To answer your question in the description, the waste water contains phosphogypsum which is a radioactive byproduct from the production of phosphate (sulphuric acid is reacted with phosphate rock to produce phosphoric acid used for fertilizer production).

The radioactivity comes from naturally occurring uranium and radium in the phosphate ore. Central Florida phosphogypsum averages 26 pCi/g radium, and the EPA prohibites its use, but further north in Florida the phosphogypsum has an average concentration of less than 10 pCi/g radium which can be used as an agricultural amendment, but for no other use.

Also, the European news that I saw reported 980 million litres of contaminated water which is only slightly higher than the 225 million u.s. gallons reported elsewhere.

\

Published on Apr 14, 2016

The aerobatics skills of Russian pilots over the US destroyer Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea left the Pentagon and other US official running for cover in Washington over “aggressive close interactions” with Russian fighters jets.
Trends
Russia-NATO relations
Releasing the footage of Russian jet flybys in the vicinity of the destroyer, the US Navy said that its vessel has encountered multiple “aggressive flight maneuvers ...within close proximity of the ship,” some as close as 30 feet (10 meters) on Monday and Tuesday.

The set of incidents took place as the US ship, which had sailed from the Polish port of Gdynia, was conducting exercises with its NATO ally Poland in the Baltic Sea. The Navy announced that the SU-24 first flew over Donald Cook on Monday as US sailors were rehearsing “deck landing drills with an allied [Polish] military helicopter”. The numerous close-range, low altitude encounters were witnessed at 3:00pm local time, forcing the commander of the ship to suspend helicopter refueling on the deck until the Russian jets departed the area.

The next day, the Navy said, Russia caused concern among US sailors when a Russian KA-27 Helix helicopter flew seven times over the ship at low altitude in international waters at around 5:00pm. Some 40 minutes later, two Russian SU-24 jets allegedly made a further 11 “close-range and low altitude passes”.

“The Russian aircraft flew in a simulated attack profile and failed to respond to repeated safety advisories in both English and Russian. USS Donald Cook’s commanding officer deemed several of these maneuvers as unsafe and unprofessional,” the Navy said.

Judging by the videos released by the US Navy, the sailors were nonplussed by the Russian aerobatic skills. They gathered on the top deck of the destroyer to watch the Russian pilots.

“He is on the deck below the bridge lane...It looks like he’ll be coming in across the flight deck, coming in low, bridge wing level...Over the bow, right turn, over the bow...” the voiceover on the footage states in what looks more like an instructor’s advice on how to maneuver in open waters, rather than the panic that the central command presented it to be. At least on the video no one can be seen running for cover.

According to a US defense official who spoke with Defense News, sailors aboard the Donald Cook claimed that the Russian jets’ low altitude stirred waters and created wake underneath the ship. US personnel on the American vessels, also claimed that Su-24 was “wings clean,” meaning no armaments were present on the Russian jets that could have posed a threat to US operations in the Baltic.

Yet at the same time, the official noted, that this week's incidents are “more aggressive than anything we’ve seen in some time,” as the SU-24 appeared to be flying in a “simulated attack profile.”

The Russian overflights have caused panic over in Washington, with White House spokesman Josh Earnest calling the actions of the Russian pilots “provocative” and “inconsistent with professional norms of militaries.”

“I hear the Russians are up to their old tricks again in the EUCOM [US European Command] AOR [area of responsibility],” Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman Col. Steve Warren said during a briefing on Wednesday, adding that the US is “concerned with this behavior.”

“We have deep concerns about the unsafe and unprofessional Russian flight maneuvers. These actions have the potential to unnecessarily escalate tensions between countries, and could result in a miscalculation or accident that could cause serious injury or death,” the US European Command said in a statement.

In the meantime Adm. John Richardson, the chief of naval operations, thanked the US crew for keeping their cool during the stressful situation.

“Bravo Zulu to the crew of USS Donald Cook for their initiative and toughness in how they handled themselves during this incident,” the admiral said on Facebook.

Russia has yet to comment on the incidents but most likely the Russian air craft flew from the Kaliningrad region, bordering Poland. Kaliningrad is the headquarters of the Russian Baltic Fleet, which also includes the Chernyakhovsk, Donskoye, and Kaliningrad Chkalovsk air bases.

Description Credits: Russia Today

Video Credits: Defense Media Activity - Navy

The stats were percentage of total population, not individuals. The Jewish (immigrant)population was growing exponentially faster than non-Jewish. The concern is because it was the Jewish ones that decided to permanently relocate in huge numbers (larger than all other demographics put together) across the continent to a single small country that could not stop them, and then take it by force, expelling the natives.
This "refugee from hostility" bullshit is just that as I see it. If, as you claim, the Arab population in Palestine was already hostile to Jews specifically (and I contend that if they were it was a function of massive illegal immigration, often by militants, that pushed them to it), then moving there would do absolutely nothing to alleviate the concern they might have for people that are hostile in Northern Europe. It's a complete red herring argument, ridiculous on it's face, and worse when examined closely.

"except for the holocaust part"....
Tell that to the families of the students murdered by police, or the tens of thousands of Guatemalans fleeing murder squads. State sponsored murder is state sponsored murder, it doesn't require total genocide (although the Jews don't have a monopoly on that either) and Mexicans and others have just as valid a claim that they are oppressed by it (not to the same extent as Jews under the Nazis, no, but as much or more than before the Nazis started their campaigns).

OK, let's play pretend...starting with pretending the rest of the world has an American constitution requiring equal treatment and denying discrimination based on race or religion....but I'll bite.
Almost all that happened in the 50's-60's....in case you weren't aware....without the Rwandan genocide part, or the backing by a foreign nation arming the black side. I think there were even attempts at succeeding by some groups back then....but they got no support, and were 'driven into the sea' in essence, mostly driven into prison, hiding, or a 6 ft box in reality.
Comparing the Arab league to NATO and the US is hardly realistic, unless the black nation in your "example" gets the military backing of Russia, China, Africa, South America, and parts of central America, and NATO only contains the US, Mexico, and Canada, and has no chance against new Africa and it's allies, which beats them mercilessly then expands north for decades. Also, you have to change the immigration from Rwanda, a tiny nation, to black "refugees" from the entire planet...and even then you don't have close to the same per capita immigration problem European Jewish immigrants posed to native Palestinians. All that said...I'm pretty sure some Northern leaders publicly declared they would drive the secessionists into the sea in the civil war, so it would be nothing new here. Also, it would be totally proper to do so in your hypothetical, IMO. Any invaders can be driven out by force by any nation...and that nation gets to decide who's an invader. Keep in mind that in your example, the black nation would expel all non blacks and seize their property....which is usually called theft.

I'll stick with my Mexican analogy, it's vastly more apt, IMO....it's as if you forgot that there are native Mexicans in the US that did have their property rights infringed on and were discriminated against (and still are)...and/or aren't aware that Rwanda is much smaller than the US or even smaller than many individual states, and/or ignored that the Arab League is much smaller and infinitely less capable than the UN or NATO, so not a decent comparison.....or aren't aware of.....well, that's enough, no need to harp.

Seems she had no idea what she was in for. Must have been a bit of a shock.

Tony Hinchcliffe, who wrote jokes for Coulter to recite at the show. In Hinchcliffe’s telling, Coulter had no idea of what went down at the somewhat iconic roasts, and refused to learn. “We asked her if she’d seen a Comedy Central Roast, and she said no,” he said. “She had no idea what was going to happen going into it.”
http://www.spin.com/2016/09/ann-coulter-was-at-the-roast-of-rob-lowe-because-she-didnt-know-what-a-roast-was/

As is the case in many areas, good people do nothing, and the wrong type of people fill the void.
This is why good people need to speak up, and get involved, even if it's against their very nature. It's a simple case of keeping the wrong people out of the system.

IMO the whole system needs to change. A progressive society would have a committee of elite scientists at the top of the hierarchy setting out the overall agenda for humanity through evidence based reasoning. The scientists themselves would be elected through their achievements and contributions to humankind alone, as a way to weed out those who are doing it for power or money.

Political parties would still exist, but below the top level, and their role would be to choose which parts of the agenda to work on first, so that the general public can elect the political party that represents their own priorities. The politicians pay would depend on how much of the scientist listed agenda has been achieved during their term.

Politicians themselves would get paid decent figures, but they would never be allowed to work, receive financial or material support of any kind to ensure that they cannot be "bought".

Political donations would go into a central repository, accessible by all parties.

Why would getting on and off a paternoster be different from stepping onto a normal moving staircase (escalator)? Its just one step.

As for "I can easily imagine severed limbs" or "slow moving guillotine" web articles - I have never seen severed limbs or heads anywhere near a paternoster. Difficult to compare but I would expect accidents to be similar to escalator accidents (which can be pretty bad, Ive had one myself).

In any case paternosters are just as popular (though rare) all over central (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Austria) northern (Sweden, Finland), part of western Europe (Germany, England, Denmark, Netherlands), and even as far as the Austrian Empire extended southward into the Balkans (Beograd).

IMO, to be devout in any religion, you must be a fundamentalist. If you believe you have access to the direct instructions from GOD, and you believe in that god, yet you ignore the parts you dislike, you aren't following the religion and are an infidel, not devout. EDIT: Unless your text specifically allows you to use your own morality and interpretations, but I have not heard of a religion that does that.
As I see it, if you apply your own morality you are creating your own religion. Codified religions come with a defined set of morals that are unmodifiable, indisputable and unquestionable. If you question them, you question god, so can't be devout or following the religion. (This would be a good reason for any true believer to read only the original texts in their original tongue, not a translated version that's someone else's interpretation of the meaning.)

The religious texts are the central authority, they all contain specific rules and requirements. If you ignore some of those, IMO, you aren't honestly religious, you're a fan of religion.

I grew up in the deep south. I can say for certain that you are wrong that almost everyone ignores the outdated bits, but it's correct that most do hide the fact that they believe them because they know it makes them look terrible....but get them at a church picnic and you'll find out they do think slavery is fine, and whores should be stoned to death, etc. They are just mostly too chicken shit to do it themselves, as their book directs them to, because they're afraid of repercussion (and because they don't really believe god will protect them for being righteous, or that heaven is enough reward for being a martyr).

So which is it?

Either you can be a Christian or a Muslim and apply your own morality to your religion ...

or

you're not a Christian or a Muslim unless you're a literal fundamentalist?

Given there isn't really some kind of central authority on who is or isn't Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever, I think it's fair to say that if you believe in the general tenets of your religion, you are a christian/muslim/pastafarian.

IMO, most people are generally good despite their religion. While a few do good works because of their religion, almost everyone ignores the outdated bits (slaverly, etc)

But....we already do that.
Pollution; soot, sulfur, etc, already cause global dimming, which is exactly what you're describing, blocking 10% or more of sunlight and mitigating as much as 5%, but averaging 2-3% of warming already. I have said repeatedly that instantly switching to real clean energy would actually accelerate global warming exponentially because of this little known effect. That makes most plans to do something actually worse than doing nothing in the short term, and now in the long term too because that rapid temperature rise would absolutely accelerate methane releases (among other cycles) which starts feedback loops, possibly turning us into Venus.
Sadly, because of the size of the areas where the methane is escaping, there's no way possible to capture it. You would have to cover about 1/5 of earth with a sealed plastic sheet or something. It's not possible to tap the deposits and siphon them off, they are not centralized gas pockets for the most part.

Love me some sand dunes. I've heard low droning sounds while out in Guadalupe sand dunes in central california and in Death Valley. I remember researching why and there were some theories - something about grain size (changes pitch), friction & amplification from a layer of moisture below the surface and sand collision upon the surface creating vibrations that in turn create a feedback loop of low frequency. Stony stuff, lol!

That is mostly quite interesting. Though, it's bizarre that he declares a belief in free will more hopeful than a belief in determinism. Of course determinists think that people can change, they do it all the time. When or why a particular person will change might be unknowable, the determist merely argues there was a cause.

This is vastly more hopeful than Catholicism, the central miracle of which relies on the pernicious belief in hereditary guilt.

Except you cant compare this to (car) accidents. You could compare this to occurrences of ambulance drivers driving through packed pedestrian crossings or firemen setting fire to buildings, soldiers driving tanks over cars on the highway etc. If that kind of thing happened once a week someone would notice. Someone would be responsible. Something would be done.

I only get involved with cops when speeding or parking and over here in central Europe it is a friendly affair of getting a fine or a reprimand. If I go to visit Germany or Austria I fear the police for the fines are heftier and a stern talking to in german is nothing to look forward to, in the east or south of Europe a small bribe and more extensive language difficulties are the norm. Visiting the US somehow always involves warnings about how to behave so as not to get killed by cops. Go figure.

As a resident of central Florida where this firm is from, I can tell you that while I haven't seen this super cut as one commercial, the firm name is indeed Morgan and Morgan. And John Morgan Sr., his wife Ulta (?!) and his two sons are all lawyers at the firm. They say Morgan and Morgan at least a couple times in every commercial and their slogan "For the People" is also uttered with great regularity. Simple, yet effective, brand name recognition for a plaintiff law firm. I've even seen their billboards as far away as Mobile, Alabama.

@newtboy

If you are only growing twice what you can eat yourself, you are describing a large garden, not a farm.

More over, what you class as 'industrial' farming is in fact the entirety of all grain farming. If there is a place in farming for wheat, corn, soy, canola and so on, 99% of it is done on what you class 'industrial' farming.

Your typical family farm is over a thousand acres today. If I go out and start naming the family farms of just friends and family I know, I can come up with 30-40+. They all farm over a thousand acres, they use tractors and combines and they make a fair bit more food than twice what they can eat. They aren't the ultra rich land barons that your 'industrial' moniker would imply either, at most they have a singular hired hand to help out with the work. The ones with children interested in taking over often don't need to hire anyone at all.

If you want to abandon that agricultural production and the methods used you mean raising the cost of production more than 100 times over. I can't even fathom the cost of weeding a thousand acres of wheat by hand, let alone removing grasshoppers from a corn crop that way. I'm sorry, but what works for your garden doesn't scale to grain crops.

Oh, and the conflation of herbicide and pesticide was done by the fear monger crowd. Listing round-up as a chemical that only kills plants and not insects and animals didn't fit their agenda so now everything is supposed to be called a pesticide across the board. Maybe that's just a Canadian thing, but the bottom line is that if you had a crop completely over run with insects you could spray it once a day with stupidly high concentrations of round-up and the water in the sprayer would do about the same damage to the insects as would the round up.


As for the video's other claims, I stand by my characterisation. You can't honestly tell me the video is trying to put forward on open and honest picture of Monsanto's actions and history. For example, the Manhattan Project, here's a transcription for clarity:
"Monsanto head Charles Allen Thomas was called to the pentagon not only asked to join the Manhattan project, but to lead it as it's co-director. Thomas put Monsanto's central research department hard to work building the atomic bomb.Fully aware of the implications of the task the budding empire sealed it's relationship with the inner cicrcles of washington with two fateful days in Japan.
"
- queue clip of nuclear blasts-

I think I stand by my summation.

The entire arm seems to twist and fails at the joint of the arm on the camera which seems offset from the center of gravity of the weight and camera. Probably the cutting and snapping of a 1/4th steel bolt or something. Camera-weight need to be completely leveled flush (+/- 0.6°) by the awesome weights as a closed object system. I believe correcting this torsion by putting that universal joint center in line with the center of gravity of the camera-weight would prevent that torsion. This would mean that the joint center would have to be somewhere central in that column tube thingy. The over extension and over snapping can only be fixed with built-in stops, I dunno.