JapanesJapanese killed because of radiation in i: zero. Total count of Japanese with radiation induced health problems around Fukashima: zero.e killed because of radiation in Fukushima-Diachi: zero. Total count of Japanese with radiation induced health problems around Fukashima: zero.

But a large number of deaths and injuries caused by the earthquake and tsunami. Also Fukushima-Diachi wan't that damaged compared with other industrial sites.

According to what I just googled, California currently has just over a gigawatt of installed solar production, and just over half a gigawatt of installed wind power.
Therefore, to replace the 2 gigawatts that used to come from San Onofre with renewable energy (and ignoring the possibility of increases in renewable efficiency), we'd have to roughly double our current amount of installed renewable infrastructure.

Except that a steam turbine plant (regardless of the heat source) is capable of producing its rated power most of the time. Day or night, whatever the weather.
Not only do solar and wind rarely produce anything like their rated capacity they also tend to vary more or less at random. Also having all of the plant outside greatly increases the costs of maintainance.

congratulations! you have moved into one of the better settings of taking over predecessor's work! (unfortunately, I'm not making that up.)

Carrot.

Germany's painters plan to test 99c balaclavas to try to reduce the evidence collected by 9,900 â airborne drones with infra-red cameras. A spokesman for the painters said it will protect their skin from chemical agents too.

They also plan on testing how well the drones function after being spray painted.

Simply turning off the fucking floodlights wouldn't just save DB a fortune on juice, it makes vandal highly visible. You can't tag if you can't see; any light is a give-away.

As well as obvious to cameras. Yet the idea that lighting things up "deters crime" continues to exist.

These organizations likely did accomplish something in their early history. But what does an activist group do when its won? Does it disband and go back to their day jobs? No. They just move their platform to the next radical step... something far enough out that no one will ever accept it... and in taking that insane position they ensure that they'll always have something to complain about.

It isn't unknown for founder members of such groups to leave (sometimes in disgust). The longer such organisations have existed the more likely they are to comprise "professional activists". (Who are a type of "career politician".)

Yes, and for an example of this, mention "Streisand effect" to someone that doesn't read Slashdot, and they will probably have no idea what you are talking about.

Whilst the term is fairly new the "effect" in question is very old. But the Romans undoubtedly called it something else :) Interestingly even the Wikipedia article about it gives an example from the late 1970's. This for a term coined less than a decade ago.

Is it really appropriate to use average wages, instead of median wages? The average wage doesn't change if everyone takes a huge pay cut while a CEO ends up giving himself a 1000-percent raise.

Of course, the text-to-speech program isn't illegal, but redistributing the copyrighted text is. The copyright holders recognize that the only remotely-feasible way to stop illegal distribution is to make it difficult to make copies. That means that legally accessing the work becomes collateral damage, but that's perfectly acceptable to a special-interest group like the MPAA. They're not interested in helping the blind. They're interested in helping copyright holders.

Actually they don't even appear to be interested in helping "copyright holders". Since they have been caught at least once enguaging in movie and software "piracy". The only people they are really interested in helping are their members.

There is evidence that it is fossil fuel related. The concentrations of different isotopes of carbon are shifting. Fossil fuels don't have much Carbon 14 in them, since they haven't been exposed to the atmosphere for a long time.

AFAIK nobody is measuring and recording the isotope ratios of fossil fuels as they are extracted. Volcanic emissions, including hydrothermal vents in deep ocean, are also likely to be very low in C14. If anything coal would be most likely to contain C14, given a source of neutrons, since solid carbon is a good neutron moderator.
Oxygen isotope ratios in water are affected by temperature. What effect does temperature have on carbon isotope ratios in carbon dioxide?
In the recent past carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has followed average temperature, with a delay of a few hundred years. Even if it can be demonstrated that human activities have had an effect on the isotope ratio, then that dosn't in itself show that these have made any difference to the concentration. There is much more carbon dioxide in the oceans than in atmosphere. More entering the atmosphere from other sources may simply equate to less entering the atmosphere from the oceans.
The fundermental problem is that we have no way of knowing what either concentration or isotope ratio of carbon dioxide would "naturally" be now. Moreover climate models predicated on atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration have failed to predicted anything. Thus "geo-engineering" involving attempts to manipulate the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere is likely to be a complete waste of time. Even if something was done to actually reduce either carbon dioxide emitted by human activities or its concentration in the atmosphere. So far "green" methods have at best made no difference to human carbon dioxide emissions. About they only thing they appear to be good for is wasting money!

All the worlds plants took a collective sigh of relief. CO2 has been so low for so long, it was like hypoxia for plants.

Probably not that much relief. The optimal level for plants appears to be in the 1,000 to 2,000 ppm range. Thus 400 ppm is "too low" and still close to the 200 ppm lower limit. For animals, including humans, "too high", would appear to be greater than 5,000 ppm.
Yet there are those prediction ecological disaster at more than an order of magnitude lower.

The 800,000 year level comes from testing of air pockets locked in glacial ice. Seriously, is it that hard to try and understand something before speaking stupid things?

If these trapped air pockets formed within minutes then remained hermetically sealed until humans looked at them then it might make sense to compare them with modern measuring instruments. Since this is obviously not the case such comparisons are, at best, "apples and oranges". (Things get even worst using "proxies" which equate to rough averages over periods from decades to centuries.) That's before even considering precision, accuracy and signal to noise ratio of any of the data.

It really is cute when home hobbyist guitar players think they know how to play music, though.

Of course I played Battlefront. I guess I should have specified: Battlefield on Frostbite 3: Star Wars.