![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 3 to 27 of 27. Go back in thread:
Posted by Phillipa on June 5, 2006, at 22:38:20
In reply to Re: How long do we have ? » linkadge, posted by llrrrpp on June 5, 2006, at 21:33:12
Link what brought that up? Love Phillipa
Posted by Declan on June 5, 2006, at 22:46:40
In reply to How long do we have ?, posted by linkadge on June 5, 2006, at 21:22:04
A wild and uninformed prediction: The sh*t will hit the fan in 25 years. I'm expecting something to do with climate and energy.
Declan
Posted by Racer on June 5, 2006, at 22:57:21
In reply to How long do we have ?, posted by linkadge on June 5, 2006, at 21:22:04
I used to worry a great deal about nuclear devastation. I don't so much anymore. (Maybe the Reagan Years got me past it...)
I worry about a lot of other things a lot more -- global warming, sure, but how about things like:
The changes in animal ethology caused by human factors? It's leading to elephants and primates becoming quite dangerous for humans near them. And think Florida/crocodilians.
The shrinking gene pool for our plants -- who here has read "No Blade Of Grass," by John Christopher? There's a review of it I thought was rather good at http://www.lostbooks.org/reviews/1999-03-21-1.html What will we do when we can't grow wheat or maize? (And wheat is a weird'un -- three sets of chromosomes, so it's much harder to try to create a truly new variety.)
The increasingly artificial world we try to live in, which I sometimes find quite appalling. How about respecting the fact that we're MAMMALS, and not trying to become Vulcan?
OK. I'm done. But I think every generation has to go through a worry about nuclear devastation. Not fun, but undertandable. I think we get over it when we can put it into perspective a bit: it might happen, and it would [emulate a Hoover], but we probably wouldn't be here to find out how much it [emulated a Hoover]. Live the life you got now...
Posted by curtm on June 5, 2006, at 23:45:54
In reply to Re: How long do we have ?, posted by Declan on June 5, 2006, at 22:46:40
> The sh*t will hit the fan
I better go buy a fan then!
Posted by Jakeman on June 6, 2006, at 0:18:26
In reply to How long do we have ?, posted by linkadge on June 5, 2006, at 21:22:04
There's a sign in the zen center here which says:
"Don't waste your life"
We don't know how long we have.
Posted by Racer on June 6, 2006, at 2:07:33
In reply to Re: How long do we have ?, posted by Jakeman on June 6, 2006, at 0:18:26
> There's a sign in the zen center here which says:
>
> "Don't waste your life"
>
> We don't know how long we have.
"Life is uncertain -- Eat dessert first!"
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 6, 2006, at 5:12:28
In reply to How long do we have ?, posted by linkadge on June 5, 2006, at 21:22:04
> How long do you think we have till neuclear technology gets into the wrong hands and we're all blown to smithereens?
>
> 10, 15 years?
>
> Anybody?
>
> LinkadgeI don't think so. I plan my life with the certainty that it won't happen. I really don't think it will, but if I'm wrong, ain't nothing I can do about that, except to have some potassium iodide on hand. It blocks the uptake of radioactive iodine, giving you time to get clear of the radioactive iodine, if there is any reason to be concerned about it.
Lar
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on June 6, 2006, at 6:04:43
In reply to Re: How long do we have ?, posted by Declan on June 5, 2006, at 22:46:40
I don't think we need worry about nuclear attacks etc - for a start, if a country nuked another, well the radioactivity would travel far, and affact countries not intended by the attacker - although, well North America is pretty much two countries, so maybe it wouldn't matter too much!!
Nah, seriously there's so much attention to nuclear programmes etc that I doubt its a real issue. That said, there's no stopping some crackpot warlord, or that sort of thing. Although I think authorities have a good idea. But that said, faith in the authorities hasn't stopped the bombings in London, NYC and Madrid.
Wasn't there something in the news about Iran and its nuclear programmes??
Anyway, I think climate change and energy are going to be far worse. I mean, scientists only four weeks before Katrina struck predicted that global warming was going to produce more intense hurricanes. The American government quickly covered that finding up, I'm led to believe, or rather, didn't draw attention to it. I think they even told the scientist at NOAA to not talk about etc.
I watched a very interesting documentary about climate change (caused by humans) and the Bush Admin. Basically, loads of scientists and reports have been heavily edited to try and 'cover up' climate change by the Bush admin. Bush refuses to ratify the Kyoto protocol, which many other developed countries have agreed to. Here in the UK we talk about being 'carbon neutral' and talk about how to offset our carbon emissions and how efficent our cars and homes are. Why won't Bush sign Kyoto?
I think that climate change is a far far greater threat to mankind that anything. The UKs Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, said that climate change is a far greater threat to society than terrorism. Which puts it into perspective I think.
I might start a new thread about climate change.
I just don't think people fully appreciate the magnitude of the problem. We simply love oil too much. But it will run out.
It saddens me to see that the developed world is guzzling natural resources at an unprecentented rate, only for the undeveloped countries to suffer, for they are the ones that will suffer as a result of climate change.
Thing is, if you put it into geological pespective , is that the planet as a whole doesn't care about a 1șC rise in global temperatures - climate flucates naturally, for instance there were ice sheets across most of Canada, Europe only a few hundred thousand years ago (a mere blink in geological terms) but it will affect us humans. Pah, I think we'll kill ourselves off in a few centries time anyway. Something else will evolve from our dust.
To put it all in complete perspective, the Sun will go supernova in 52,000 million years anyway and engulf the entire solar system, so we'll get nuked anyway.
Also I doubt that the planet can sustain many more people. I mean, its 6 billion at the moment, which was doubled since the 1950s or something like that anyway, so in another century - who knows. Humans can't keep rising exponetially in numbers without something giving. I see wars over food, fresh water, unpolluted land, etc.
What a cheery thought.
So if Iran/wherever have a couple of kilogrammes of enriched uranium that they shouldn't, well, let them have it I say. I mean, developed countries have had nuclear weapons for years. Whos to say that we will use them responsibily - we haven't in the past have we? Also, whos to say that one of our nuclear reactions doesn't blow? France gets 90% of its energy from nuclear power.
Can anyone guess what I studied at university, hahahaha.
Oh well.
Kind regards
Meri
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on June 6, 2006, at 6:26:26
In reply to Not long!!!, posted by Meri-Tuuli on June 6, 2006, at 6:04:43
Sorry folks, here's more about the Kyoto protocol....I think I asked why won't Bush sign Kyoto, but its the problem of ratification....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Position_of_the_United_States
This is interesting, its from the wiki article linked above:
'However on a per capita basis the Chinese emit 1/10th the CO2 that Americans do and Americans emit more than twice the CO2 as their counterparts in similarly developed countries like Germany, France, and the United Kingdom that have ratified the treaty and agreed to further reduce emissions. (UN Statistics Division)'
I didn't know that. Wow.
Anyway, sorry Link, this is completely off your topic.....
Posted by Dinah on June 6, 2006, at 11:13:58
In reply to How long do we have ?, posted by linkadge on June 5, 2006, at 21:22:04
I'm mid forties, diabetic, high triglycerides, and I pant when walking from the house to the car. I exhausted myself the other day looking for my slippers.
I seriously doubt that external factors will get me before internal ones do.
Posted by Phil on June 6, 2006, at 11:29:48
In reply to Re: How long do we have ?, posted by Dinah on June 6, 2006, at 11:13:58
I'm w/ Dinah. I'm a heavy smoker, take over 3500 pills a year to treat this depression(one of which can cause diabetes), I'm not happy most of the time,
and I believe my life as a single may knock a few more years off. I'll deal with the last one though. : )
As bad as today has been, I can hardly be bothered by any of it.
Posted by greywolf on June 6, 2006, at 11:42:20
In reply to Not long!!!, posted by Meri-Tuuli on June 6, 2006, at 6:04:43
While I agree that climatological changes will probably have a greater adverse impact on North America than any nuclear incident in the foreseeable future, I'm not sure a storm like Katrina is proof of that. Remember, the impact of Katrina was exacerbated by where it struck more than by the storm's power. At landfall, Katrina was only a Cat 3, and while that's still a major storm, 3s hit portions of the US on average 2-3 times a season.
The better benchmark is probably the overall number of major storms, though only time will tell whether there's a consistent increase in those numbers.
Posted by Dinah on June 6, 2006, at 12:13:51
In reply to Re: Not long!!!, posted by greywolf on June 6, 2006, at 11:42:20
A lot of time, since hurricanes are known to vary in intensity and frequency in very long cycles. It was actually a period of lesser activity that caused so many problems by letting people feel safe in places that previous generations knew not to build.
And of course Katrina was largely a manmade disaster (in New Orleans anyway) caused by faulty engineering.
And I'm not sure Category 3 completely describes the unique variables of this storm. I was talking to a fisherman the other day who rode out the storm, and he said there is a big difference between Category 3 storms. Apparently the immense size of Katrina and her strength in the Gulf led to a far larger tidal surge than is normally associated with Cat 3's. One that he found truly frightening in his long experience of riding out storms. Those category numbers are determined by only a few factors.
I was made cynical by the global cooling (new ice age) scare of the seventies. :( I now believe nothing I am told by objective science. (The food announcements/ baby safety announcements also contributed to my cynicism.)
Posted by Dinah on June 6, 2006, at 12:28:56
In reply to Re: How long do we have ?, posted by Phil on June 6, 2006, at 11:29:48
Yes, I had forgottem my enormous pill box. I take more pills than my husband's ninetyfive year old grandmother. :( I can feel them killing my liver cell by cell.
I'm sorry your day was rotten. Would it help to share?
I wonder if anyone in the entire world likes their job...
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on June 6, 2006, at 12:34:54
In reply to Re: Not long!!!, posted by greywolf on June 6, 2006, at 11:42:20
Hi!
Sorry I wasn't trying to imply that Katrina was caused by climate change. What I was trying to say is that as a result of higher sea surface temperatures, caused by warming, hurricanes will become more severe. Thats what the scientist found whilst working at NOAA, which was published apparently four weeks before Katrina struck. The point was, according to this documentary ('Panorama' by the BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/programmes/panorama/default.stm ) the scientist involved was basically hushed up by the American government - they didn't want links between Katrina and global warming, even if they were false. I think that they were trying to avoid the media saying 'as a result of global warming we will be seeing increased levels of hurricane activity, such as Katrina' sort of thing.
Oh well,
Kind regards
Meri
Posted by greywolf on June 6, 2006, at 15:28:02
In reply to Re: Not long!!! » greywolf, posted by Meri-Tuuli on June 6, 2006, at 12:34:54
> Hi!
>
> Sorry I wasn't trying to imply that Katrina was caused by climate change. What I was trying to say is that as a result of higher sea surface temperatures, caused by warming, hurricanes will become more severe. Thats what the scientist found whilst working at NOAA, which was published apparently four weeks before Katrina struck. The point was, according to this documentary ('Panorama' by the BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/programmes/panorama/default.stm ) the scientist involved was basically hushed up by the American government - they didn't want links between Katrina and global warming, even if they were false. I think that they were trying to avoid the media saying 'as a result of global warming we will be seeing increased levels of hurricane activity, such as Katrina' sort of thing.
>
> Oh well,
>
> Kind regards
>
> Meri
I think you will be proven entirely correct on all that, Meri.Greywolf
Posted by linkadge on June 6, 2006, at 15:50:46
In reply to Re: Not long!!!, posted by greywolf on June 6, 2006, at 15:28:02
At one time, a computer the size of an entire room could perform only basic calculations. Now, you can probably contol a space mission from a pocketwatch.
Technology has a way of simplifying itself and making itself more acessible. It's only a matter of time.
I suppose its natural for the brain to reshape its fears into something more containible.
I don't think we have that long.
Linkadge
Posted by B2chica on June 6, 2006, at 15:57:23
In reply to Re: Not long!!!, posted by linkadge on June 6, 2006, at 15:50:46
i don't think it will be that long before disaster happens. but unfortunately i don't think we'll be lucky enough for us to all be blown to smithereens. i think there will be 1/2 failed attempts that will cause tremendous damage and illnesses. making even more of a mess of this world. i think there will be so much more suffering involved. and that is just the physical health effects.
personally, i think it is already in the wrong hands...
no...not promising at all.i many times wish i lived in a place like new york just because i know it is a major target site for the world. at least if one lands there you most likely WILL be killed instantly. not suffering through the aftermath.
Posted by alesta on June 6, 2006, at 16:07:26
In reply to How long do we have ?, posted by linkadge on June 5, 2006, at 21:22:04
hi link,:)
dark topic, aye, kid? well, i might be more concerned with when yellowstone is gonna blow...it's only...oh..250,000 years late, or somethin'?
and that would probably destroy most of life on this planet. sorry if i'm scaring anyone...that actually gives me hope.:)
amy:)
Posted by curtm on June 6, 2006, at 16:07:31
In reply to Re: Not long!!!, posted by linkadge on June 6, 2006, at 15:50:46
I don't think we really have that much tim-**+*/--+*+*-*/+-*+......pfffffzzzzzzzlt!
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 8, 2006, at 6:56:30
In reply to Re: Not long!!!, posted by greywolf on June 6, 2006, at 11:42:20
Hey grey. Or, do you prefer wolf?
> While I agree that climatological changes will probably have a greater adverse impact on North America than any nuclear incident in the foreseeable future, I'm not sure a storm like Katrina is proof of that. Remember, the impact of Katrina was exacerbated by where it struck more than by the storm's power. At landfall, Katrina was only a Cat 3, and while that's still a major storm, 3s hit portions of the US on average 2-3 times a season.
>
> The better benchmark is probably the overall number of major storms, though only time will tell whether there's a consistent increase in those numbers.If last year's hurricane season is not an anomaly (there were so many records set, that it gives one pause), then the fluke that Katrina faded just as she came ashore might still fail to alert people to be more prepared.
Data just submitted to a Canadian meteorological convention demonstrate that the "spawning ground" for Atlantic hurricanes has been increasing in size. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33533
As low pressure centers spin out and away from Africa on the trade winds, they are encountering ocean conditions which promote higher wind speeds, earlier, over broader areas of ocean. Moreover, sustaining conditions are more contiguous, allowing weaker cyclones to maintain wind speeds (as rotational velocity) that can later strengthen dramatically once the storm encounters the "bath tub" water temperatures of the shallow embayment we call the Caribbean.
Katrina set a record for the fastest increase in power, ever seen. Her eye was one of the largest ever, and the eyewall definition was astounding. As I see it, that she came ashore a 3 is nothing but a benevolent God(dess) doing all (s)he can to give us some time to think things through, again.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 8, 2006, at 7:02:54
In reply to Re: Not long!!! » linkadge, posted by B2chica on June 6, 2006, at 15:57:23
> i many times wish i lived in a place like new york just because i know it is a major target site for the world. at least if one lands there you most likely WILL be killed instantly. not suffering through the aftermath.
If only. In any disaster, there are typically 5 to 10 times the wounded as there are killed.
People have been fearing disaster forever. And I don't think there's anything so special about us, those alive right now, to warrant a special disaster.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 8, 2006, at 7:03:59
In reply to Re: Not long!!!, posted by curtm on June 6, 2006, at 16:07:31
> I don't think we really have that much tim-**+*/--+*+*-*/+-*+......pfffffzzzzzzzlt!
Curt! Curt!!!
Curt has left us.
<bowing head, in silent tribute>
Lar
Posted by B2chica on June 8, 2006, at 9:48:20
In reply to Re: Not long!!! » B2chica, posted by Larry Hoover on June 8, 2006, at 7:02:54
>>If only. In any disaster, there are typically 5 to 10 times the wounded as there are killed.
ya, that was my point earlier...isn't it terrible the suffering we cause ourselves, and in more ways than one.
:(
Posted by alesta on June 8, 2006, at 12:35:04
In reply to Re: Not long!!!, posted by curtm on June 6, 2006, at 16:07:31
> I don't think we really have that much tim-**+*/--+*+*-*/+-*+......pfffffzzzzzzzlt!
LOL~!!
amy:)
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.