the far right as the last section collapses.

The crazy thing is, the shelf was barely hit. You probably hit it harder when putting pallets up. It must have been the perfect combo of angle and velocity, then add to that the tension on the legs given the way it was stacked and voila, disaster.

Things I think we agree on......

Trump is a disaster.
Bias in media, especially news media, detracts from facts being clear and is a bad thing. (We disagree strongly which outlets display what levels of bias....even on which outlets can be properly called news).


I would rather share a foxhole with someone who will disagree with me civilly than someone who either agrees with me constantly or can't be civil, it makes for better conversation, the main entertainment in foxholes, so yes.