>> ^notarobot:
I appreciate Brand's appeal for rational global-problem solving as well as his research and his organization of information, but I share almost none of his enthusiasm for the topics he discussed.
Genetic engineering presumes that humans, in our 50-70 year life span know better than nature. Nature has been at the game of shaping genes, of us and every living thing on the Earth, for a long time. Once a gene has been modified it can stay way for eternity. There is no undo. It is arrogant for any human to believe that even the knowledge of how to meddle with genes should be the same as carrying the wisdom to wield that knowledge without error.

If you think something shouldn't be done, because nature knows best, you could carry that same argument to all aspects of our technology, and I doubt you want us to live in pre-stoneage time again. I don't see how nature knows anything, or cares about anything. Nature just functions through mutation and selection. At any time an invasive or disruptive species could evolve. The only safeguard on nature is that evolution moves quite slow.
We have been genetically modifying animals since the first wolf was domesticated. Just look at what kind of freaky dogs we have created since. Or highly productive farm animals that couldn't function in the wild, a dairy cow for example. Now we have the ability to speed up and improve this process. And granted, there is a difference, because now we can move genes into an organism that never were there before, like jellyfish genes in a mammal.
Most if not all species that we engineer have no competitive advantage in nature and will only thrive in our carefully managed farmlands. For potentially more dangerous applications, we need to take adequate precautions and thoroughly test species or build in kill genes that we could trigger. Or just make them infertile.

Though it is true that warheads can be dismantled (with significant effort) for use in nuclear power stations, the fact that the bi-product of fission reactors is weapons-grade material remains lost on most people.

This fact is not lost on many engineers. Many modern reactor designs cannot make weapons grade materials. The reason that many old nuclear plants can do this is because they were specifically designed to make the bomb material and produce energy in the process.
Weapons grade material can also be made without reactors by extracting the fissile component of natural uranium.

Geo engineering is the product of similar arrogance of as genetic engineering. It is fueled by a desire for a static environment. The fact is that the Earth has never stood still, and will never do so (except for that one time in film..).

Of course the Earth doesn't care what we do, it and life will go on no matter what we do, even after a full out nuclear war. The point could be made that we have been geoengineering for a long time now. Just look at our cities, farmland and pollution. The only problem is that some of our geoengineering is potentially harmful to us and nature. Therefore deliberate geoengineering is proposed to mitigate these problems. From a humanitarian view one would want to mitigate these problems to relieve human suffering, just like we try to eradicate horrible diseases.

I'm not real sure just what Bush's uranium claims have to do with this piece, but let's just go ahead and toss it out there anyway. TYT have never claimed to be non-partisan that I've heard (admittedly, I don't listen to them unless a clip makes it on here), so I don't see how what they would or would not cover has anything to do with factcheck or the Repugs' (as separate from Republicans) refusal to face proven facts.

Enlighten us...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'arizona, senator, moron, creationist, not fit to live' to 'arizona, senate, moron, creationist, uranium, nuclear, Sylvia Allen, mining, republican' - edited by burdturgler

Im a fan of yours most of the time. I enjoy your comments.

In reply to this comment by burdturgler:
I think she should personally handle all the uranium to make sure it's safe.

Phone Number: (602) 926-5219
Fax Number: (602) 417-3005
Email Address: sallen@azleg.gov

well, there's an argument to be had there, but any amount of safe or unsafe uranium is still better than half the world's cities underwater

>> ^Nithern:
Well, at least we know which verion of Genesis she thinks is correct. Still, anyone who thinks uranium is 'safe' is either a poorly educated whacko, or a talking puppet of the mining company looking to screw Arizonians over.


I'm pretty sure her point is that god will make it safe, as long as we love him enough. You know, the way he's always protecting us from the consequences of our own actions.

Well, at least we know which verion of Genesis she thinks is correct. Still, anyone who thinks uranium is 'safe' is either a poorly educated whacko, or a talking puppet of the mining company looking to screw Arizonians over.

"It's been here 6000 years, long Before anybody had any environmental laws, and somehow it hasn't been done away with."

That's cause when Jesus mined for uranium he...ah screw it.

I think she should personally handle all the uranium to make sure it's safe.

Phone Number: (602) 926-5219
Fax Number: (602) 417-3005
Email Address: sallen@azleg.gov

No, Europa has a negligible atmosphere, so there won't be a re-entry burn. Sterilizing the probe will be one of the biggest challenges. (Earth) life is very hardy and has traveled with Apollo to the Moon and back (on the outside of the craft).
I also very much doubt a probe, even if it leaks, would damage the environment much, only very locally. Europa should have a vast ocean and Uranium doesn't dissolve that quickly. The oceans of Europa might contain some uranium already, just like Earth's ocean at 3 parts per billion (or 10^13 kg (2 × 10^13 lb) total). That's 10 with 13 zeroes.

Don't "That's just correlation" me. Do you think humans arriving in these locations and the animals going extinct had some external, shared cause? If not, then the correlation implies causation. And the mechanisms are many and obvious -- hunting, land use changes by humans, competition for prey with humans, etc.

Cite your claim that humans didn't have enough population density. I don't believe that. Humans expanded very rapidly in new worlds (1000 years = 40 generations, even a small growth rate would lead to saturation over one millennium. From crossing the ice bridge in Alaska humans managed to saturate both continents surprisingly quickly according to Jared Diamond).

And read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_megafauna
"Some proponents claim climate change alone caused extinction of the megafauna, but these arguments have to account for the fact that megaufaunal species comfortably survived two million years of climatic oscillations, including a number of arid glacial periods, before their sudden extinction. New evidence based on accurate optically stimulated luminescence and Uranium-thorium dating of megafaunal remains suggests that humans were the ultimate cause of the extinction of megafauna in Australia.[3] The dates derived show that all forms of megafauna became extinct in the same rapid timeframe — approximately 47,000 years ago — the period of time in which humans first arrived in Australia."

Uranium is natural. It is natural. It is safe. I want it infused into my clothes, home, and food. It is naturally occurring in the Earth. It is natural. It is thus good. Why? Because GOD created it. God wouldn't create anything naturally harmful to human life. Right?

*uh hum. yeah*

>>GeeSussFreeK
In rural Vietnam they teach children about bombies (from cluster bombs) within their school curriculum to this day. While uranium shells penetrate a target better I doubt the military planners in the US have taken into consideration the long term effects pf uranium shells.

>> ^grinter:
With all of those particles being ejected, it is not hard to believe that the huge amounts of lead bullets of depleted uranium shells could lead to health hazards for families living in a war zone (beyond the obvious health hazards, of course).


Heheh little misspeak there, lead bullets are lead, and depleted uranium bullets are made from depleted uranium

"In a three week period of conflict in Iraq during 2003 it was estimated over 1000 tons of depleted uranium munitions were used mostly in cities.[7] While any radiation exposure has risks, no conclusive data have correlated DU exposure to specific human health effects such as cancer.[8] Yet, studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.[9] In addition, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service in early 2004 attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.[10][11] Also, a 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[12]"


7 ^ a b c Paul Brown, Gulf troops face tests for cancer guardian.co.uk 25 April 2003, Retrieved February 3, 2009
8 ^ Health Effects of Uranium. "Toxicological profile for uranium". http://fhp.osd.mil/du/healthEffects.jsp.
9 ^ Miller AC, McClain D. (2007 Jan-Mar). "A review of depleted uranium biological effects: in vitro and in vivo studies". Rev Environ Health 22 (1): 75–89. PMID 17508699.
10 ^ Williams, M. (February 9, 2004) "First Award for Depleted Uranium Poisoning Claim," The Herald Online, (Edinburgh: Herald Newspapers, Ltd.)
11 ^ Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (Spring, 2004) "MoD Forced to Pay Pension for DU Contamination," CADU News 17)
12 ^ a b c d Hindin, R. et al. (2005) "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective," Environmental

A quick wiki shows it is controversial at least. One would suppose that it would be at least somewhat harmful. Did you ever hear about that illness soldiers were coming back with from the first Gulf war? It wasn't really talked about much and I remember it being later attributed to the burning oil fields, perhaps this is a more likely culprit.

Edited to correct a horribly mangled sentence:

With all of those particles being ejected, it is not hard to believe that lead bullets or depleted uranium shells could lead to health hazards for families living in a war zone (beyond the obvious health hazards, of course).