Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Submission Summary: 0 pending, 218 declined, 18 accepted (236 total, 7.63% accepted)

Submission + - Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon? (thebulletin.org)

DanDrollette writes: A comprehensive look at the US' new (and expensive, unnecessary, and highly vulnerable) land-based nuclear missile. Many of the missile’s critics are former military leaders, and their criticism has to do with its immovable silos. Relative to nuclear missiles on submarines, which can slink around undetected, or nuclear bombs on airplanes—the two other legs of the nuclear "triad"—America’s land-based nuclear missiles are easy marks.

Submission + - The harrowing story of the Nagasaki bombing mission (thebulletin.org) 1

DanDrollette writes: The anniversay of the bombing of Nagasaki just occured, so this is is a good time to revisit events of the lesser-known of the two atomic bombings.
In a nutshell: A typhoon was coming, the fuel pump failed, they had to switch planes, things were wired incorrectly, they missed their rendezvous, they couldn't see the primary target, they ran out of gas on the way home, and they had to crash-land. But the worst part was when the Fat Man atomic bomb started to arm itself and begin the countdown to detonation mid-flight, before they were even half-way to Nagasaki.

Submission + - How it feels to predict a pandemic: Interview with David Quammen (thebulletin.org)

DanDrollette writes: Ten years ago, author David Quammen interviewed scientists about the possibility of a new pandemic. Their prediction: there would indeed be a new disease, likely from the coronavirus family, coming out of a bat, and it would happen in or around a wet market in China.
But what was not predictable was how unprepared we would be.

Submission + - How to get to net zero carbon emissions: Cut short-lived superpollutants (thebulletin.org)

Dan Drollette writes: We absolutely, positively, must tackle climate change speedily. Or as the authors of this article put it: "By 'speed,' we mean measures—including regulatory ones—that can begin within two-to-three years, be substantially implemented in five-to-10 years, and produce a climate response within the next decade or two." (Quick aside: one of the authors, Mario Molina, won the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1995, for his work on holes in the ozone layer.)

Submission + - Tilting toward windmills (thebulletin.org)

Dan Drollette writes: Opponents of wind power claim that it's too unreliable, intermittent, unpredictable, and expensive to ever be a major energy source. But on Block Island, Rhode Island — site of North America's first commercial, offshore wind farm — residents found the exact opposite to be true. The Bulletin goes to the smallest town in the smallest state to find out why, in this multimedia package.

Submission + - What the future may hold for the Strategic National Stockpile for Biodefense (thebulletin.org)

Dan Drollette writes: A little-publicized $7 billion federal agency is key to defending the country from a biological attack. Its operators have to prepare for the unthinkable, such as what to do if 100,000 cases of some new disease with pandemic potential appears—what global health officials have sometimes dubbed “Disease X.”

Submission + - Dragons, nuclear weapons, and Game of Thrones (thebulletin.org) 1

Dan Drollette writes: A specialist in nuclear security analyzes Game of Thones. One immediate similarity to the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction: The inherent difficulties of managing fictional dragons and real-life nuclear weapons. (Which George R.R. Martin was well-aware of.)

Submission + - Climate report understates threat (thebulletin.org)

Dan Drollette writes: Dire as it is, the latest IPCC report is actually too optimistic — it ignores the risk of self-reinforcing climate feedbacks pushing the planet into chaos beyond human control. So says a team of climate experts, including the winner of the 1995 Nobel for his work on depletion of the ozone layer.

Submission + - The trouble with geoengineers "hacking the planet" (thebulletin.org)

Dan Drollette writes: Despite all the hype, geoengineering would not be simple or easy, or a one-time solution, or buy us any time. Instead, "hacking the planet" would be a difficult undertaking that humanity would have to commit to essentially forever—and still not fix the underlying problem. Assuming it even works.

Slashdot Top Deals

ASHes to ASHes, DOS to DOS.

Working...