• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Everything posted by storm1977

  1. You are FUCKING RETARDED Bill. And yes, that was a Personal Attack! Do you listen to yourself ever? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  2. Not during the interview .. your right!!! But I thought I would point out that Darius and Amadijan(SP?) both believe that!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  3. how is that relevant to my post???? Oh wait, it isn't. But then I could I expect YOU to stay on topic? Silly me. You should run for office, you'd make a fine politician ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  4. Like what DARIUS??? That all JEWS Should DIE? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  5. HE was elected.... Yup. And I trust the elections in IRAN were as fair as the ones in IRAQ before SH was taken down. Funny how people in the US think our voting process is corrupted, but IRANs must be on the up and up!!!! Stupid people!!!! Hitler in the 30's was a crazy sabre rattler too. No one took him real serious. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  6. Bill, Wendy et al Your responses do not surprise me. Simply calling Ahmadinejad a sabre rattler is a mistake. Funny, we here in the US thought Hitler was a joke too until it was almost too late. To me it is very sad when supposedly educated people like yourself make the mistake of not taking crazy people seriously. Ahmadinejad clearly wants every Jew in the world dead, and has the will to do it. Isn't it amazing that right before the UN vote on Irans Nuke ambitions, Hezbolla (with Irans backing) started to cause more problems for isreal... Distraction anyone? I am not going to try to convince you otherwise Bill, it is about as useful as you trying to convince me Liberalism will save the world However, I just wanted to put my thoughts out there so when the real war begins you can remember this post warning you. Have fun inside your bubble ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  7. If only the world were as simple as you describe it. Unfortunately the Left in America has ignored the fact that Iran's pres, Ahmadinejad, is the second coming of Hitler. Am I exagerating???? No. He has made it very clear that his intentions are to "Wipe Isreal off the face of the earth". Now, Ahmadinejad probably doesn't have the means to do that right now, but he is trying desperately to develop those means. As of now the only difference between Hitler and Ahmadinejad is the Means... Not the WILL. This war between hezbola and Isreal was a proxy war between the US and Iran. That is all it was, and unfortunately, the US came out on the losing side. We looked like a bunch of pussies IMO. Like it or not Isreal is an ally of the USA, and it is our job to help them and defend them. We know Iran is helping Hezbolla! The lefties in this country do NOT have the stomach for a war with IRAN. But, it needs to be done. The lefties make the mistake of blaming the US for the problems in the Middle east saying it is US policy there that causes the problem. It is just not the case. It is simply religious ideology in the region. It always has been, and always will be! Until the world wakes up to this fact, we in the west are in deep deep shit. Our middle east policy is not going to change the minds of the Muslim fundamentalists. If the US left the middle east tomorrow do you truely believe the fighting there would stop? Do you think Terrorism in the west would stop? Do you think the attempted irradication of the Jews would stop? Do you think we should wait until someone like Ahmadinejad gets nuclear weapons. War sucks. But sometimes they are nessesary. Iran's government needs to go... Sooner rather than later. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  8. I am not a Jew and can't answer for them, but I do find what you are saying amusing at best. ???? I seem to remember Palastinians, Jordanians, Syrians, Egyptians, and Iranians (Though they are not muslim they are persian) Dancing in the Fucking streets. To this day there are MANY muslim groups who still say the US got what it deserved. As far as the current conflict, The reason you hear support for Isreal is because they are not commiting "War crimes as you call them". They are defending their country. They have been for years. I have never seen a country take SOOOO Much shit and not fight back. They IMO are well with in their rights. If the leboneese (sp?) can not stop Hezbolla from attacking Isreal, then Isreal has to do it until an international force can come in and take over. If the same thing happened with the Mexico, trust that the US would be over the border taking care of business if the Mexican army couln't do the job. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  9. And you are entitled to your opinion, But comparing Walmart to Tabacco companies is a bit of a stretch even for you Bill. First let me say I smoked for 13 yrs.... I will be smober (Smoking sober) for exactly 7 months tomorrow. No one is dying from too much walmart shopping OK. Tobacco companies intentionally marketed DEADLY products to children. A product they KNEW contained chemical which would cause cancer in those who used it. Sorry Bill, but I have to call you out on this one.... Not even a close comparison. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  10. As I am sure most of you figured... the website is unreachable... I think their servers are a tad overloaded. It is going to be at ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  11. Funny how many people here don't like wal mart, or think they have comitted some crime because some "Mom and Pop" store had to close.... Tough... That's life, and that is business. Walmart exists because they fill a need or a desire of the people. If people didn't shop there, they wouldn't exist. So whose fault is it? Yours, or your parents, or your cousins or grandparents, or maybe your friends.... But, How come people don't bitch about Home Depot or Lowe's fo pushing out the local hardware store or lumber yard? Or Stop and Shop (east coast) for pushing out small pharmacies and grocery stores? It is called Progress people. Americans want one stop shopping, Efficiency, and cheaper prices a lot more than they want personalized more expensive service at grocery stores pharmacies and hardwarestores. It is as simple as that. The stores aren't the evil ones. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  12. I found the movie very entertaining.... However, some of the information given in the movie had no factual basis as it related to reality... I found it amazing, that some of these "Experts" and PHDs would even want their name associated with some of these crazy hypothesis. What was said about QP was true, but how the realities of QP related to our lives is anyones guess. Sure it is true that multiple states of being and placement exist in QP, no unifying theory or connection to regualr Synoptic physics has ever been made.... Mostly entertainment... that is what the movie was. Someone who took too much acid and came up with some far fetched ideas ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  13. in what sense? Murdock has often been refered to as part of a right wing conspiracy... In fact, MANY people on this site say that often. Many people on this site say you can NOT trust anything Foxnews says because Murdock a known right winger owns the station.... I wonder what they will say now.... hmmm ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  14. [url,0,4855556.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines[/url] BY GLENN THRUSH WASHINGTON BUREAU May 9, 2006 WASHINGTON -- A founding father of the vast right-wing conspiracy is throwing a July fundraiser in New York for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's re-election campaign. Rupert Murdoch, the devoutly conservative Australian-born founder of Fox News and owner of the New York Post will fete a Democrat who is the very embodiment of left-wing excess to his viewers and readers, a source in Clinton's camp said. That person said Murdoch's move doesn't represent a shift in his core beliefs, but signals his recognition that Clinton has done a good job in the Senate. Murdoch held a similar fundraiser several years ago for Sen. Charles Schumer, who also is a Democrat. The Clintons, who have a penchant for de-fanging their enemies, have been cozying up to Murdoch for several years. The senator chatted him up at a recent Fox News anniversary party. And some media critics have even noted that Fox's talking heads don't pillory Hillary Clinton quite like they used to. In November, Newsday reported that Murdoch's News Corp. paid the Glover Park Group, whose principals include Clinton advisers Howard Wolfson and Gigi Georges, about $200,000 in an unsuccessful effort to block TV ratings changes. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  15. does any of this really surprise you anymore? Sure, when I was a kid there was not internet... (well, maybe a small one at Bell labs or something), but my parents where always asking where are you going, what are you doing, who are you with, when will you be back? Sure, it sucked as a kid, but you know what? They were doing their Job. Something many parents today know nothing about. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  16. I find it funny you are using Fox news as a source now, when on many occasions you have dismissed them as "Not" credible.... I guess what ever fits your argument :-) ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  17. as an answer to your question.... " Is It ok to brake the law for sport stars" In this case YES. Why? Because we (Sox Fans) needed Mirabelli in that game. We have all seen what happens when Varitek tries to catch wakefield.... and since Bard was traded. Do a survey of the People in BOSTON and ask them if they cared given the situation, this was a Sox Yanks game after all. Chances are good that at least 75% of those polled would have said it was OK... Boston is a HUGE BASEBALL town. Baseball first, people's safety second... Trust Me. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  18. Off topic, but someone once said; "If there were no God, there would be no Atheists" It made me think..... ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  19. The only reference to produce in England affected by radiation I can find is due to a nuclear accident at an English Plant: The Windscale fire Main article: Windscale fire In 1957, a fire at one of the twin Windscale reactors caused the world's worst nuclear accident until the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. (Both were later overshadowed by the Chernobyl accident in 1986.) An estimated 750 terabecquerels (TBq) (20,000 curies) of radioactive Iodine-131 were released, and milk and other produce from the surrounding farming areas had to be destroyed. For comparison, 250,000 terabecquerels (7 million curies) of Iodine-131 were released by Chernobyl, and only 0.55 terabecquerels (15 curies) of Iodine-131 by Three Mile Island. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  20. No, but I am not sure I believe that claim.... What is the contamination from.... Why just certain area in England? Based on air currents, that doesn't even seem to make sense.. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  21. yes I agree, the area is ravaged, however, over 300,000 people were moved from the areas surrounding Chernobyl so they wouldn't die. Most of the people that died so far from the accident were workers and firemen responding to the "Fire" at the plant. However, it should be noted that the initial exposure to the local area was NOT as catostrophic as it had been forecast to be. As a result, mass casualties from radiation have not yet occured 20 yrs since. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  22. The Thyroid cancer deaths were included... and were very few people. Thyroid cancer is very treatable. Few people die from this disease especially in an area where they were expecting an out break of it. They are looking at long term Cancer, however, 20 yrs out, there are not the alarming number of people popping up with Cancer as they expect. The paper from the WHO and IAEA say there could be as many as 4K deaths from long erm radiation cancer, that is if old age doesn't kill them first. mean while, groups like Greenpeace make up fact such as over 200,000 have died. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  23. The April 26, 1986 Chernobyl disaster, the most catastrophic nuclear accident in history, was not so bad after all--or so claims a recent report produced by an international team of scientists convened by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The team, called the "Chernobyl Forum," included scientists and experts from eight U.N. agencies--including the World Health Organization (WHO), the IAEA, and the U.N. Development Program--as well as officials from Russia, Ukraine (where the accident occurred), and neighboring Belarus. Released last September, the 450-page report, Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental, and Socio-Economic Impacts, claims that as of mid-2005, fewer than 50 people had died because of exposure to radiation from the accident, most of whom were emergency workers. Contrary to widespread fears that the eventual death toll would be tens of thousands, the report maintains the figure could be as low as 4,000. Emergency workers and nearby residents have not suffered from "decreased fertility," the report concludes; nor is there "any evidence of increases in congenital malformations that can be attributed to radiation exposure." And although the presence of radiocesium in milk, meat, and other foods "remains the most significant concern for internal human exposure . . . with the exception of a few areas, concentration levels fall within safe levels." Indeed, in the view of the report's authors, the worst casualties of Chernobyl have been largely self-inflicted: "People have developed a paralyzing fatalism because they think they are at much higher risk than they are, so that leads to things like drug and alcohol use, and unprotected sex and unemployment," said Fred A. Mettler, a radiologist who was the health effects team leader for the investigation, in a statement to the New York Times. "The sum total of the Chernobyl Forum is a reassuring message," declared the WHO's Michael Repacholi in the report's summary--and the scant press attention given the report has largely echoed this mantra. (A New York Times editorial dismissed environmental groups that attacked the report for being "biased" toward the nuclear industry, pointing instead to the fact that the report reflected a consensus conclusion among several U.N. agencies and national governments.) But according to other observers, while the report seems to demonstrate that Chernobyl's devastation is less dramatic than once thought, it can hardly be called "reassuring." They argue that the report provides little solace to those still suffering from the effects of the accident and fails to accurately portray its total impact. And they draw a sharp distinction between the actual report--which is composed of two draft studies, one on health consequences and another on the environment--and the report's summary and press release, which they argue minimize and contradict the report's findings. Richard Garwin, an internationally renowned physicist and IBM fellow emeritus at the Thomas J. Watson Research Center, calls the report "deliberately misleading," arguing that it overlooks evidence that contradicts some of its conclusions. (The report prompted Garwin to respond with a pointed rebuttal, published by UPI on November 9, 2005 and available at the Garwin Archive on the web site of the Federation of American Scientists.) Garwin's criticism centers on what he sees as a glaring omission--the report's failure to cite the findings of a 1993 study produced by the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), which estimated that the worldwide "collective effective dose" from the Chernobyl accident was about 600,000 man-sieverts. He also refers to a report published last summer by the National Academy of Sciences on the effects of ionizing radiation, which concludes that each dose of whole-body radiation causes a lethal cancer at the rate of 0.04 cancer deaths per sievert of exposure. Taken together, these findings point to a much higher death rate than that publicized by the Forum. "Although it is impossible to identify these 24,000 among the many tens of millions of people who would die from similar cancers from natural causes over the same period," Garwin noted in his UPI op-ed, "those deaths are nevertheless a consequence of the radiation release." Garwin, a nuclear power advocate, calls this omission a "terrible scandal," arguing that it lets the industry off the hook. The best way to minimize future accidents, he says, is to adhere to the principle of "polluter pays." But what the polluter is billed depends in large measure on what agencies like the IAEA report. "The nuclear industry has a good enough story to tell without ignoring these costs," contends Garwin. In his view, the cumulative benefits of nuclear power, to both society and the environment, outweigh even Chernobyl's consequences. David Marples, a historian at the University of Alberta who has written several books about the Chernobyl disaster and has done extensive field research in the affected regions, also contests some of the Chernobyl Forum's figures. He finds the report consistent with earlier studies produced by the IAEA, which he says have attempted to minimize the health consequences of radiation exposure while highlighting other factors, like psychology, economics, and living standards. One new feature, says Marples, is the long overdue acknowledgement that the accident caused an outbreak in thyroid cancers among people who were children at the time. According to the report's summary, there have been 4,000 such cases, which are often caused by drinking milk contaminated with radioactive iodine. While Marples commends the IAEA for finally recognizing this problem, he takes issue with the summary's claim that only nine deaths have resulted from these cases. He points to a 2003 study from Belarus that cites 19 deaths from thyroid cancer in that country alone. "Many of the experts I know in the region were not cited in this report, which raises some questions in my mind about the accuracy of its estimates," he says. Another red flag for Marples was the report's findings regarding recovery operation workers (or so-called liquidators). The Forum cites a figure of about 600,000 "registered" liquidators but focuses on the 240,000 who took part in "major mitigation activities." According to the report, some 200,000 of these liquidators were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation--of whom an estimated 2,200 will eventually die from this exposure. Marples believes the number of liquidators exposed to dangerous levels of radiation is much higher. "There was no central registry to track these people, and we have no idea about the impact exposure had on their health," he says, but adds that the Chernobyl Forum's estimate "is belied by recently released Ukrainian KGB documents" that show widespread health problems among a large portion of the liquidators. For Greenpeace International nuclear campaigner Jan Vande Putte, one major problem with the report is not the report itself, but its IAEA-drafted summary, which he says contradicts key findings of the Chernobyl Forum. Case in point is the figure of 4,000 total eventual deaths cited in the summary (and repeated by media outlets worldwide). According to Vande Putte, this figure is contradicted by the health report, which shows "that the death toll is closer to 9,000" when the population in low-contaminated areas in Belarus, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation is also taken into account. In Vande Putte's view, the report is an amalgam of qualifications, reflecting gaps in knowledge and highlighting the uncertainty surrounding much of the analysis. This stands in stark contrast to the summary's list of definitive conclusions, which he chalks up to the IAEA's effort to "whitewash" history in a way that benefits the nuclear industry. The Chernobyl Forum's Mettler concedes that some of the "spin" in the summary was misleading, saying that "the use of the word 'reassuring' was unfortunate." And, in comments he made to the Economist (September 5, 2005), Mettler acknowledged that the Chernobyl Forum was not able to examine all the potential effects of the radiation and focused on those it deemed most important. But he bristles at accusations of a whitewash, noting that "many of the people who worked on this report were definitely not pro-nuclear, and I can't believe they would see the report as downplaying the potential dangers of nuclear energy." Regarding Garwin's assertion that the report underestimates the total eventual deaths by nearly 20,000, Mettler says that it is extraordinarily difficult to extrapolate total deaths worldwide from the sort of global exposure data used in the 1993 UNSCEAR study. The Forum, he contends, used the best scientific data it had on actual cases of exposed people to come up with its findings. "There is a big difference between looking at a person who got a particular dose and making large estimates about how many people could theoretically die globally because of the accident," he says. For his part, Mettler believes that the real take-away message is not what the study says about Chernobyl, but "about what we must do when there is a major radiation release, for instance in a dirty bomb explosion." In the aftermath of the accident, "there was no timely information, authorities held back important information, there was not enough rapid medical attention, and people were evacuated who didn't need to be." Len Ackland, the Bulletin's editor at the time of the accident and currently a journalism professor at the University of Colorado, also sees a larger--albeit bleaker--message in the report. Twenty years later, he observes, the prevailing problems at the time of the accident are still with us: "There is the intimate connection between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons proliferation, and we have yet to overcome the problem of the susceptibility of complex systems to human error. Chernobyl remains the symbol of these dark sides of nuclear power." ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  24. honey... the spigots are open.... They are pumping pretty damn fast. The problem is speculation. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
  25. I would argue that once we start using E85 and Electric cars etc... gas prices will be back where they were 5 yrs ago. and if straight gas cost the consumer $0.99 per gallon, but E85 cost 2.00 because it is more expensive to produce ethanol, then people will go back to buying just Gas. Likewise, power plants in the US mostly use coal, because it is cheap and it is here. But if our dependance on oil were to drop significantly enough that the price of oil was $22/ brl again, I bet you would see more use in oil burning power plants... ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty