Crazy stuff that went down at Area 51

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/17/136356848/area-51-uncensored-was-it-ufos-or-the-ussr

An LA Times journalist recently published a history of Area 51, the US government's secret nuclear and air force facility in Nevada. She starts her Fresh Air interview describing all the bone-headed nuclear experiments we did after the end of WWII. As we already know, our gov't detonated hundreds of nuclear weapons above ground (and so did other nations), spreading radiation all over (and in some cases deliberately exposing soldiers to the danger to observe the effects), until leaders finally woke up and agreed to various versions of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (that W Bush in all his wisdom pulled the US out of, but Obama is trying to restore despite GOP Congressional resistance). Pretty much all US nuclear testing was executed or planned by personnel at Area 51.

Just to "see what happens", the US gov't detonated nukes in the upper atmosphere above the South Pacific to see how the ozone layer would respond. There was also another defensive objective to see if a nuclear explosion up there (and ensuing EMP) would disrupt the guidance systems of incoming Soviet ICBMs (it didn't). The NYT got wind of this and threatened to expose the gov't, but the Truman administration somehow convinced them to keep quite for "national security" until the 1980s. But still it's unclear whether the test actually damaged the ozone layer and put people at risk. Scientists on the project were aware of this risk at the time, but reassured the team that the atmospheric turbulence following the detonation would "fill" any hole created by the blast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_altitude_nuclear_explosion#List_of_high-altitude_nuclear_explosions

Even worse for human health, the US gov't had almost around-the-clock nuclear-armed bombers in the air over the North Atlantic as quick responders in the event of a Soviet attack. But as we know, planes crash sometimes. On at least 2 occasions, nuclear bombers crashed in Europe and dropped their payloads. In one accident over Spain, there was a midair refueling gaffe and the plane ejected its warheads while crashing, but their parachutes failed and the bombs spread plutonium all over. A US hazmat team was sent in to clean it up, but they weren't told what they were cleaning, so they had zero radiation protection. I'm sure they're all dead by now. In Greenland, a B-52 crashed on the ice after another refueling goof, and the ensuring fire melted a hole. The plane debris and its 4 nuclear warheads sunk into the ocean, and it's still unclear whether they have all been recovered. That accident was where the term "broken arrow" was coined. How this relates to Area 51 is that the gov't decided to test what would happen if such a plane crash took place on the US mainland. They deliberately exploded a plutonium dirty bomb in the desert to simulate a crash, and tried to figure out ways to clean it up. It was a total disaster, and the site was still being worked on into the 1980s (making Fukushima look like spilled milk). Plutonium's half-life is many thousands of years by the way, and it's pretty much the most toxic inhaled substance known to man. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash

And now for the creme-de-la-creme, the UFO question. We know of stories of a UFO crashing in Roswell, NM in the 1950s, and the gov't trying to cover it up by moving all the evidence to deep inside Area 51. The author interviewed an anonymous source, a veteran of the US Atomic Energy Agency/Manhattan Project who was an insider at Area 51. When "War of the Worlds" aired on the radio in the 1930s, the US went into a panic with many believing it was a real alien invasion. Hitler and Stalin (and Washington) took note of this, and found it to be a legit security concern. Creating the illusion of an alien invasion could cause enough chaos and distraction among US armed forces and the public to make a foreign attack easier. The USSR and Western powers snatched up many of the mad Nazi scientists at the end of WWII. It's possible that Stalin took over some of the work of the Horten brothers who created a "flying wing" craft for Germany. While not a flying saucer, it was some sort of triangular craft that definitely didn't resemble a typical airplane. Some thought the Hortens achieved the ability for the craft to hover. And then there was Auschwitz's Dr. Mengele, who conducted all sorts of unethical human experimentation. Supposedly Stalin cut a deal with him as well, to create genetically or surgically altered people who resembled the child-like, big-headed alien creatures of sci-fi. So the "UFO crash" at Roswell could have been a test run of this Soviet project in order to create American panic over an imaginary alien invasion. Apparently the craft pilots (who looked like aliens) were captured alive, and then interrogated by the US about all this.

Yeah, right, you're probably thinking. Why wouldn't Truman just expose all this to the media to show how depraved and desperate the USSR was? Maybe he was partly worried that the Soviet goal would be achieved, that no one would believe this hoax was actually man-made, and fear an alien attack. Or as the author's source said, we kept it quiet because we wanted to replicate the Soviet project (either to shove it back in Moscow's face, or at least learn the science of how they did it). So supposedly the US tried to alter people to look like aliens as well, which was the last obscene straw to make the author's secret source want to spill the beans. And the US gov't has kept all this and Area 51 quiet so as to not expose the evidence of our horrible experimentation and other crimes to the public.

Well, considering all the wacky research during the Cold War, and all the disturbingly creative strategies the 2 superpowers devised to destroy each other, I guess this isn't so far fetched. But you would think that the author would try to corroborate her source's story. Why hasn't anyone in Russia come forward? Thousands of Americans must have worked on these horrific projects as well. And if the Soviets created a flying saucer, why wouldn't they use that technology in more traditional ways to gain an advantage over us? I suppose it's possible that they just had a stealthy spy plane transport the saucer high over US airspace, and then drop it off with a parachute. But if the Soviets' goal was to trigger an alien panic, why not drop dozens of saucers and "aliens" over populated US metro areas, so the US gov't could never squelch it? Lastly, it's not a new thing that the US has engaged in criminal human experimentation (LSD, Tuskegee, etc.). What's the big deal about keeping this one so secret? I guess we may never know, but it sure is an interesting take on an old story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_brothers
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/experiment.htm

Obama's Mideast speech

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/05/19/136460086/president-obamas-middle-east-speech-live-blog

This speech is a joke. I guess his recent Osama triumph has clouded his sense of reality. Like his predecessors, Obama didn't once apologize for or even acknowledge the West's role in creating or maintaining the unjust, corrupt regimes that the people of the Middle East revolted against this spring. It's not all our fault, but we played a role, which was more often than not contrary to our supposed ideals and his "vision for the region." Just because colonialism formally ended decades ago doesn't absolve us of our recent meddling (which has claimed many more lives than 9/11, and the region is only marginally less corrupt and repressive - or some would argue worse).

Furthermore, what about America's responsibility for violence and human rights abuses during the War on Terror? People are not stupid. Ordinary, peaceful Muslims wouldn't passively or actively support killers like Osama and Al Qaeda unless the alternative (us and our brutal buddies like Israel, House of Saud, Mubarak, etc.) was just as bad. He makes it sound like the US has been the best friend to the Mideast peoples since day one. I guess now that our foolish fantasy of hegemony in the region is fading and we realize we can't sustain our obscene military presence there, we're trying to play nice in the hopes that the new popular governments won't be fiercely anti-Western? We missed the boat to offer true support to the democratic movements in most (if not all) of the countries in question, and now we're trying to rewrite the narrative like usual. It might work for John Q. ignorant American who only cares about gas being less than $4/gallon, but it won't work for the starving, beaten Muslims who are sick and tired of the BS.

More on Bin Laden

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/mind-soul/spirituality/story/2011/05/Is-it-OK-to-cheer-Osama-bin-Ladens-death/46759110/1

Here's a take on the religious considerations regarding celebrating OBL's assassination. Even if we are atheists, it just makes more sense to try to cooperate and coexist peacefully, rather than piss off others by taking more than we're due, acting superior, and fighting real or perceived threats all the time. There is more than one way to confront a threat. But nationalism is the worst religion of them all. It's got all the brainwashing, exceptionalism, and bigotry, without any of the redeeming compassion and morals. I guess that's why modern regimes needed to sprinkle in a little "democracy" and "rights" here and there, so the peasants believe they are fighting for something noble. It's quite telling that during WWI, both the Brits and Germans were telling their people that they were fighting to save civilization from evil.

The way the OBL hit turned out is interesting, because both sides will spin it like crazy for their propaganda. Initially there were reports that OBL was armed and used his wife as a human shield before he was shot. So of course he's the dastardly coward to the end. Fairly tale closure, good guys win, and score one for the home team. But new reports say that is false, and that he wasn't armed (not sure how the wife died, if she even died?). So the Jihadi side will say that OBL died like a martyr at the hands of the infidel Zionist killers. He may become so mythologized that he will be a better recruiting figure dead than alive. So what have we accomplished? A common concern during the War on Terror is to avoid creating more new terrorists than we neutralize. Clearly this isn't about one man anymore. America created Osama to be this catch-all bogeyman comprising of all our fears and insecurities. The Islamists see him as a freedom fighter defying tyranny. Now it will be interesting to see what new person or entity assumes that role for each side.

A radio host was interviewing a college-aged girl, and they were discussing how that generation is sometimes labeled "the 9/11 generation", I guess because it was the most significant event of their lifetimes and they grew up with the nation at war. The young lady said that she was glad to witness the death of the "man who stole their childhoods". Talk about melodramatic. Yes 9/11 was understandably traumatic on us all, but unless a kid was directly affected by a death or job loss due to 9/11, I think that generation was still able to grow up with plenty of comfort, security, and opportunity in America (if you're not poor or colored). What about the "stolen childhoods" of all the Iraqi children that our weapons maimed or who became orphans due to our war? Have some perspective. It's not all about how we've suffered, and an American life is not inherently more valuable to humanity. Maybe if we thought more humbly and globally, people wouldn't hate us so much.

Bin Laden's death

Vengeance is not justice, but it is often a shallow substitute.

Not to be a killjoy (but be honest, you were expecting this), but I would have preferred America to have a more tempered response to the Bin Laden news. All the flag-waving, gloating, and "God bless America" celebration, while somewhat justified in a long war with few significant victories for the US, won't really help us secure a better future. Especially the religious terminology from Palin and others only serves to complicate reconciliation (and regardless of what the zealots say, most terrorists or extremists can still be bargained with under the right circumstances - see the Sunni Awakening and "nice" Qaddafi). When it's a religious war, it's winner-take-all, which has been the wet dream of psychopathic warmongers for centuries. Both sides think god is on their side, and will help them smite their enemy, yet claim that they worship a prophet of peace? Huckabee said "Welcome to hell, Bin Laden." I thought it was "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and "Love your enemies"? And that man used to be a Baptist minister.

That's why I wish during his speech last night, Obama would have called on Americans to practice restraint, use this occasion to reflect and remember the victims of war (on all sides), and think about what each of us can do to promote peace and security in our neighborhoods and abroad. I wish he would have refrained from the "G.B.A." cliche. Otherwise it's quite grotesque to see the richest nation with the most powerful (and expensive) military jubilantly celebrating one man's death, especially a man weakened by disease who poses very little direct threat to us, and who was hiding out in broad daylight while we were combing vast swaths of rugged terrain for him for years (and killing many of the wrong people during our hunting efforts). Sadly, it reminds me of the Munchkins celebrating Dorothy's house falling on the Wicked Witch, when the Witch's meaner sister was still out there. As one KQED commentator said this morning, "It's not a football game."

The identities of SEAL Team 6 and the intel personnel responsible for the actual attack may never be known (unless they blow their cover, appear on Oprah, and write tell-all books), so they are happy just to accomplish their mission, and don't need the praise of politicians looking for a sound bite as we head towards election season. I am sure it was the biggest rush of their lives to conduct this historic raid, but of course they were doing it out of love for country. I bet the 9/11 hijackers felt similar pride for their special mission. I'm not saying that our troops are on the same level as terrorists, but it's so funny how everything in the world seems to have its mirror, while politicians and ideologues only see black and white. Well one thing is for sure, this mission will definitely be re-created in the next installment of XBox Call of Duty.

So where do we go from here? There are a lot of unanswered questions. The "original" Al Qaeda, Af-Pak-based and led by Bin Laden, was mostly irrelevant since 2003, and bigger concerns exist from other terror networks like Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (supposedly the people behind the underpants and Time Square bombers), radicalism among Muslim youth in Europe, and of course Iranian nuclear research. Then there's all the political upheaval in many Arab nations, and how those events play out could really reshape the security landscape for us. Also, why was O.B.L. permitted to live in a heavily guarded compound in a nice military suburb in our ally Pakistan? It's pretty clear that this wasn't a joint operation with the Pakistanis, because their military-intel establishment is so full of leaks that someone would have surely tipped off Bin Laden. Osama's people built that custom compound with high walls and barbed wire, had couriers coming in and out every day, and even burnt their trash, and no one hunting Bin Laden noticed until this spring?

Also, why the hasty burial-at-sea? While I doubt that even our gov't would dare to falsify Osama's death, the swift handling raises some eyebrows and opens the door for conspiracy theories. Why not return the remains to the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia? The KQED guest said that the US may want to avoid having Osama's corpse on display somewhere for veneration and inspiration, so they took this course of action. Lastly, why didn't we try harder to capture Osama? He was supposedly killed by a "double-tap" to the side of the head. Does that mean it was an up-close execution? Isn't Osama more useful to us alive? Even if he won't give up intel (even under torture), some questioning could probably be useful - and isn't he supposed to stand trial for the embassy bombings and 9/11? Or are we worried about what he might say on the stand? Not to incite conspiracy again, but it is peculiar. I know that no captive is worth losing soldiers over, so if the SEALs didn't feel they could capture O.B.L. safely, better to shoot to kill?

It's pretty clear that justice has NOT been done over 9/11, even with Osama dead. Congress is still dragging its feet over compensation for sickened first responders. The wars we launched in response to 9/11 created a bunch of new injustices and problems. The root causes of terrorism that partly inspired Osama are still mostly intact: Crusader-like US military presence in the Middle East, Western support of corrupt oil regimes and Israeli aggression, vast wealth and human rights inequalities, abuse of Muslim immigrants, and other issues that can be seen as insults to Islam. I know Muslims have done plenty of horrible things to each other and us since 9/11 too, so clearly the case is not closed. Finally, let's remember that all the terrible damage done to the US and our interests on 9/11 pales in comparison to the amazing losses we incurred during the recent financial crisis. That "attack" was perpetrated by Western greedy bankers, ignorant investors/borrowers, corrupt politicians, and lax regulators. That wasn't Al Qaeda at all, it was us. So who is the bigger enemy that we should fear and fight?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110502/ts_nm/us_binladen_compound
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bin_laden_the_raid
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/the-secret-team-that-killed-bin-laden;_ylt=AtJwovoSU36wQK1iPsoahRxH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTNsMXZucW9jBGFzc2V0A3libG9nX2V4Y2x1c2l2ZS8yMDExMDUwMi90aGUtc2VjcmV0LXRlYW0tdGhhdC1raWxsZWQtYmluLWxhZGVuBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA3RoZXNlY3JldHRlYQ--
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bin_laden;_ylt=Ai99lNU7AeFlZp8jNWRL9hJH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTJmNmMybWFyBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNTAyL3VzX2Jpbl9sYWRlbgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzEEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNhcHNvdXJjZXNkbmE-
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201105020900

A pharma marketing tactic you probably didn't know about

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/26/135703500/supreme-court-weighs-whether-to-limit-data-mining

Apparently the Supreme Court is hearing a case about using physicians' Rx habits to target drug marketing efforts. Retail pharmacies are legally required to keep records of every Rx filled, and then they turn around and sell that info to data mining firms, who in turn sell it to pharmas. This helps pharma sales forces see which doctors need the most persuasion and which products are the biggest threats to theirs. Of course patient info is confidential, but doctor Rx habits are fair game, even if it is very upsetting to some. So recently Vermont outlawed this practice (unless the doctor gives consent), though a pharma trade group sued on First Amendment free access to info grounds, and the case has reached the high court.

Depending on how the case plays out, there could be implications for all the other data mining industries out there (Google, Facebook, etc.).

Is sugar toxic?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&ref=homepage&src=me&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1303339871-np8HMDjThEJmLpLPzTQSew
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201104211000

Maybe you have heard about this issue, which is part of the health care debate. We know that cardiovascular diseases account for over $400B of medical costs in the US per year, and countless other social harm and externalities (lost productivity, caretaking, etc.). We assume that fatty foods are the problem, and that's part of it, but a UCSF pediatrics researcher (and plenty of others) has concluded that the biggest culprit is actually sugar: natural sugar fructose, or processed sugar sucrose which is fructose+glucose. Many foods can cause us to gain weight, but sugars push us to metabolic syndromes like insulin dysregulation (leading to diabetes, which increases risk or exacerbates all the other inflammatory cardio diseases, which is the leading cause of death in the West).

We know that sugar "rots our teeth" and sweets are a guilty pleasure, but there is very little human data out there comparing high vs. low sugar diets in controlled studies. This is partly because it takes so long and it's hard to keep subjects on a regulated diet. In lab animals, it's pretty darn convincing:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081210090819.htm
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=129728500537306200
http://beavercountyblue.org/2010/09/15/high-fructose-corn-syrup-major-cause-of-obesity/

But fructose exists in nature. It's a part of fresh fruit, which the diet experts say are good, right? But in nature, most high-fructose foods also contain a large amount of fiber, which negates the negative effects of fructose. High-fructose corn syrup is all sugar with no fiber, and it's practically everywhere. Actually fiber is mostly absent in processed and fast foods, because fiber falls apart when frozen unless you add stabilizing preservatives. Why is sugar not even on the food pyramid? Americans have no idea how much is dangerous, and frankly most doctors don't know either. The USDA and FDA are really behind the curve on this issue, possibly due to political pressure from the agri-business and food lobbies. The last FDA study on sugar was in 1986, and basically gave it a pass. You probably wouldn't be surprised to know that the FDA administrator in charge of that study later went on to work for the Corn Refiners Association. The study proposed that a sugar consumption (beyond fruit/veggie intake) of less than 40 lbs/person/year is "safe", even though the average American consumption at the time was 75. Now we're up to 90+. But the study didn't say what happens to people at those levels.

Yes, sugar products are pleasurable to consume, and they make most foods taste better (think baker's chocolate vs. milk chocolate, or medical electrolyte solution vs. Gatorade). But it's scary that one 12 oz. Coke contains 39 g of sugars. A typical mouse weighs 25 g. Now convert that to # of tablespoons in your head, and it's a scary picture.

It's one thing to know that sugars are bad, but it's another to stop people from harming themselves with it. Children, with very low impulse control, are abusing sugars and are the group with the highest surge of cardio diseases vs. their historical peers. That's partly why Michelle Obama and others are trying to get parents and schools to reduce their kids' exposure to junk foods. Maybe at some point we will need to implement a "fat and sugar tax", which would raise the prices on these dangerous foods in order to partly cover the social costs of consumers' future health problems. Heck we could even use some of those revenues to subsidize healthier, better foods for the poor, who are the model customers for bad foods because they are less educated in nutrition, and more likely to rely on cheap, fast food for survival.

But then you get the pro-business backlash and the conservative criticisms that gov't is trying to "run your life". People should be free to eat what they want! Even if it puts all of us at risk? The recent threat of a gov't shutdown, and our current debate about raising the federal debt limit, should remind us about the consequences of wasting money on preventable problems. Plus, the gov't already regulates other ingestibles like drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. The costs of abusing those products is arguable smaller than fat/sugar abuse. But it's so easy for these discussions to degenerate into culture war fodder (like climate change), instead of keeping it science and public policy based.

Other peoples, who traditionally consume very different diets than ours, are recently getting exposed to Western high-fat/sugar foods due to globalized food commerce. Fast food consumption in the West is leveling out, so firms are trying to tap new markets, often with great success. Inuits in northern Canada, who have survived on fish and marine mammals for millennia, are now getting Burger Kings in their villages. They're thrilled to eat such good-tasting, affordable food that doesn't need to be caught and hunted, but now their incidence of diabetes is going from near zero to through the roof. The same happened with some Pacific Islanders in the 20th Century.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/24/132745785/how-western-diets-are-making-the-world-sick

Close to some of us, UCSF + the city of Martinez are experimenting with being sugar-free for a year (I couldn't find any web links about it though). This is ironic because a C&H Sugar plant is down the road from them in Crockett. I can imagine the findings will be quite noteworthy.

---------

I heard about this while back. But since everything is better in
moderation, better yet anything is bad for you if you over do it, then
everything (not just sugar) can be considered poisonous no? Surely we
can't label everything poisonous just because people can exercise
"moderation". Stick to the dictionary definition. Poison is something
that is harmful in all dose, not something we normally need as a food
group but now can be harmful because some gluttonous people over eat
themselves to self harm and destruction

---------

Well, this doctor is saying high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in particular is bad for you no matter the dose. The body doesn't gain anything from it, and it only leads to increased triglyceride formation and insulin resistance. Maybe just having one Coke per month, you won't see a change in your health, but every little bit is making a small difference for the worst. So by that definition, HFCS is a poison. Natural fructose is a little different, because it exists in fresh foods with counter-balancing good nutritional properties. So maybe eating an apple is a net gain, even if it contains a small amount of "poisonous" fructose.

Some foods contain formaldehyde, iodine, etc. which are things that can be toxic at high doses, or can be good at low doses. If food labels would educate people on how much sugar becomes dangerous (depending on body weight, age, metabolism, etc.), then maybe consumers could make better decisions. But the problem is more economics than medicine. Our food industry has made sugar cheap and ubiquitous. And biologically, it is pleasurable and addictive like nicotine. So that is a dangerous combination. If we just let diabetic and hypertension people die, no problem. But we're pouring billions into their care, which is often preventable with different life choices. We force people to wear seatbelts and not talk on cell in the car to reduce the risk of harm, and if they violate we fine them. So we can tax booze, smokes, and maybe sugar. People can still eat it if they want, but they have to pay more to help cover the costs of the social harm. I guess it's the same idea as raising the costs of water on those who waste it.

I doubt any of this would happen, but we would have a healthier, more stable society if we did.

---------

article did not mention the word 'inflammation' even once.

metabolism discussion only.

nothing of the true disease cause... not all caused by sugar metabolism in host tissues

boo.

---------

Yeah, I mean he is on the extreme sugar fringe on the obesity-diabetes debate in order to shock people and draw more attention to sugar (that has a more positive perception in society than fat). He has plenty of detractors, but since the article/interview was meant for the general public, maybe he didn't want to get into too much inflammation and metabolic pathway science.

But his basic argument is (my interpretation at least, since I am not well versed in these matters):

-Natural fructose is more tolerable because it is found in high-fiber fruits that counter-balance the harms.
-Calories are not equal, and 100 cal of glucose intake is less harmful than 100 cal of fructose.
-Animal studies show sugar is addictive, and increases triglyceride production and insulin resistance.
-High-fructose corn syrup is more harmful than other forms of sugar.

Update on fracking and water use

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/industry-boos-oscar-nod-for-gasland/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110225/ap_en_ot/us_oscars_gasland

If you recall this email a while back, the "Gasland" film I reviewed was nominated for Best Documentary Oscar of 2010. Of course prior to the awards ceremony, a gas drilling industry trade group petitioned the MPAA to decertify the film as propaganda instead of documentary. Similar industry protests were made over "Sicko" and "An Inconvenient Truth". But probably the criticism only served to increase attention for the film, and the MPAA responded to the gas industry saying that they should "trust the intelligence" of the judges to know a documentary when they see it, and tell fact from fiction. While the film of course has an agenda, and some scenes are poorly executed and open to criticism, it was director Josh Fox's first film (made on quite a low budget as well), so to be nominated for the highest award in all of film-making must mean his argument has some merit. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_drilling_chemicals

Here is some validation for Fox's claims: 3 Congressmen released a report investigating 14 gas companies and the secret chemical mixtures they use during fracking. They said that millions of gallons of fracking fluid, containing up to 29 known or suspected carcinogens, were pumped into wells during domestic drilling from 2005-2009, with very little of that material recaptured by the drillers. So we can only conclude that the rest of it still remains in the ground, possibly leeching into aquifers that humans, wildlife, and livestock depend on. So how could these poisons, many of which are prohibited or on a "watch list" under the Clean Air/Water Acts, be covertly used in unregulated drilling? Congress granted drillers a waiver.

Methanol was the most common questionable substance used in fracking, and this is what it can do to you: http://www.epa.gov/chemfact/f_methan.txt. In my lab, I can lose my bonus or be fired for dumping even an ounce of methanol down the sink that drains to the Bay (not to mention my company getting fined), yet gas companies can get away with pumping untold gallons of it straight into the ground? And if the process is so safe as they claim, why be so secretive about their use of methanol and other poisons?

This may also be of interest to you, kind of an update on the status of drinking water:

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/11/135241362/the-worldwide-thirst-for-clean-drinking-water
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/we-use-how-much-water.php

Americans per capita consume 100 gallons of potable water each day from our daily activities (over 2X the global average, and 3X more than the average Chinese). That is pretty obscene, but when you factor in the water used in electricity generation for our energy needs, our consumption rises to 350 gallons/day. So cutting back on energy use is a win-win-win proposition, saving multiple precious resources and reducing pollution/environmental degradation/dependence on foreign oil dictators. Also adopting a vegetarian diet (avoiding beef consumption especially, since 2,400 L goes into making 1 burger patty) can dramatically reduce one's water footprint. Indian society would collapse if their people had American diets (30% of India is vegetarian). While India and China's per capita consumption is low, their massive populations are putting huge strains on their precarious water supplies (and climate change, standard of living improvements, and population growth will only make the situation worse in the future).

We wouldn't expect it, but leisure cities in Republican states are leading the way for water conservation. Las Vegas and Orlando have some of the most modern and strict water conservation policies, really because they have no choice (Las Vegas is the driest metro area in America with 4" of annual rainfall, and there have been recent severe droughts in the US Southeast). Those cities are known for water waste from golf courses and entertainment, and it's true that their economies still depend on those industries. But Orlando set up a parallel reclaimed water system, where household waste water is treated to near-potable safety levels, and then pumped out to water golf courses and sports fields, since it really makes no sense to waste drinking water on grass. Vegas pays residents to change out their lawns for desert landscaping, and issues huge fines for water overages, especially at golf courses. Therefore, golf courses now adopt drip irrigation for each individual shrub and putting green, instead of the usual wasteful area sprinklers. So even though Vegas has grown in population by 50% since 2000, their overall water consumption is flat, and actually down from 1990 levels. Imagine if progressive California could do that, but then we have the farm lobby, and suburbanites don't want their streets ripped up to lay new and better pipe. Plumbing is of great concern, since a scary amount of clean water (1/6 of total consumption) is lost from leaky pipes and toilets each day.

The author's #1 water concern for the future: corporate control of potable water.

----------

The problem with leaky pipes, etc is there is no good/easy way to detect a leak.  The only way for me as a homeowner to determine if i have a leaky anything that isn't a faucet is to either eventually notice some damage (which means the leak is either quite severe and/or in the drywall) or turn off my entire water supply and come back some undetermined amount of time later t see if the water meter moved.  If my water company put an ethernet output from the water meter and i could log in, take the output from excel or something, man it would be easy to check for leaky water or to see exactly how much water i use on sprinklers (since i generally am not using water at 4am), etc.  Those tools just aren't available for whatever reason.  

Imagine how easy it would be to conserve (or not to) if you knew in real dollars what every toilet flush cost your or how much water you wasted leaving the faucet on while you brushed your teeth.

----------

Yeah seriously, I guess we should get in with Bechtel or Schlumberger exploiting some water-starved third world hole: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6670

I agree about leak detection. Like that author said, our water system is really 50-100 years old. We take water for granted, and barely commit any resources for maintenance and monitoring. I think he said in his city of Chicago, they schedule pipe replacement at a 160-year rate (meaning they do it so slowly, it would take that long to replace the whole system).

I agree that costs for water, gas, beef, etc. need to better align with the true social costs, but of course companies don't want to acknowledge the externalities associated with their products. Since clean water is a vital resource, I think everyone should have the "right" to access a minimal amount of it, so I wouldn't just advocate an across-the-board rate hike. If we invested in a better monitoring system, each citizen/farm/company could get an adjusted quota of X gallons/month, charged a reasonable rate. For those who exceed the quota, they would pay through the nose. So we would still be free to consume more water if it was that important to us (for watering the lawn, swimming pool, etc.), but the price would reflect the social harm we are doing.

Industry and farming use much more water than households. So this would force farmers to switch leaner irrigation and companies to adopt less water-intensive operations. It might reduce the diversity of available produce at Safeway, or increase the costs of some goods, but we're talking about survival here. And the $ the gov't collects from water overages could then be invested into water research or subsidies to reward people/farms/firms for buying water sparing tech or improving their pipes. Like Orlando, we have to implement a parallel reclaimed water system. Factories, golf courses, etc. shouldn't be allowed to use fresh/clean/reservoir water. All this would require a huge investment to set up, but down the road it could pay for itself.

----------

Of course any extra fees gotten by the gov would invariably be used for something besides improving water efficiency.  When social security runs surplus, does social security get reinvested?  When the budget surplus happened under clinton, did the debt get paid down?  A problem but i suppose a good one to have.

I feel like water is a lot like oil in the sense that no one is going to sweat it until they can't get it.  Unlike oil i've only got ~ 3 days to figure out how to get it or I die.  But no one is going to pay meaningful attention to the problem until it is too late. Perhaps a fundamental human flaw and perhaps just an institutional problem, either way if we aren't in trouble our children or our children's children will be. 

----------

Yes, you are right about inflows of cash to the gov't. But at least higher prices will encourage people to use less. It is true that water and oil management are quite similar. I guess since the Cold War, this is the first time that humanity has had to pay for water. Of course we get a clean, virtually limitless supply of water in our homes and businesses, and that costs something. But humans are not used to seeing water as a commodity. Imagine if it was trading on some exchange like gold and pork!

I think due to globalization, wealth is increasing in a lot of previously poor places, and those people will want better standards of living. We already see this effect with energy (and food to some degree), but soon it will be clean water. But as you said, no one wants to confront the problem until it's too late. Actually I would expect China to be the most proactive due to their centralized gov't. They are transitioning to a less carbon-intensive economy faster than any other nation. It's not like China is a poster child for Greenpeace, but hopefully they can enact smart water management that we in the West could also copy (if Congress ever does anything).

Threat of gov't shutdown

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/us_spending_showdown

Let me see if I get this straight: the House GOP threatened to shut the gov't down unless the Dems agreed to their draconian spending cuts (keep tax breaks for the rich - because that creates jobs of course, keep the military rolling, but cut aid for the poor and other liberal junk). The Dems compromised on like 90% of their demands last week, but still they didn't budge an inch. Their political posturing and theatrics took the country to the brink, despite a last-minute deal. As of a few hours ago, a shutdown appeared so likely that much of the gov't worked overtime this week to get millions of furlough notices drafted and plans in place to close down or seek alternative funding.

So in these uncertain, stressful times, just think of all the man-hours of lost productivity spent preparing for a looming shutdown that fortunately didn't materialize (not to mention the anxiety and distraction of worrying about it). If this budget battle was supposedly about cutting spending from the get-go, imagine all the millions of dollars wasted by our gov't agencies, because they had no choice but to prepare two action plans depending on what Washington did today.

If the GOP really cares about reducing the deficit, they have a funny way of showing it by engaging in totally unnecessary, reckless behavior that only caused more waste. They could have gotten their spending cuts days ago, without pulling this expensive, shameful poker bluff bitch-move on America, just so they could placate their base that they "worked down to the wire" to de-fund Planned Parenthood and de-claw the EPA. But they don't feel the externalities of their actions, so they don't care. They scared the crap out of millions of Americans who depend on a gov't paycheck or services. But why should we expect them to understand? The median net worth of Congress is over $800K, while overall US median household worth is $96K (that figure is down 23% since 2006, due to the recent recession mostly caused by Washington de-regulation and their Wall Street pals' excesses).

http://www.gobankingrates.com/savings-account/us-family-net-worth-drops-23-percent-during-recession/
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/01/wealthy-freshmen-raise-congres.html

After Fukushima, how safe are US nuclear reactors?

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201103181

The transcript of this show is not yet available, but some nuclear experts were discussing the Japan situation and our own nuclear security. We've already seen the consequences of de-regulation or lack of gov't enforcement (due to industry pressure and greed) during the financial crisis, coal mine disasters, and BP spill. Apparently the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is supposed to be the SEC for the nuclear industry. They have fairly sound rules by most counts (and are hardly suffocating considering the risk analysis), but they're not getting enforced. Nuclear companies (that already enjoy huge taxpayer subsidies) piss and moan that if they fully comply and fix all their violations, they won't be able to stay in business. But the underfunded and understaffed (big surprise) NRC said rules are rules. So instead of improving safety, the companies complained to their (mostly GOP) buddies in Congress to get the NRC off their backs. Congress then told the NRC to basically cease and desist, or see their already strained budget cut by 40%. Then the NRC "folded like a tent" and relented on the violations. This is how your gov't works.

Why do we even have watchdog agencies when Congress (under corporate pressure) will simply defund them when they try to do their jobs? Maybe we need a watchdog for Congress that will over-rule them when they get out of line. As usual, there's the revolving door problem of ex-NRC workers getting cushy industry jobs and using their contacts at the agency to promote the interest of their companies (maybe at the cost of public safety).

Apparently this has been going on since 2002: http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/electric/pre2003/rules_cracks.htm

I am ignorant about nuclear power, but the plants are meant to generate electricity, right? If the outside grid goes down, it shouldn't matter. A dairy farmer doesn't care if Safeway runs out of milk. Shouldn't it be self-powered operation? I understand if a big disruption like an 8.9 quake could cause a temporary power failure (and then the tsunami took out the backup diesel generators), but wouldn't batteries keep the cooling water pumps going until they could get the plant online? Why would they need to lay new transmission lines from the outside grid? Was the plant's generating capacity just destroyed? Well, maybe this is a good example why we shouldn't build critical infrastructure in disaster-prone areas. I know Japan is kind of geographically screwed in that regard, so maybe they should have adopted more hydro, wind, or other safer forms of energy. Apparently the nuclear industry in Japan has similar political clout and enjoys generous gov't assistance: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201103160900. The design of the Fukushima plants are of the GE Mark 1 type (circa 1970's), and apparently 3 prominent design engineers resigned over concerns about project safety.

Oh yeah, and for the record - iodine tablets and salt won't do crap to protect you from this kind of radioactive fallout. But I guess they don't hurt if you don't mind waiting in line and putting others at risk (whose health conditions may depend on those minerals not being sold out).

-------

We should all be calling Jerry Brown right now and demanding he close both Diablo and San Onofre.  You might be safe, but I will guarantee you that all those people within 20 miles of the
Fukushima  plant will most likely have acute radiation sickness. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/idUS158664922020110318

How much radiation do you think Japan's been exposed to?  I would start with, 'they were exposed to more than what they got on that flight because the plane was hotter than usual.   I'm not sure if we'll be any more affected by the radiation than we've been affected by all those nuclear tests done in nevada, but i'm pretty sure alot of japan is getting dosed beyond a 'safe' level.

And, keep in mind, the iodine is not for atmospheric exposure, but after the land, water and food supply is contaminated, you can protect your thyroid from heavy iodine by outcompeting it for thyroid receptors.  I'm not sure if people get that little detail....

-------

I know there is a lot of scary radiation going around but I am yet to see an article that says this is anywhere near acute radiation sickness.  The engineerings INSIDE the plant that had the blown containment area are not expected to get acute radiation sickness levels.  Cancer in 10 years, probably.  But those guys are inside the reactor.

Radiation is scary, has long term effects, can spread into groundwater, etc, but i haven't actually seen anything but speculation and fear of that, anyone have an article to reference?

------

maybe that's because the acute rad sickness is being buried. i remember reading a couple of days ago that there were workers showing up with acute rad. sickness. here's even a more recent report.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/heroes_of_nuclear_crisis_elite.html

Milton noted reports that some workers have already shown signs of acute radiation sickness. That would be even worse than it sounds because “the sooner it comes on after exposure, the worse it is.” 

-------

I agree, the workers at the power plant, near reactors are just
getting tons and tons of exposure externally and I am sure some
particles are getting through their masks.  One of the NPR reporters
in Japan was reporting her radiation readings last night.  I believe
her hands were 500 cpm, clothes 1000, and shoes 10,000.  Now the
Japanese officials told her to go home and wash her hands, shoes, and
clothes (which is exactly what EH&S tells us not to do because it will
get into our ground water etc but I guess they have bigger more
immediate worries). Granted scientists all over the world work with
100,000 cpm quantities every now and then and it is still safe. But
the scientists work with these elements minutes and hours at a time,
and not every day.  These people who are near the plant, just outside
the 20 mile radius are constantly being exposed to 10,000cpm of
radiation 24/7 and that may climb to 20 or 30k if the radioactive
particles continue to leak. As Lisa noted Japan may face a peak of
cancer and other chronic illness in 5, 10 yrs.

Interestingly, NPR reported that Chinese have temporarily put a stop
on approvals of their current nuclear power plant projects in light of
this incident.  Apparently the president of the company that built
many of their 25 nuclear plants has already been sentenced to life in
prison for bribery and other charges.  one can only hope that he did
not cut too many corners before he was incarcerated.

-----

I didn't see anything in that link that says anything about acute radiation sickness.  I didn't see a Milton story either so maybe i missed that.  I do recall reading (sorry no source) that the same company that is currently downplaying the radiation impact has previously been fined/convicted (not sure which) for a cover up previously.  So that speaks to the potential for burying the story.

However, at this point i think there is more sensationalism than evidence.  My wife (UCLA hospital employee) has been inundated with calls/questions about potassium iodide because of the "deadly radioactive cloud descending on the west coast".  

--------

As we've seen in our own country, I think the Japanese gov't probably isn't fully leveling with the public about health risks, either to save face or avoid panic. I just hope the families of those plant workers will be properly compensated for their sacrifice. At least Japan has quality universal health care.

Yeah as M said about the K-I tablets, typical American hysteria over a minute threat (reminds me of duct tape after 9/11). Like L said, iodine only protects against thyroid cancer (and mostly for young people with an active thyroid), so all the other dozens of cancers are fair game. Maybe the makers of Enzyte and Airborne should quickly market "Radiation D-fenZ" placebo pills, and they would sell out in a minute. Then they could flee with their loot to Venezuela before the lawsuits are processed. As Michael Scheuer said (that ex-CIA guy who worked on hunting Bin Laden), "I remember a time when Americans weren't scared of everything." Plus it's completely insensitive; for whatever level of radiation we are getting in CA, it's orders worse for the millions of Japanese closer to the plant, so have a little perspective. Plus no one seems to mind the radiation dose they are getting flying to Cancun for spring break, or getting an un-necessary CT scan to check for whatever illness. Even bananas are slightly radioactive because of their potassium content. 

-------

what about the full CT scan you're obliged to get when you fly to cancun? 

the last paragraph of that article contains the sentence i'd included in the previous email.  maybe you didn't read that far.

and, i'm really tired of the belittling of the dangers of radiation.  the govt. does lie to you about the dangers.  if you think the shit is so safe and a necessary evil, then why do the people who profit from it not live in the shadow of the towers? as far as i'm concerned, the owners, the profiteers and the major GE stockholders should all be obliged to live in the shadow of the towers.

------

like I was saying about being exposed to 10-30k cpm, low or high does,
if the source of the leak doesn't get secured, it will eventually get
into everything, especially the people near are washing their
contaminated bodies and clothes at home, letting it trickle into their
ecosystem.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake

however, I am not too worried about the same sort of radiation
reaching CA considering the low dose it is reaching our shores.
I think it was my high school physics teacher who taught us that if
you sneeze, it would have circled the world in 4 years.  The
radioactive particles will continue to travel, well pass CA and the
western coast. In a week, it would reach back to Japan considering it
only took 5 days to get to CA in the first place. If there is no way
to escape the traveling radioactive particles, and magnitude of
radiation decreasing with distance, I think half way around the world
from Japan is the safest place to be.

-----

Maybe i'm misunderstanding L's point with her emails.  I read her original link, "milton noted reports" is in there, but not the reports he notes.  Where is the news site that shows reports of acute radiation sickness?  I'm not saying it didn't happen/doesn't exist but i haven't read it.  For something incredibly dire and widespread that seems odd.  Admittedly i'm not scouring the web to find it but if it is as serious as it could be that shouldn't be a problem.

Lisa's later email seems to constantly highlight that the radiation plume reaching the west coast is incredibly dilute and not expected to cause any health problems, giant sarcasm article maybe?  If i have to be drinking the kool-aid as a necessary prerequisite to know what is really happening then you are going to have to try harder.  Distrust of the gov't may make me hesitant to believe these types of articles but it doesn't make the opposite the truth.  

I won't be surprised when in 6 weeks/months/years the truth of the matter comes out and we find it was worse than what was originally stated or that some corporate/gov't entity lied to us.  However I don't think we'll find credence in the news commercial i saw that stated "deadly radiation cloud approaching CA, will your family be safe?  At 11..."  

People's fear of radiation is deep seated in misunderstanding.  It is complex in ways that a lot of other types of contaminants and poisons are not.  There are radioactive things you can hold in your pocket everyday of your life with no ill effects and if swallowed will kill you.  There are things that you can put 6 feet of lead between you and it and you'll have no protection whatsoever.  I think the media is playing on this more than giving us real information which was my original point in my first email. 

------

Yeah I guess radiation is both over-hyped and under-hyped depending on the context. People fear what they can't see or don't understand (I'm not accusing anyone here of this, just the population in general). The concentration of radioactivity drops precipitously with distance from the source, so the amount that gets to us in CA is relatively small. But the bottom line is everything in the world can freaking kill us at a sufficient dose (including water). As the physicists on the NPR Science Friday show explained, any sort of radiation is dangerous, even solar radiation. But the extent of danger is tiny in most cases. Energy from radiation may disrupt our DNA and lead to mutations, but most mutated cells are disposed of by the body and don't lead to disease.

Of course toxicology studies are very hard to perform with radiation (especially the kinds associated with fission) because controlled testing is so difficult/unethical, so there's a lot we don't know, or that the gov't won't tell us. So in the presence of such uncertainty, the only way to truly feel safe is to refrain from using any fission for human purposes. But people made risk-reward calculations, and for the decision makers it's worth it to go nuclear (companies get the rewards, people near plants and gov't agencies get the risks).

We make risk-reward calculations every day, and have a higher chance of harm from driving to work (accidents, emissions particulates). As long as we're evaluating each risk fairly and objectively, then I think we will make good decisions in the interests of society overall. But if special interests control the decision making and information, and leave us and other concerned parties out of it, then we will come to sub-optimal outcomes. But yeah, that should tell people something when the pro-energy politicians and big executives of energy companies won't live or work near their plants, refineries, wells, or mines. 

------

I agree completely.  And at the end of the day it is clear that those that make the risk reward decisions only get rewards.  I watched a short film that was attempting to take that exact thing (socialized risk i think they called it) and make it personal risk.  No perfect alternative exists but until those that get the reward in equal quantities as the risk, the decision making will always be skewed.  And the system we have right now very easily diffuses the risk amongst the world and concentrates the reward amongst the few.

I don't think the energy CEO won't live near power plants, i think he has enough money to prevent power plants from being built where he lives.  Try to put a reactor next to Vale and watch the NIMBY explode.

----------

Heh yeah, wouldn't that be a PR nightmare for the industry if you have nuclear execs and their families protesting plans for a new plant construction near Martha's Vineyard? Why is it only the poor and minorities get screwed by eminent domain?

In the aftermath of Tyco/Enron/Worldcom fraud, I believe one part of Sarbanes-Oxley is a provision that a firm's CEO & CFO must personally sign off on financial statements, and be held legally responsible for any criminal wrongdoing. So in theory, their asses are on the line and they have a personal incentive to make sure their company keeps honest book. I guess that's why the director of the Oscar-winning doc "Inside Job" about the recent financial crisis was so appalled that no Wall Street exec has been prosecuted for fraud so far (excluding Madoff). I guess it's just hard to prove willful malfeasance or deception regarding all those exotic investment vehicles.

For the energy industry (or any industry that can potentially hurt many people and the environment), I wish they would have the same thing, in order to match risk to reward as you said. Yes you have approval to build project A here, but if anything goes wrong we will  lock up upper management and seize their assets. Then I'd think we'd see fewer, better, and safer projects. In order to compensate for the negative externalities of dirty energy, profits should get taxed for a disaster fund that will cover the losses in case of a BP spill type event (and the general health effects for nearby poor people living under their daily pollution). It's the cost of doing business. Surely firms would pass some of that to customers, so maybe that would make us think twice about our use of dirty energy. Even better, some of the tax would go to the budgets of regulatory agencies in order to improve oversight and decrease the burden on taxpayers. And if the firm is good and operates safely, they'll have some of that money reimbursed over time, like good driver insurance discounts. A corporation is a "legal person", so it should be punished for bad behavior just like we would. But unfortunately firms are more like Lindsay Lohan, getting a slap on the wrist for DUIs and parole violations, because they pay top dollar for political favors and legal counsel.

For the Japan nuclear crisis, I'm not saying the firm that runs the plant (Tokyo Electric) is guilty of legal wrongdoing, but I believe that the accidents we have seen are preventable, even after a historic quake-tsunami. The guest on the KQED Forum program I mentioned in my first email said that Tokyo Electric was known to suppress or doctor bad safety inspection data, has spent a lot on pro-nuclear mass marketing, and of course enjoys generous gov't subsidies. 

--------

Has anyone heard from the chinese execs who were responsible for the melamine the the baby food debacle?

no, because they were taken out and shot for profiting at the expense of the public.  i do not support killing or the death penalty, but in the case of massive profit at the public's expense, especially the massive health crisis that will occur in Japan due to this fallout (and whether you hear about it or not, it is a massive health crisis), I might make an exception.  Okay, maybe not with this situation, but if we look at lessons learned from this situation, we can use this as precedent as to why nuclear power should be never considered a viable resource of energy, again.  And, going forward, anyone who does the 'risk benefit' analysis and decides to go with the benefit of taking that risk,  must personally pay for the consequences.

I don't believe the threat of jail will prevent these sociopaths from putting profit before even their own children's lives.  but, if we remove them from the gene pool, we might be able to evolve beyond this anti-social notion.

--------

Eugenics for the win!  Jokes aside L has a point that the people who relentlessly pursue profit like this are either actually or close to being sociopaths.  What other type of person is willing to throw thousands of people in harms way for an EXTRA million per year.

I don't know how i feel about never nuclear but Japan will always be a high risk proposition for nuclear plants being on a major fault line and the associated tsunami risk (seems obvious now...).  But Japan i think i read was 30% nuclear, what alternatives do they, or anyone, have?  If you don't have geothermal and you don't have large tracts of land to provide wind/solar, what are the options?  I think Japan does pretty well as a nation with reducing energy consumption.  Public transit is the norm in major cities, small homes, not a wasteful culture, ~ half the per capita consumption of the US.  So assuming they can't experience a 30% reduction in energy use, how does a country like japan manage to meet its energy needs sans nuclear?

------

well, who's going to power their radiation treatment equipment when they have that big bolus of cancer victims?

I'm sorry, Mark, but this is a subject too close to home.  I have been protesting(my first protest was in Harrisburg, PA) for what seems my entire life, against nuclear power.  I lived 12 miles away from TMI in 1979.  I'm not sure of the outcome at this point.  I do know they lie about the safety and what had happened.  And, I do know my best and oldest friend is dying from breast cancer.

I also do know what it looks like to see someone die from cancer induced from ionizing radiation exposure.  Although 40 years after the exposure, my father suffered for 6 long years, slowly being chipped away by 5 serial, primary tumors. He sat over Almagordo test site.  He didn't witness a blast.  All those soldiers are dead.  He was there 6 years after the test.  He was stationed there for one year.  No rad badges and every assurance he was in no danger.  Of the 5 guys he was stationed with, 4 have had these serial, primary tumors.  I worked in environmental cancer research at UCSF.  I know this is the common pattern for ionizing radiation exposure. 

My guess is I most likely have that same fate coming my way.  I don't want my son (nor anyone's son) to carry on that legacy.  It is not a risk a compassionate society should take.

--------

And i'm not trying to be insensitive but what is the alternative?  Taking nuclear off the table is not a solution without some sort of viable replacement.  And if you made the country vote (obviously i'm guessing here) to either have nuclear power or turn off all their power 30% of the time I think they would choose nuclear.  I'm not anywhere near an energy expert but from what i understand for Japan solar/wind/tide sources won't cover it or at least won't cover it without great expense (time, money, infrastructure, etc).  I'll bet that even given the tsunami and the reactors that will be closed nuclear will stay a strong minority of Japanese energy sources.

--------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test)

Although I was in disagreement about nuclear radiation exposure from Three Mile Island I was not aware that (even now) radiation levels at Trinity are 10x the normal level of background exposure; I would guess that levels were even higher a number of years ago and probably do not make root cause identification for radiation-related illness (e.g. thyroid cancer) any easier.

--------

Yeah I agree with you two, and thanks everyone for their input on this tough issue. I guess it's just so darn hard to prosecute white collar crime because the offenders are very clever, they have an army of top lawyers and politicians, and it's hard to prove anything without a secret camera or leaked documents (like "The Informant!"). So even if we had the death penalty for those types of crimes (that are much more socially damaging than a gang-banger selling a few rocks), it will be hard to convict, and they will appeal and counter-sue for years and all that. Sometimes with China you have to admire the efficiency of their barbaric justice system.

A past failure analysis of a Louisiana nuclear plant indicated that the cause of a future meltdown was 87% likely to be due to external power loss and cooling system failure (like Fukushima). So knowing that (and they should have), if Japan and other nuclear nations do a better job of creating many redundant power backups, and somehow test them for all sorts of extreme shocks to the system, then maybe nuclear would be safer. But really no family should have to go through the suffering of L's father and other victims of careless nuclear just so we can keep our lights and TVs on.

You know how Russia offered to process Iran's nuclear fuel offshore? Maybe nearby Korea/Russia/China could offer land for Japan to build nuke plants on the mainland (hopefully in earthquake-free, unpopulated areas). Japan would give some of the power to the host nation, and then run long underwater transmission lines to Japan for electricity?

Or Japan could just rely more on fossil fuels, but sign long-term futures contracts for reasonable prices, then invest more in carbon capture? I mean, this is the country that makes the best toilets (Toto), the best passenger cars, the best mass transit, and the best robots in the world. They are also one of the most green-minded rich nations, where the power of corporations and the profit motive is not as strong as the US/UK. Japan has some renewable energy (6% of total in 2005), mostly solar and hydro. But their investments in renewables have been paltry compared to the US and China. So if they get more with the program, I think they can find nuclear alternatives. Plus, the easiest way to generate more energy is to use less of it. Japan is already much more energy efficient than the US, but with the right programs they could easily cut usage by another 10%, and that will allow them to decommission some of their most at-risk nuclear plants. Maybe through gov't and industry PR, the Japanese public have come to overly trust nuclear, but I guess public opinion is changing.

http://www.meti.go.jp/english/policy/energy_environment/renewable/ref1002.html 
http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/renewable-energy-resources/world/asia/solar-asia/solar-japan.shtml
http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/intelligent-energy/pew-546-billion-in-renewable-energy-investments-at-risk/3944/

--------

It's funny you mention fighting with China. Japan's expansionist ambitions in the 20th Century were of course dependent on fossil fuels to power their industry and military. They already had a puppet gov't in Manchuria providing coal for their factories, but when Japan invaded French Indochina in 1940, the US cut oil exports as punishment. The US was Japan's primary oil supplier at the time (and Japan has next-to-zero domestic oil), so of course that was unacceptable to them. So then they bombed Pearl and invaded Singapore and the Dutch East Indies to get at their oil.

When faced with future energy shocks and threats to their economic vitality, I don't know what Japan will do in response. I doubt they will turn aggressive, but maybe they will just keep going with nuclear, hope for no mega-quakes, and say to hell with any protests. Or maybe they will take a more dignified, humble approach, and accept that their economy will have to contract in response to these energy and social welfare constraints. Unlike American exceptionalism, where we can't bear the thought of relinquishing our unsustainable lone superpower status, even if the writing is already on the wall.

Problems with the Libya no-fly zone

Here's the problem with the UN's slow response to the Libyan civil war:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theenvoy/20110321/ts_yblog_theenvoy/international-alliance-divided-over-libya-command

Air patrols and cruise missile strikes alone won't force a well-financed sociopathic dictator to step down, especially when he knows no foreign troops will come. The opposition has to topple him and seal the deal. If the international community acted 2 weeks ago, when the rebels had all the momentum and were at the outskirts of Tripoli, then maybe we could have had a relatively clean conclusion to this tough situation and a cessation of violence now. But as we dithered, Qaddafi's better armed and trained forces beat back the rebels, and we only started to attack this weekend when the tables had turned, and Qaddafi was about to deliver his death blow to the resistance at Benghazi. We lost the initiative, and now it's starting to look intractable like our police action in Korea in the 1950s.

I know it's hard to get the UN and NATO to act quickly on anything, and the Japan quake was another major concern to address. But that's why our fumbling in Iraq and Afghanistan is so costly and will hurt us for years more; no-drama Obama is so paranoid of getting embroiled in another Middle East quagmire that he is being too timid when America would have been justified to act weeks ago. If this uprising occurred in 1995, I think Clinton would have swiftly intervened. No one wants Qaddafi around. Unfortunately neither does Al Qaeda, so maybe in his power vacuum some Islamic forces would gain some power, but it's doubtful if they would be able to control the entire country. Qaddafi has survived for 40 years partly by beating down any traces of Islamic movements, like his neighbor Mubarak.

But we don't want another quagmire that ends up biting us in the ass, right? When we toppled Saddam, it was a big boon to Iran and Al Qaeda. We messed up there because we were following a foolish strategy of remaking the region into a "kinder, gentler" Middle East that would be safe for globalization and Israel. Many Iraqis hated Saddam, but his grip on power was strong and he was basically an integral part of the Iraqi society he built around himself and the Ba'ath party. The Saddam opposition movement was comprised of a handful of corrupt, decadent, unknown exiled chumps like Ahmed Chalabi. All that was a recipe for disaster, but Bush and the neocons had blinders on. In the Libyan case, a good portion of the country has already rejected him. We won't have to install any government like with Iraq, we can let the Libyans run the show. The rebels are organized and motivated and not radical Muslims like the Mujahadeen vs. the USSR. Libya is sparsely populated with only a few coastal urban centers, it does a lot of commerce with Europe, and maintains diplomatic relations with the outside world. It is a relatively easier case for post-dictatorship nation building. We could still horribly mess up with Libya, but it's a much easier challenge than Iraq or Afghanistan.

So what are our options now? Air-drop supplies and other assistance to the rebels? Freeze Qaddafi's assets, increase sanctions, and hope we stave him out? But that hurts the innocent population too, and as we've seen with Iran, we can't effectively embargo a country the size of Texas. The rebels will run out of steam before Qaddafi's side does, he's a survivor. Maybe at best we can hope for some sort of bargained truce where Qaddafi stays in power and the rebels get a section of the country, like with Sudan. But there are plenty of problems associated with that scenario too, it will take years to implement, and who says Qaddafi won't crush the other side in a surprise attack down the road when we're no longer concerned with Libya?

Here's an opposing view arguing that liberal interventionists are basically behaving like neocons in calling for Obama to intervene in the Libya situation that we have no business meddling in:

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/21/what_intervention_in_libya_tells_us_about_the_neocon_liberal_alliance

NPR under fire, Muslim hearings

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110310/ap_on_en_ot/us_npr_tea_party_criticism_58

The "gotcha" hidden-camera conservatives who posed as a pimp and hooker with ACORN now punked NPR's chief fundraiser. He thought he was soliciting donations from a leftist group, so he started talking crap about how US conservatives and Tea Party types are racists and xenophobes. He may have a point, but he's obviously not allowed to say stuff like that. He also claimed that NPR would be better off without federal funding. Of course the GOPers in Congress pounced on that as a way to cut spending and screw over a "liberal" media org. America and the world would be much worse off without a strong NPR presence. And then what would I do with myself, listen to my 1990's CDs in the car?

I know I am biased, but in all honesty NPR is not liberal. They report the news and don't inject opinion (that's my job). For discussion or debate programs, they almost always have a conservative voice to balance out the liberal voice. In many cases they only have the conservative/libertarian viewpoint. They interview GOP politicians respectfully and don't try to embarrass them, and they can play hardball with liberal politicians. I guess NPR chooses to report on controversial stories that mainstream or conservative media won't, but that doesn't make them biased. They think it's newsworthy, while the other media have their own reasons to avoid such stories. Commercial media has become so shameful and biased that it makes NPR look leftist, but in reality they have just shifted their own bar while NPR has remained in place. I honestly can't think of many better ways to spend our taxes than the information that NPR provides, and they account for a much smaller chunk of discretionary spending than say, handouts to the rich or big oil/corn. Meager budgetary savings, big loss of information and a cultural icon. NPR wouldn't die without federal funding, but they would have to close many rural affiliates, and maybe the quality of their reporting and journalistic resources would suffer. Plus I don't want to have to donate more than I already do.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/10/134374186/king-hearings-revisit-radical-muslim-question?ft=1&f=1003 (fitting that I use an NPR link)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20110310/ts_dailybeast/12839_howpeterkingsmuslimhearingshelptheterrorists_1

A Gallup survey ... found that the people of [our ally] Kuwait were the most likely of any in the world to cheer the 9/11 attacks on the United States. And yet Kuwait has generated almost no terrorism. The connection between words and deeds turns out to be tenuous at best.
“The bad news for Americans is this: Islamist terrorists really are out to get you. They cannot be deterred by prison sentences, ‘enhanced’ interrogations, or the prospect of death,” Kurzman writes. “The good news for Americans is this: there aren’t very many Islamist terrorists, and most of them are incompetent. The odds of their getting lucky and repeating an operation on the scale of 9/11 seem like a long shot.” - Daily Beast
So there's going to be a show trial in Congress about Muslim radicalism in the US. I agree that sometimes people are too sensitive with radical Islam, and we should be able to call a spade a spade without being labeled as a bigot. But they are not the only religion/philosophy with radicalization problems. If King wants to hold a hearing, what about investigating the people who were radicalized to violence by Fox News (shootings in Oakland and the Midwest linked to FNC), or radicalized by extremist Christian cults and anti-government militias? Remember the Feds busted several Christian militias last year who were stockpiling arms and intent to use them against the cops? They wouldn't even call them "terrorists". Yet a Muslim who buys a bunch of hair care products is nabbed and branded a terrorist in a heartbeat. We have Islamic violence in the world and brewing here in the US, but it is not the only threat to us. So just treat everyone equally and fairly - isn't that the American way? Don't pick on an already marginalized group.

Plus, I don't think a Congressional hearing is the best way to inform the public about these matters, and I question its utility. The FBI and other agencies have been researching this stuff for years, and they actually know shit, unlike detached legislators like King. Maybe their investigations are classified, but the public deserves to know some of it through Freedom of Information. You know how hearings go, the chairman only calls witnesses who will support his argument with anecdotes. Some Imam said this bad thing, and this website wants to do this bad thing, gang bangers become Muslim in jail, yadda yadda. It's a skewed look at the overall issue. I could produce plenty of crazy fringe witnesses to support ludicrous claims like Boehner is gay and Obama is not a citizen. That doesn't add any value to the conversation. If they want to help, set up a task force or think tank to actually collect impartial DATA about radicalism in the US, the causes, and how to stop it.

And as others have said, these types of selective persecution hearings (while not as bad as McCarthyism or Japanese Internment with which they have been compared) only serve to alienate good US Muslims, make them less likely to be helpful, and maybe push them towards the terrorists' cause. "America doesn't like you and doesn't trust you. You do everything right and still they want to humiliate you and your faith in public. You'll never get a fair shake here, and no matter how much you help them in their fight, they will always think of you as the other. You might as well side with us - we are your brothers and we have the tools to take revenge against the Great Satan that torched our lands, killed our children/women, pillaged our resources, and disrespect the Prophet." You can see how it goes.

Newsweek Ferguson editorial on revolutions

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/27/un-american-revolutions.html

To Newsweek:

Niall Ferguson's article about revolutions was one of the worst I have ever read in your publication. Yes revolutions are a dirty business, but America's was not any more noble. Surely the British Empire represented tyranny, and the founding of the US led to many good things, but also the perpetuation of slavery, the butchering of Native Americans during Western Expansion, the gory Civil War, and Hiroshima.

Also, the US has opposed more revolutions than it supported. Business and political elites were horrified by socialist uprisings in Russia and China (the US military even sent troops to oppose the Bolsheviks, and Truman derided Mao as "Mousie Dung"), and preferred to heap praises on Hitler's leadership of post-WWI Germany. During the Cold War, we and our affiliates crushed leftist-nationalist movements in Congo, Central America, and Chile, resulting in years of repression and mass murder. We only supported revolts against the Soviets, even if they were conducted by likes of the Contras or Mujahadeen.

Current protests in the Middle East are not exclusively conducted by illiterates and Muslim extremists, as Ferguson intimates. Yes they are poor and jobless (not their fault), but many of them are college students, and some in Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood are from the upper class. This of course does not guarantee that future governments will be peaceful and cooperative with Western interests, but Ferguson should not assume that the result will be carnage just because it fits the Arab stereotype.

Ferguson poo-pooed Obama's 2009 Cairo speech as feeble and vague, but he should know that Obama did call for increased women's rights as well as political reforms. And he wasn't the only Western leader to embrace the "new Gaddafi." Does Ferguson seriously prefer Bush's neoconservative "democracy at gunpoint" approach that may have been well-meaning, but an utter failure in practice? His promotion of the "McCain strategy" is questionable as well. The 21st Century Middle East is not Cold War Eastern Europe. There are no viable pro-democracy social institutions and movements to back because the oil despots that the West tolerates/supports have violently quashed them. And to call for inciting conflict among Islamists as beneficial to US foreign policy is both preposterous and appalling, especially considering the Iran-Iraq War and more recent Iraqi sectarian bloodshed (in both of which the US played a negative role).

GOP congressman laughs off Obama death threats

Un-freaking-believable:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/blog-post/2011/02/rep_paul_broun_asked_who_is_go.html?wpisrc=xs_0005&wpisrc=xs_sl_0001

Not 2 months after the Giffords shooting, a GA congressman was hosting a town hall in his district where a guest asked, "Who is going to shoot Obama?"

This apparently elicited laughter from the audience. The congressman's response was, "The thing is, I know there's a lot of frustration with this president. We're going to have an election next year. Hopefully, we'll elect somebody that's going to be a conservative, limited-government president that will take a smaller, who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare."

Where is the decency? The least he could do was scold that person and get security to remove him from the building. Some things are still inappropriate, right? Apparently this GOPer was totally fine with jokes about murdering an innocent man, not to mention he happens to be the head of state. What message is he sending - it's OK to use violence against people you disagree with politically? I am sure there are thousands of Americans out there who have fantasized about, or may actually want to, kill our president. Well we all have some sick private thoughts. But to unabashedly joke about it in public is taking things to another level. I'm ashamed of our people.

The GOP are calling for a Dem congressman from OR to resign because there is a picture of him in a Tigger outfit, and he didn't disclose that he was seeking psychiatric therapy. Heck maybe it was Halloween, and who but a heartless conservative doesn't love Tigger? If embarrassing photos were a criterion for congressional dismissal, then 90% of them should step down (and I bet a few GOPers have some much nastier photos hidden in their desks). I'd prefer a harmlessly loony leader any day vs. someone who doesn't care to defend his president against death threats, even in jest.

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//110223/480/urn_publicid_ap_org_a8a243b6f03c456cbb3894b9a0d16b14/
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/feb/24/oregon-democratic-congressman-david-wu-pressured/