Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Was there any doubt? (Score 1) 90

I'd say the multiple mass extinctions argue against that.

Animals overbreed. New invasive species drive out existing species and take over ecological slots quickly on a geological time scale.

There is a balance- but it's not stable long term. In the short and mid term, it's often driving by one species eating too many resources and so it starves off in large numbers.

Comment Re:incomplete sentence... (Score 2) 90

You are absolutely correct.

"Sheppard Krech III's book The Ecological Indian sets out to probe the basis and historical validity of the idea that people of native descent are, and always have been, caring towards the environment, a characteristic commonly claimed by or attributed to them. With a series of empirical case studies he investigates whether their ideas and actions were always those of ecologists and conservationists. He finds that the Ecological Indian proposition is of doubtful validity, concluding that, for example, Indians needlessly killed many buffalo, set fires that got out of control, and over-exploited deer and beaver for their skins.

For me, this chapter provides the book's most serious challenge to The Ecological Indian. While Indians had uses for every part of the buffalo, their practice of slaughtering whole herds, at a buffalo jump or in an enclosure, sometimes produced more carcasses than a group could possibly use. As a result, waste occurred. He documents instances of Indians leaving animals to rot, utilising only the cows, or taking only the tongues and the humps. However, the overkilling did not cause the extermination of the species, which only came after non-Indians and Metis hunted them commercially for fresh meat, pemmican and hides. "

Indians were not really ecologically aware until the 19th century.

They were not into any naturally sustainable processes. As their population grew, they would have had the same problem.

Too many humans (even indians) is the problem.

Comment Re:The Message (Score 1) 90

I think you are right.

Plus it's perfect setup for adaptation.

Fresh stock from surrounding areas.
Mild selective pressures in low radiation zones.
High selective pressures in high radiation zones.

30 to 40 generations to adapt.
High litter sizes for the ones who do well (6 to 9 per birth vs 1:1 for humans)

Comment not sure this is the real interpretation (Score 1) 90

Could it also be that animals just have shorter generations and the first few generations did poorly ( I remember reading stories about badly mutated animals) but ultimately radiation is just a selective pressure so after 30 generations, those that do well in radiation have come to dominate the population. Because their generations are one year long, they don't die from the effects of radiation before the ones who are doing better can reproduce. It would be hard for humans to survive 18 years to reproduce (as well as other species that must mature for multiple years before reproducing).

just speculating...

Comment Re:People are missing the point. (Score 1) 59

I think your second sentence is wrong.

Shouldn't it read, "Stop using.. it."

I did years ago.

I have set up a fake name account to communicate with one person who is facebook only. When it's burned, I'll set up another fake name account.

Most people I know who still use facebook only use stub accounts.

Comment Re:Soda is TOO expensive (Score 1) 563

I've never had a "knockoff" coke that didn't taste like swill. Even the best is equivalent to "new coke" or "diet coke".

Actually, I was looking pretty hard-- checking kroger, heb, and randalls each week. While competitors regularly charged 25 cents per 12 oz can, coke went thru a nearly 9 month period where they were $4.50 per 12 (about $37 cents per can). Pent up demand was so high that when it started going on sale again, people stripped the shelves within hours each day.

Perhaps it was a regional test to see if people would adjust to the new price and start buying it again. From the reaction, I think it failed.

Comment Re:You have one last hope (Score 1) 246

Well Slashdot, the Republicans that so many of you despise, are your last line of defense against the rod that is about to be rammed into you...

I'm surprised you think there are two sides of politics remaining, they are the left and right wing of the same party and this agreement purely increasing control over the populous. Ask yourself who wants this. When trade agreements override a nations sovereignty this ceases to be a political issue and becomes a structural issue of democracy.

We are all getting rammed...

Comment 90 days (Score 1) 246

And they want to release it in a *a month or so*. So at roughly 80 or so pages (in the Intellectual Property section) can we expect a 2400 page document with 60 days to read it, so 40 pages a day after a full time job, commute and so on. So that's the expected input from the populous who will be affected by this trade agreement.

So essentially, sign this contract before you understand it. That's worldwide democracy right there. Talk about a Faustian Bargain.

Comment Re:Fukushima factoid (Score 2) 90

While Fukushima was the latest accident, I always like to point out that the Fukushima plant is actually older than TMI, by at least by a few months, depending on how you measure it - do you start the time when construction started, or when criticality was first achieved?

When construction started. More precisely when the design was finished. The nature of a NPP means that it is close to impossible to retrofit any technological advances into them because a lot of the technology is in the way the plant is arranged and constructed.

One exception is I am seeing some interesting developments in nano level enhancements to coolants for the primary cooling loop however these appear to favor extending the existing lifespans of existing reactors.

Modern, actual modern nuclear plants would be far safer.

By what standard? And to which approved, viable and currently available NPP designs are you referring too? We have already seen significant design advances for NPPs already proposed and rejected due to the expense. By some ironic quirk TMI *is* one of the safest designs because it was designed to be resistant to aircraft impacts

And yes, Coal power kills more people any given day than Nuclear does all decade.

Coal and Nuclear are as bad as each other but for different reasons. Nuclear kills people for subsequent decades as the radioactive effluents make their way through our water and food supply, it also reduces the birth rate because pregnancies fail to come to full term. The key thing is it happens very slowly and the majority of effects are still years away as opposed to coal whose effects are almost instantaneous in comparison.

If there was the will to fix some of it's many design flaws it may have a chance to contribute to human society, however right now it is just a source of subsidy revenue for the oil and coal companies using provisions made available in the 2005 energy act. Governments, i.e. the populous, should own the nuclear industry as private industry is profit motivated as opposed to safety motivated. Properly managed NPP's could have provided economic stimulus, for example by providing cheap industrial power inputs, during downturns forcing industry to invest to take advantage of them. Alas!

I'd really like to see a high-efficiency high temperature molten salt thorium reactor deployed.

From my understanding of this technology it's spent fuel product is 233 Thallium, IIRC, which is characterized by many daughter products with short half lives. I'm not saying it isn't better reactor technology however it would seem the central issue of current reactor technology, the long term storage of spent fuel products, is an issue for thorium reactor technology as well.

Until we have effective, geologically stable and appropriate spent fuel containment facilities then we will always have higher levels of risk with greater levels of impact as a result of accidents in the nuclear industry. For that reason it's important to reduce that level of risk and impact to the community regardless of what reactor technology is deployed.

Comment Animals can't read signs (Score 1) 90

And animals don't have the mental capacity to understand how radionuclides will affect their offspring, that's still human created toxicity.

These animals are as likely to be exposed to radionuclide contamination by eating the local plant life as humans are. Since animals live vastly shorter lifespans than humans there is less time for cancers to manifest it's effects on the animals.

I doubt eating these animals would be a good idea however it would be very interesting to examine just how much radionuclide contamination is in the apex predators, like the wolves. The salient point about this article is that the microbes, insects and birds at the bottom of the food chain aren't there, as these are the fundamental building blocks of life.

A bug in the hand is better than one as yet undetected.