+5, Insightful

To paraphrase from THHGTTG, the Earth is a mind-bogglingly big place. In the modern age of jet travel people may forget that. There is a LOT of mass associated with our little planet, and to assume that we have an effect on it's long-term rhythms really smacks of a modern day 'geocentric-view'. People had models that proved, PROVED that geocentrism was correct, and the science had been settled for over a thousand years. All scientists agreed on that point.

It may turn out that anthropogenic climate change is true, but it may also turn out that we just have faulty models and poor data. Occam's razor would favor the latter over the former due to the sheer complexity of the system.

Insightful? Bah. Giving big numbers is nothing without something to compare them to. What is the total mass of the atmosphere? about 5 quadrillion tons (look it up). What percent of 5 quadrillion tons is 10 gigatons? I get .0002%. So the number the parent spewed out may look big, but in context it is really, really tiny...some would say insignificant?

*Some* scientists have concluded that man is responsible for global warming. There is not a general consensus, the science is not settled.

However, if do you believe that humans are the cause of climate change (global warming, btw, went out of style years ago), feel free to do your part of reducing your "carbon footprint" and saving the planet by killing yourself. Thanks.

Well, except for the fact that spending on the wars have been far, far outpaced by spending on entitlements and growth of government. Although the numerical number has risen, the fraction of GDP that is used by the military has been fairly constant since the fall of the USSR. So cutting taxes during WWII would have directly impacted the war effort. Cutting taxes now would have a greater impact on social programs...which no one in the political class wants to touch so they try and push it off on to the DoD which is unpalatable to the majority of the population (which you can derive from the fact that if such cuts were wanted by the general population, congress would vote for them with the knowledge that they would get reelected. Since congress does not want to cut the military budget, it implies that there are enough districts out there who would not reelect a congressman who voted for such cuts that those bills fail).

No logic that I know of dictates your flow chart. You're assuming that the person doing the button pushing has a very weak moral standard, and just because he can't see the whites of their eyes he won't have the moral fortitude to realize what he's doing and the implications thereof.

I would submit that you are projecting your lack of moral strength onto the military as a whole, and simply are ignorant of how it trains and operates. To expound: you are saying that if you were in a position to push a button and kill a city then you would ignore the impact of your actions. Thus, it must be the same for everyone.

I will admit that we do have a few bad apples (any large population will have outliers). But to use those as a basis to excoriate us as a whole...my friend, you are sorely mistaken.

No, the last time the USA was attacked "on own territory" was 11 Sep, 2001. Or would you consider flying airplanes into the world trade center and the pentagon (essentially the symbols of US economic and military might) not a real "attack"? If not, where do you draw the line? Remember, Pearl Harbor was essentially a surprise attack which was contrary to the "law of armed conflict" at the time. The Japanese were supposed to declare war with the US prior to the event, but the way it turned out was essentially no different than how the US was attacked by Muslim Extremists in '01.

I have no problem bombing someone else in a far off land if it keeps me safe here. And it has worked...how many terrorist attacks have there been on US soil in the past decade?

Except US bases are US Gov't property, so US laws do apply. Your argument is the basis for extraordinary rendition in foreign countries, but that's another bowl of wax. We keep prisoners in gitmo for NIMBY concerns (not in my backyard). After all, do you want a bunch of extremely dangerous potential terrorists near your family? No one else does either, that's why there was such a big outcry back in '09 and one of the big reasons gitmo still hasn't been closed, despite all of the campaign promises.

Radioactive iodine is bad because it collects in your thyroid. When people talk about radiation tablets, all that is is concentrated non-radioactive iodine. The idea being that you can fill your thyroid up with that stuff, leaving no room for radioactive iodine to collect there. The big thing with plutonium and uranium is that they tend to emit alpha particles when they decay (since they are so big). If you inhale either of these, then they'll be in your body a very long time, bombarding sensitive tissue with helium nuclei sans electrons...highly charged, "massive" particles that don't do good things to cells. The good news is that since alpha particles are highly charged, the outer layer of dead skin tends to stop them, so external contamination isn't so much of an issue.

IIRC, rather than getting collected in the thyroid like iodine, cesium tends to go throughout the body. IANAChemist, but I think it forms a soluble solution in water, so that may be why it's considered the 'greatest concern'...if it contaminates the water supply, suddenly a lot more people get internal exposure. Nothing deadly unless there's a LOT of cesium, but most people don't seem to understand that.

In the midst of reading your comment, I had a beer induced epiphany regarding your engineering thing: "Ah, what? There are plenty of folk I know who were in an engineer program that are doing something totally unrelated after the fact."

Well, first things first, calling them kids is a little ridiculous, they are grown adults and responsible for their actions at this point.

By getting an engineering degree, they have more of an opportunity to enter an engineering field, though they may not due to availability or whatever. An English major could possibly snag an engineering job, but it would be much, much harder. The point is, the engineering degree provides an opportunity, whether the receiver is able to take advantage of it or not. Thus, it may possibly be fair to charge them more for it.

I disagree. Education, specifically higher education, should be run as a business. By implementing this, we could see fewer STEM graduates. The supply of STEM-trained workers dwindles, so their salary improves which lures more people into those fields. If those majors are desperately needed in this country, then they will be paid better, which makes those fields more attractive, despite the higher initial costs.

Now, I agree that primary and secondary education should not be run as a business as they should be providing a baseline education for everyone that will allow those who finish the necessary skills to be a productive citizen. Post-secondary education involves grown adults learning advanced topics to give them a head start in specific areas when they finally enter the workforce. Let those adults decide for themselves where they are best used, based on current market conditions and educational costs.

I submit that those poor students would never have been in the "market" in the first place (or at least those who could not afford some sort of scholarship or grant).

For those too poor to go to a university right out of high school, they can enter the job market (though that's pretty tough these days) or they can start at a community college and transfer (which is significantly cheaper). Everyone has the opportunity to go to college. Some people may just have to work harder or put off going for a little while to get there.

It'll be painful to fix, much like the spending reductions we'll need to see in the US budget to fix both the deficit and the debt, but by reducing the money supply, universities will see reduced student population and will be forced to reduce tuition to stay open (or lobby for more tax dollars, which should be avoided). Essentially, it would be popping this 'higher education bubble', though we would be doing it on purpose (as opposed to the housing bubble which popped (and is still popping) on its own).

If that's where you want to learn, then it is your responsibility to make it work. You have no inherent right to attend a private school, so the government should not be involved in ensuring you have access to one. If the private institution feels that they are better off pricing you out of their education, that is their prerogative. It would be nice to have the $50EE3 car, the $1EE6 house, and the $200EE3 education, but if they're out of your means, then they're out of your means and it's your responsibility to recognize that.

Likewise, public universities should not be funded with the idea that everyone should be able to afford to go as, again, getting a bachelors is not an inherent right and I don't want my tax money wasted towards that ideal. Scholarships, grants, etc... are available for those who have the abilities but not the means. If those families who have students with neither the ability to get a scholarship, grant, etc... nor the means to afford a college education make the poor choice to assume that debt, then that is a problem solely for them and their creditors. Again, I would rather not have my tax dollars flushed down that void, thanks.

Already been stated a few times, but I'd say that this has probable been driven by very poor media coverage. It is so poor that, as someone who has had several years "exposure" (hah) and training to nuclear reactors, I physically cringe and usually change the channel (or skip the post) when the topic comes up. The "experts" they brought on early on (and continue to do so, I assume) were laughable. I specifically remember one being a journalist who had covered the industry for a couple of years. She had absolutely no idea what was going on, but tossed out the same trash that was being said elsewhere (people exposed to radiation, extremely dangerous and life threatening...CHERNOBYL! THREE MILE ISLAND! 2012!!!~!~!@~!$#@!!!). Most of the others, I vaguely remember being mostly made up of theoretical nuclear physicists, lobbyists of one persuasion or another, and people who dealt in the field of nuclear weapons. Jokes, all of them. How hard would it have been to find an SRO at a running plant to ask questions of? You know, someone how actually has a clue?

I just wish that they would at least get the verbage right so they wouldn't sound like a retard on a bad day. It's like they've never heard of the term contamination before and just use the term 'radiation' for everything.

I took a few minutes to search, but wasn't able to find it. What percentage of oil use in the US (of worldwide) is by personal vehicles? Few vehicles have tanks over 50 gallons of gas, a small fraction compared to an airliner or train or ship. I don't have any concept over how much is used on oil-fired power plants. How much of the US use is dependent on personal vehicles? How much is used in power generation? How much is used in factories?

I guess my point is, if we all stopped driving cars and started using bicycles, how much would oil consumption in the US drop?

WTF is the government doing taxing me to limit my consumption of oil and CO2 generation? Tax me to have money to keep me safe, tax me for my use of public infrastructure to help maintain it, don't tax me as a way to tell me how to spend money I earned. If people are consuming too much oil, the price will rise and people adjust to consume less of it (at some point). Who are you to tell me or the rest of us that we are consuming too much oil? Who is the government to tell me the same thing? Certainly not the Aliso Viejo municipal government.

On a related note, if these more efficient population centers have more people living there, I would expect more taxes to be spent there.