OT – Nuclear Fallout Map

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=zk]
I’d agree with all of that except for the part about the extreme vilification of Bush being for the same policies and programs as Obama’s. Bush was extremely vilified, but I think he deserved it. He got us into a war of choice apparently without significant reflection on the matter. Thousands of Americans are dead in vain and trillions of dollars are wasted. To me, that’s an extreme villain.

Obama dithers and has made some bad calls. But he hasn’t done nearly the damage to this country that Bush did. Whole different league.

I’m curious about your opinions on Libya. What would you have us do there? What long-term strategy would you have?[/quote]

Zk: Except that Obama is continuing the very same policies as Bush: Gitmo remains open, extraordinary rendition continues (a policy instituted under Clinton), drone strikes continue, and the war in Afghanistan actually enlarged significantly under Obama. I don’t necessarily see how one can drop the hammer on Bush without doing the same to Obama.

As far as Libya goes: Obama could have easily removed Gaddafi’s air force from the conflict, and that air force (both fixed wing and helicopter) has been the difference thus far. He wouldn’t have needed to even involve US air power, but used SLBMs and cruise missiles deployed from US subs in the Med. All of Libya’s military airfields are pre-programmed into targeting computers and it would’ve taken about three days total to completely blind (missile strikes against radar and communications facilities) and then ground (missile and SLBM strikes against runways, revetments and fuel facilities) Gaddafi’s air power. This bullshit about involving the UN in a no-fly zone was a complete and total waste of time (we don’t have sufficient air power or resources to enforce a no-fly over Libya as it is, since USAF and USN resources are stretched thin supporting two wars), and Obama knew it. Under the guise of “multi-lateralism”, he essentially consigned the rebellion to destruction and aided and abetted a total fucking lunatic in the bargain.

Like I said, how do you think those Libyan rebels feel about that touchy-feely Cairo speech now?[/quote]

You don’t see how one can drop the hammer on Bush without doing the same to Obama? Really? It’s pretty simple. Bush got us into a war that wasn’t necessary, cost us massively, and got us nothing.

I don’t see your long-term strategy for Libya. How is the outcome better for us if the rebels win than if gadhafi stays? What’s in it for us and why would we fight for that?

[SD Transplant]

Going back to the main subject :), here are a couple of links I found helpful:

1) How close are you from a nuclear plant (plug in your zip code)

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/nuclear_power_plants_locations/index.html

2) The top 10 riskiest nuclear plants in the US:

The full list of top 10 riskiest NPPs in the US:

1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Increase in risk: 72 percent.

2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Increase in risk: 763 percent.

3. Limerick 1 and 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 141 percent.

4. Sequoyah 1 and 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Increase in risk: 420 percent.

5. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Increase in risk: 269 percent.

6. Saint Lucie 1 and 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739. Old estimate: N/A.

7. North Anna 1 and 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Increase in risk: 38 percent.

8. Oconee 1, 2 and 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Increase in risk: 330 percent.

9. Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810. Old estimate: N/A.

10. Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 82 percent.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/discovery-indian-point-nuke-most-exposed-quake-risk-prompts-reuters-release-evacuation-map

[SD Transplant]

Going back to the main subject :), here are a couple of links I found helpful:

1) How close are you from a nuclear plant (plug in your zip code)

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/nuclear_power_plants_locations/index.html

2) The top 10 riskiest nuclear plants in the US:

The full list of top 10 riskiest NPPs in the US:

1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Increase in risk: 72 percent.

2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Increase in risk: 763 percent.

3. Limerick 1 and 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 141 percent.

4. Sequoyah 1 and 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Increase in risk: 420 percent.

5. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Increase in risk: 269 percent.

6. Saint Lucie 1 and 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739. Old estimate: N/A.

7. North Anna 1 and 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Increase in risk: 38 percent.

8. Oconee 1, 2 and 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Increase in risk: 330 percent.

9. Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810. Old estimate: N/A.

10. Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 82 percent.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/discovery-indian-point-nuke-most-exposed-quake-risk-prompts-reuters-release-evacuation-map

[SD Transplant]

Going back to the main subject :), here are a couple of links I found helpful:

1) How close are you from a nuclear plant (plug in your zip code)

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/nuclear_power_plants_locations/index.html

2) The top 10 riskiest nuclear plants in the US:

The full list of top 10 riskiest NPPs in the US:

1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Increase in risk: 72 percent.

2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Increase in risk: 763 percent.

3. Limerick 1 and 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 141 percent.

4. Sequoyah 1 and 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Increase in risk: 420 percent.

5. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Increase in risk: 269 percent.

6. Saint Lucie 1 and 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739. Old estimate: N/A.

7. North Anna 1 and 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Increase in risk: 38 percent.

8. Oconee 1, 2 and 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Increase in risk: 330 percent.

9. Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810. Old estimate: N/A.

10. Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 82 percent.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/discovery-indian-point-nuke-most-exposed-quake-risk-prompts-reuters-release-evacuation-map

[SD Transplant]

Going back to the main subject :), here are a couple of links I found helpful:

1) How close are you from a nuclear plant (plug in your zip code)

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/nuclear_power_plants_locations/index.html

2) The top 10 riskiest nuclear plants in the US:

The full list of top 10 riskiest NPPs in the US:

1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Increase in risk: 72 percent.

2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Increase in risk: 763 percent.

3. Limerick 1 and 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 141 percent.

4. Sequoyah 1 and 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Increase in risk: 420 percent.

5. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Increase in risk: 269 percent.

6. Saint Lucie 1 and 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739. Old estimate: N/A.

7. North Anna 1 and 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Increase in risk: 38 percent.

8. Oconee 1, 2 and 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Increase in risk: 330 percent.

9. Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810. Old estimate: N/A.

10. Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 82 percent.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/discovery-indian-point-nuke-most-exposed-quake-risk-prompts-reuters-release-evacuation-map

[SD Transplant]

Going back to the main subject :), here are a couple of links I found helpful:

1) How close are you from a nuclear plant (plug in your zip code)

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/nuclear_power_plants_locations/index.html

2) The top 10 riskiest nuclear plants in the US:

The full list of top 10 riskiest NPPs in the US:

1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Increase in risk: 72 percent.

2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Increase in risk: 763 percent.

3. Limerick 1 and 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 141 percent.

4. Sequoyah 1 and 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Increase in risk: 420 percent.

5. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Increase in risk: 269 percent.

6. Saint Lucie 1 and 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739. Old estimate: N/A.

7. North Anna 1 and 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Increase in risk: 38 percent.

8. Oconee 1, 2 and 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Increase in risk: 330 percent.

9. Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810. Old estimate: N/A.

10. Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 82 percent.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/discovery-indian-point-nuke-most-exposed-quake-risk-prompts-reuters-release-evacuation-map

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Arraya]http://www.oftwominds.com/blogmar11/global-recovery-over3-11.html
OK, let’s run through the list:

1. Natural disaster dusrupts production in a key global exporter: check.

2. An event which nudges a major economy into financial crisis: check. (If you don’t think Japan’s economy and finances will be pushed over a threshold by the quake, please be patient.)

3. Ignite a chain reaction of mass movements in a key oil exporting region: check.

4. Supply-demand imbalances in critical materials and grains: check.

5. Central banks and sovereign states addicted to vast quantities of printing-money and credit creation stimulus which trigger rampant inflation in essentials: check.

6. Massaged statistics, channel-stuffing, misrepresentation of risk and unlimited propaganda by a failed Status Quo: check.

Does anyone seriously think the global recovery is still intact? Based on what? Does anyone think that stagnant/declining wages, falling real estate values, skyrocketing prices for materials and energy, and belt-tightening by bankrupt States are ideal foundations for higher profits?

Anyone who doesn’t realize the quake in Japan is a tragic load dumped on a fragile addict’s quivering back (i.e. the global recovery) will undoubtedly be surprised by how fast the global economy will start unraveling. Anyone who kept their eyes open is only wondering how a debt and propaganda-fueled recovery lasted this long.[/quote]

Another excellent post, Arraya.[/quote]

Financial author Michael Lewis’s take (and a follow up to his 1988 article on the effects of a large earthquake in Tokyo). What’s compelling here are the anticipated effects in the US economy, some of which tie out to what Arraya is saying above.

Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/just-imagine-big-tokyo-quake-23-years-later-commentary-by-michael-lewis.html

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Arraya]http://www.oftwominds.com/blogmar11/global-recovery-over3-11.html
OK, let’s run through the list:

1. Natural disaster dusrupts production in a key global exporter: check.

2. An event which nudges a major economy into financial crisis: check. (If you don’t think Japan’s economy and finances will be pushed over a threshold by the quake, please be patient.)

3. Ignite a chain reaction of mass movements in a key oil exporting region: check.

4. Supply-demand imbalances in critical materials and grains: check.

5. Central banks and sovereign states addicted to vast quantities of printing-money and credit creation stimulus which trigger rampant inflation in essentials: check.

6. Massaged statistics, channel-stuffing, misrepresentation of risk and unlimited propaganda by a failed Status Quo: check.

Does anyone seriously think the global recovery is still intact? Based on what? Does anyone think that stagnant/declining wages, falling real estate values, skyrocketing prices for materials and energy, and belt-tightening by bankrupt States are ideal foundations for higher profits?

Anyone who doesn’t realize the quake in Japan is a tragic load dumped on a fragile addict’s quivering back (i.e. the global recovery) will undoubtedly be surprised by how fast the global economy will start unraveling. Anyone who kept their eyes open is only wondering how a debt and propaganda-fueled recovery lasted this long.[/quote]

Another excellent post, Arraya.[/quote]

Financial author Michael Lewis’s take (and a follow up to his 1988 article on the effects of a large earthquake in Tokyo). What’s compelling here are the anticipated effects in the US economy, some of which tie out to what Arraya is saying above.

Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/just-imagine-big-tokyo-quake-23-years-later-commentary-by-michael-lewis.html

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Arraya]http://www.oftwominds.com/blogmar11/global-recovery-over3-11.html
OK, let’s run through the list:

1. Natural disaster dusrupts production in a key global exporter: check.

2. An event which nudges a major economy into financial crisis: check. (If you don’t think Japan’s economy and finances will be pushed over a threshold by the quake, please be patient.)

3. Ignite a chain reaction of mass movements in a key oil exporting region: check.

4. Supply-demand imbalances in critical materials and grains: check.

5. Central banks and sovereign states addicted to vast quantities of printing-money and credit creation stimulus which trigger rampant inflation in essentials: check.

6. Massaged statistics, channel-stuffing, misrepresentation of risk and unlimited propaganda by a failed Status Quo: check.

Does anyone seriously think the global recovery is still intact? Based on what? Does anyone think that stagnant/declining wages, falling real estate values, skyrocketing prices for materials and energy, and belt-tightening by bankrupt States are ideal foundations for higher profits?

Anyone who doesn’t realize the quake in Japan is a tragic load dumped on a fragile addict’s quivering back (i.e. the global recovery) will undoubtedly be surprised by how fast the global economy will start unraveling. Anyone who kept their eyes open is only wondering how a debt and propaganda-fueled recovery lasted this long.[/quote]

Another excellent post, Arraya.[/quote]

Financial author Michael Lewis’s take (and a follow up to his 1988 article on the effects of a large earthquake in Tokyo). What’s compelling here are the anticipated effects in the US economy, some of which tie out to what Arraya is saying above.

Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/just-imagine-big-tokyo-quake-23-years-later-commentary-by-michael-lewis.html

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Arraya]http://www.oftwominds.com/blogmar11/global-recovery-over3-11.html
OK, let’s run through the list:

1. Natural disaster dusrupts production in a key global exporter: check.

2. An event which nudges a major economy into financial crisis: check. (If you don’t think Japan’s economy and finances will be pushed over a threshold by the quake, please be patient.)

3. Ignite a chain reaction of mass movements in a key oil exporting region: check.

4. Supply-demand imbalances in critical materials and grains: check.

5. Central banks and sovereign states addicted to vast quantities of printing-money and credit creation stimulus which trigger rampant inflation in essentials: check.

6. Massaged statistics, channel-stuffing, misrepresentation of risk and unlimited propaganda by a failed Status Quo: check.

Does anyone seriously think the global recovery is still intact? Based on what? Does anyone think that stagnant/declining wages, falling real estate values, skyrocketing prices for materials and energy, and belt-tightening by bankrupt States are ideal foundations for higher profits?

Anyone who doesn’t realize the quake in Japan is a tragic load dumped on a fragile addict’s quivering back (i.e. the global recovery) will undoubtedly be surprised by how fast the global economy will start unraveling. Anyone who kept their eyes open is only wondering how a debt and propaganda-fueled recovery lasted this long.[/quote]

Another excellent post, Arraya.[/quote]

Financial author Michael Lewis’s take (and a follow up to his 1988 article on the effects of a large earthquake in Tokyo). What’s compelling here are the anticipated effects in the US economy, some of which tie out to what Arraya is saying above.

Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/just-imagine-big-tokyo-quake-23-years-later-commentary-by-michael-lewis.html

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Arraya]http://www.oftwominds.com/blogmar11/global-recovery-over3-11.html
OK, let’s run through the list:

1. Natural disaster dusrupts production in a key global exporter: check.

2. An event which nudges a major economy into financial crisis: check. (If you don’t think Japan’s economy and finances will be pushed over a threshold by the quake, please be patient.)

3. Ignite a chain reaction of mass movements in a key oil exporting region: check.

4. Supply-demand imbalances in critical materials and grains: check.

5. Central banks and sovereign states addicted to vast quantities of printing-money and credit creation stimulus which trigger rampant inflation in essentials: check.

6. Massaged statistics, channel-stuffing, misrepresentation of risk and unlimited propaganda by a failed Status Quo: check.

Does anyone seriously think the global recovery is still intact? Based on what? Does anyone think that stagnant/declining wages, falling real estate values, skyrocketing prices for materials and energy, and belt-tightening by bankrupt States are ideal foundations for higher profits?

Anyone who doesn’t realize the quake in Japan is a tragic load dumped on a fragile addict’s quivering back (i.e. the global recovery) will undoubtedly be surprised by how fast the global economy will start unraveling. Anyone who kept their eyes open is only wondering how a debt and propaganda-fueled recovery lasted this long.[/quote]

Another excellent post, Arraya.[/quote]

Financial author Michael Lewis’s take (and a follow up to his 1988 article on the effects of a large earthquake in Tokyo). What’s compelling here are the anticipated effects in the US economy, some of which tie out to what Arraya is saying above.

Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/just-imagine-big-tokyo-quake-23-years-later-commentary-by-michael-lewis.html

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=zk]
You don’t see how one can drop the hammer on Bush without doing the same to Obama? Really? It’s pretty simple. Bush got us into a war that wasn’t necessary, cost us massively, and got us nothing.

I don’t see your long-term strategy for Libya. How is the outcome better for us if the rebels win than if gadhafi stays? What’s in it for us and why would we fight for that?[/quote]

Zk: I have no plan whatsoever. I just don’t like Gaddafi Duck. I say if we have a chance to eject his happy ass, we do so and forthwith.

I was being a little tongue-in-cheek on Bush v. Obama, but not completely. I have to imagine that there are quite a few Obama voters out there that are really wondering who they voted for and what he truly stands for.

Perhaps if we all read more “Mother Jones” we’d all know!

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=zk]
You don’t see how one can drop the hammer on Bush without doing the same to Obama? Really? It’s pretty simple. Bush got us into a war that wasn’t necessary, cost us massively, and got us nothing.

I don’t see your long-term strategy for Libya. How is the outcome better for us if the rebels win than if gadhafi stays? What’s in it for us and why would we fight for that?[/quote]

Zk: I have no plan whatsoever. I just don’t like Gaddafi Duck. I say if we have a chance to eject his happy ass, we do so and forthwith.

I was being a little tongue-in-cheek on Bush v. Obama, but not completely. I have to imagine that there are quite a few Obama voters out there that are really wondering who they voted for and what he truly stands for.

Perhaps if we all read more “Mother Jones” we’d all know!

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=zk]
You don’t see how one can drop the hammer on Bush without doing the same to Obama? Really? It’s pretty simple. Bush got us into a war that wasn’t necessary, cost us massively, and got us nothing.

I don’t see your long-term strategy for Libya. How is the outcome better for us if the rebels win than if gadhafi stays? What’s in it for us and why would we fight for that?[/quote]

Zk: I have no plan whatsoever. I just don’t like Gaddafi Duck. I say if we have a chance to eject his happy ass, we do so and forthwith.

I was being a little tongue-in-cheek on Bush v. Obama, but not completely. I have to imagine that there are quite a few Obama voters out there that are really wondering who they voted for and what he truly stands for.

Perhaps if we all read more “Mother Jones” we’d all know!

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=zk]
You don’t see how one can drop the hammer on Bush without doing the same to Obama? Really? It’s pretty simple. Bush got us into a war that wasn’t necessary, cost us massively, and got us nothing.

I don’t see your long-term strategy for Libya. How is the outcome better for us if the rebels win than if gadhafi stays? What’s in it for us and why would we fight for that?[/quote]

Zk: I have no plan whatsoever. I just don’t like Gaddafi Duck. I say if we have a chance to eject his happy ass, we do so and forthwith.

I was being a little tongue-in-cheek on Bush v. Obama, but not completely. I have to imagine that there are quite a few Obama voters out there that are really wondering who they voted for and what he truly stands for.

Perhaps if we all read more “Mother Jones” we’d all know!

[Author]

Posts