Secret Squirrel has once again turned his attention to New
Orleans,the hurricanes it suffers from, the waters of Lake Ponchartrain,
and the levees,and sees things are still sadly lacking and not right at
all for the safety of the citizens of New Orleans. Let's look at Lake
Pontchartrain which generates a vast problem and is a great threat in
itself to the people of New Orleans.
As an estuary, Pontchartrain is not a true lake. It is, however, part of
one of the largest wetlands in North America, and the world.It's
average depth,at 12-14 feet. with a Max. depth, 65 feet (20 m).Max.
length 40 mi (64 km) with Max. width 24 mi (39 km).It's surface area
is 630 sq mi (1630 km²).It threatens New Orleans with each and every
hurricane, regardless of actual strength, as storm surges develop from
the lake even yet at weak category 3 hurricanes as surge is dependent on
both wind, and actual water volumes from the hurricane itself.
The government, in it's idiocy, won't close off Lake Pontchartrain at the bridge,and
drain the lake which constantly threatens New Orleans with massive storm surge
flooding,over toppings, and breeches of the levee system which barely holds Lake Pontchartrain back.
A hurricane in September, 1947 flooded much of Metairie,
Louisiana, much of which is slightly below sea level due to land
subsidence after marshland was drained. After the storm,
hurricane-protection levees were built along Lake Pontchartrain's south
shore to protect New Orleans and nearby communities. A storm surge of 10
feet (3.0 m) from Hurricane Betsy overwhelmed some levees in Eastern
New Orleans in 1965 (while storm surge funneled in by the Mississippi
River – Gulf Outlet Canal and a levee failure flooded most of the Lower
9th Ward). After this the levees encircling the city and outlying
parishes were raised to heights of 14 to 23 feet (4.3 to 7.0 m). Due to
cost concerns, the levees were built to protect against only a Category 3
hurricane; however, some of the levees initially withstood the
Category 5 storm surge of Hurricane Katrina (August 2005), which only
slowed to Category 3 winds within hours of landfall (due to a
last-minute eyewall replacement cycle).
Experts using computer modeling at Louisiana State University after
Hurricane Katrina have concluded that the levees were never topped but
rather faulty design, inadequate construction, or somecombination of the
two were responsible for the flooding of most of New Orleans: some
canal walls leaked underneath because the wall foundations were not deep
enough in peat-subsoil to withstand the pressure of higher water.
Tropical Storm Isaac, downgraded from a hurricane about 19 hours after
making landfall, drove water over a levee in a lightly populated part of
Plaquemines Parish.Until the weather stabilizes,it’s too dangerous to
breach the levee, but it needs to be done so water can flow back into
the bay.There was considerable talk about breaching the levee to take
pressure from the great storm surge off the levee.So clearly then, all's
not well with the levees as such.
Storm surge depends on winds, and also on volume of water dropped during
the hurricane. One can see the problems with the levees let the water
in, let the water out, a breaching of the levees appears to be done.
For starters the levees have to be stronger than they are.....and
secondly, what with breaching and what not being done ion purpose, the
idea would then be to incorporate within the levees sluice gates such
that the breaching can be controlled without actually physically
breaching the levees.Squirrel sees the need for such improvements in the
New Orleans levees, but will the government see the sanity of
Squirrel's way.Squirrel sees the need for much more improvement.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Secret Squirrel On Politically Incorrect Behaviour By The Cities of Chicago, Boston and San Francisco.
It has come to the attention of Secret Squirrel that Chicago,Boston and San
Francisco banned a business for having supported and funded anti gay
groups.Squirrel finds this curious as they have not banned businesses
which have supported and funded pro gay groups.This most definitely an
inequity,and inequity, one which shows immorality and proves unethical
practices going on in both city governments.It is inequality and most
definitely a violation of The First Amendment.Let us look at what the
headlines read...........
Chicago Alderman Moves to Ban Business for Politically Incorrect View
on Gays,
that is what the headline reads at
http://www.infowars.com/chicago-alderman-moves-to-ban-business-for-poli
tically-incorrect-view-on-gays/
Here I quote in it's entirety the article for you to view yourself....
And here starts the quoted article...
Quote
In Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago, the Alderman controlling Logan Square wants
to block Chick-fil-A from opening a store because its CEO opposes gay
marriage.
Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy said last week he believes in the
biblical definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
“I think we’re inviting God’s judgment when we shake our fist at him,
you know, [saying], ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a
marriage.’ And I pray on God’s mercy on our generation that has such a
prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to
try and redefine what marriage is all about,” Cathy said.
“Same sex marriage, same-sex couples — that’s the civil rights fight of
our time. To have those discriminatory policies from the top down is
just not something that we’re open to,” said Moreno. “We want
responsible businesses.”
In other words, business that does not tote the political agenda of
government – and the United Nations – will not be allowed to operate.
Like the former Soviet Union, Chicago will only permit business (called
“enterprises” in the Soviet Union) to exist if it follows the political
dictates of government.
If an alderman (essentially a Mafia don) disagrees with the personal
opinion espoused by a business owner, he will be run out of town after
a self-righteous tongue lashing.
“If he’s in the business of selling chicken in Chicago, he should be in
the business of having equal rights for everyone. Period,” Moreno told
the Sun-Times. “If it looks like a chicken, talks like a chicken, walks
like a chicken, it’s a chicken. If you’re saying you don’t respect the
values and rights of same-sex couples, that trickles down through the
organization. … That’s paramount to the way the company behaves.”
Chick-fil-A had received zoning approval for the restaurant in the 2500
block of North Elston on Chicago’s westside. The company still needs
City Council approval. This may not be forthcoming thanks to Moreno and
Chicago mayor Emanuel.
Chicago’s godfather agrees with the alderman. “Chick-fil-A’s values are
not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our
neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the
Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,” Emanuel said
Wednesday.
“What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is
not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of
Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil
union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay
marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we
are as a city.”
Unquote, and so here ends the epistle presented informationally.Now
Squirrel comments....
.
Squirrel sees that this means essentually that if you are anti gay or
express anti gay values, which may even yet stem from religious
opinions and convictions,or indeed your own personal one, or those or
your peer group, or other group, then you are not welcome in Chicago or
San Francisco,basically as a person, and also as a business,but if you
support those views which are and go against your religion's and many
religions of the world, and openly support those and fund those,such as
support of the so-called gays, or broke backs or whatever,and even yet
fund those, you are welcome.In short if you do not hold certain
opinions ,which you will find out as you go along, you may or may not
be welcome and free to express those and fund those at any particular
time,which may even yet extend to political opinions and the support of
political parties,or whatever.In short, the Mayors and alderman of
Chicago and San Francisco and such places claim to be THE opinions and
morals and ethics of all Chicagoians and San Franciscans,and at any
particular time. Recall, in both cities it was not so long ago that the
dead could and did vote even if they did not have the right to do
so,and also many council decisions were ruled by the application
of.......shall we say chicken schmaltz (or chicken fat, the fat of the
land,the grease of the land). Perhaps the chicken franchise did not
apply the proper amount of chicken schmaltz which both cities have been
known to run on. Recall also, that the citizens are free to frequent
any chicken franchise they please, or should be, and or not forced to
frequent nor custom such places,as yet at any rate. But one sees the
day coming,indeed the day has arrived, when such chicken places may do
business should they adhere to the public and private opinions of the
mayors and alderman, at least evidently of those two cities ...that is
the reality of America,the new public and open reality of America.In
THAT America,their version of America,you are free to form and hold
your opinions, and support and even yet fund organizations that support
them ,as long as,in the cities of San Francisco, and Chicago, they
conform to the stated opinions of the Mayors and alderman of those
cities,and NOT if you don't. Here both cities have clearly violated the
right and freedom of expression, of opinion, of supporting any opinion,
yea,nay,one way or the other.
Clearly both cities are in violation of The First Amendment,and quite clearly they are trying to enforce and enforce their own opinion in any specific psycho-socio-political area.Both cities have quite clearly mentioned, and indicated their area of their infraction.Clearly these cities must be taken to task by Federal,State and local judicial processes and MUST be forced to retract,and cease and desist entirely from further and future violations in the areas of supposedly allowed public expression of opinion.To be forced to espouse the opinions of city governments such as Boston,Chicago, and San Francisco is to follow and go down the road that Stalin and Adolf Hitler fashioned, so says Secret Squirrel.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Secret Squirrel Says Britain Should Form A True National Guard Reserve.
Secret Squirrel has perked up his ears and heard of the sad sorry state
Olympic Security is at.Imagine Olympic Security, simply security for an
event such as The Olympics. Of course this was never seen as necessary
in earlier years, but due to recent activities and events round and
about the world, invasions,wars and what have we had our government do,
we now require this. The Olympics requires security.More security,
greater security.And, does Britain and the British people NOT require
the self same, security? Indeed it does, but what has actually occurred,
revealed by the sad sorry state of the Olympics, the
stress,imagine,stress, it is now placing,placing, on Britain's
military!Stress!Imagine stress,manpower stress,stretching
resources,stretching manpower, a thing as ridiculous as the Olympics!
Imagine, it never stressed anybody else, any other nation,no, it
stresses Britain, only Britain.Sad state of affairs,sorry state of
affairs, ridiculous state of affairs. The military is being stressed,
stressed also,by evidently a short supply of manpower, imagine, THE
MILITARY!The very thought of something like this years back would bring
hearty guffaws in each and every Old Boys Club round and about the
nation,Parliament would have it's walls shake with the laughter such a
mention would produce,people would fall out of pubs for the laughing.But
face it, it's just not funny.
Well let's look at the overview of things....
British Military OVERVIEW (as at early 2012)
Regular Forces
Royal Navy 35,430 (includes 7,500 Royal Marines)
Army 101,300
Royal Air Force 40,090
Total Regular Forces
176,810 (excludes approximately 3,800 Gurkhas and approximately 2,040 Full Time Reserve Service (FTRS) personnel)
Regular Reserves
Volunteer Reserves 37,600
Cadet Forces 133,000 - Sea Cadets -14,000, Army Cadets - 75,800, Air Training Corps - 43,000
MoD Civilians 85,000
Well now, look at the army.Do you realize that actual FIGHTING men are actually half of the figure, the rest are various support,administration as it were!The British military is sadly drawn down.Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has confirmed that an additional 3,500 military personnel will be deployed as part of the security arrangements for the 2012 Olympic Games.
This will bring the total number of military personnel, from all three Services and including reservists, contributing to the safety and security of the Games to 17,000.And they also state, that this drains,taxes,strains...THE MILITARY.In short as it were, they're taken short, all round and about.
Well it figures.Britain is in a sad sorry state.What thence needs be done,since the military is being constantly reduced, is Britain must increase actual reserves,then,form a concentrated effort to create and evolve an actual real National Guard,or Home Guard,the Part Time Soldier, trained for all events really, and utilized as such, and ready for call-up for various crisis and events...such as flood relief etc on the home front, assistance in whatever disaster as needed, ready for call-up such as is being done for Olympic Security, and,of course, if necessary foreign defences,such as the Falklands or Gibraltar,and various foreign wars or so called policing and peace keeping activities.As presently configured the reserves are really only geared to military activities. Of course, the Navy,a Navy, must be maintained, along with an Air Force,and here also a working functional reserve force must be created but also yet trained for uses in national emergencies and disasters. Of course this is along lines originally envisaged and actually at one time, so done in America, The National Guard, up until recently when the Americans simply used them as active troops.Of course we now see America as extremely disorganized internally with little or no help for it's citizenry as they suffer from tornadoes,hurricanes floods and whatever disasters the constantly suffer from, they now being left mostly to their own devices.We see in America National Guard units played a major role in providing security and assisting recovery efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, in September 2005.
In January and February 2007, National Guard troops from 8 states were activated to go help shovel snow, drop hay for starving cattle, deliver food and necessities to stranded people in their houses, and help control traffic and rescue stranded motorists in blizzards dropping feet of snow across that country.
What we should be doing, in Britain, is form a definite National Guard, reservists, functioning as the National Guard in America actually used to. It worked, unquestionably it worked, and it will work for us all round.
Well let's look at the overview of things....
British Military OVERVIEW (as at early 2012)
Regular Forces
Royal Navy 35,430 (includes 7,500 Royal Marines)
Army 101,300
Royal Air Force 40,090
Total Regular Forces
176,810 (excludes approximately 3,800 Gurkhas and approximately 2,040 Full Time Reserve Service (FTRS) personnel)
Regular Reserves
Volunteer Reserves 37,600
Cadet Forces 133,000 - Sea Cadets -14,000, Army Cadets - 75,800, Air Training Corps - 43,000
MoD Civilians 85,000
Well now, look at the army.Do you realize that actual FIGHTING men are actually half of the figure, the rest are various support,administration as it were!The British military is sadly drawn down.Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has confirmed that an additional 3,500 military personnel will be deployed as part of the security arrangements for the 2012 Olympic Games.
This will bring the total number of military personnel, from all three Services and including reservists, contributing to the safety and security of the Games to 17,000.And they also state, that this drains,taxes,strains...THE MILITARY.In short as it were, they're taken short, all round and about.
Well it figures.Britain is in a sad sorry state.What thence needs be done,since the military is being constantly reduced, is Britain must increase actual reserves,then,form a concentrated effort to create and evolve an actual real National Guard,or Home Guard,the Part Time Soldier, trained for all events really, and utilized as such, and ready for call-up for various crisis and events...such as flood relief etc on the home front, assistance in whatever disaster as needed, ready for call-up such as is being done for Olympic Security, and,of course, if necessary foreign defences,such as the Falklands or Gibraltar,and various foreign wars or so called policing and peace keeping activities.As presently configured the reserves are really only geared to military activities. Of course, the Navy,a Navy, must be maintained, along with an Air Force,and here also a working functional reserve force must be created but also yet trained for uses in national emergencies and disasters. Of course this is along lines originally envisaged and actually at one time, so done in America, The National Guard, up until recently when the Americans simply used them as active troops.Of course we now see America as extremely disorganized internally with little or no help for it's citizenry as they suffer from tornadoes,hurricanes floods and whatever disasters the constantly suffer from, they now being left mostly to their own devices.We see in America National Guard units played a major role in providing security and assisting recovery efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, in September 2005.
In January and February 2007, National Guard troops from 8 states were activated to go help shovel snow, drop hay for starving cattle, deliver food and necessities to stranded people in their houses, and help control traffic and rescue stranded motorists in blizzards dropping feet of snow across that country.
What we should be doing, in Britain, is form a definite National Guard, reservists, functioning as the National Guard in America actually used to. It worked, unquestionably it worked, and it will work for us all round.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Secret Squirrel On The Benefits Of Massive Nuclear Disasters.
Secret Squirrel was discussing things with a colleague from Japan, who had
legged it over for the duration as it were, of the Fukushima fallout.In
the course of our discussions the course of conversation turned to
Fukushima and he remarked that no good come ever come out of Fukushima
for Japan and the Japanese. However I,ever known as The Master Debater
since my Secondary School days(that's Comprehensive High school to
Americans),also Head Prefect in my final year, which may have had to do
with the accolade so awarded to me, but in either case, what with the
massive global release of nuclear radiation by the Fukushima meltdowns,I
naturally took to the positive side of things in the nuclear accident
debate.
Previously I have been said to be anti-nuclear in my debates and
writings, but do point out that I am not,that those making such
statements have missed the point, that I am merely pointing out the
reality of things as they were and are, and indeed shall be in the light
of,in glowing terms, nuclear accidents and explosions and other
occurrences which are so very common with the nuclear industry as it
were,was is, and used to be.So to the good side of Fukushima and similar
events, the Chernobyls,the Three Mile Islands etc etc etc ad nauseum ad
infinitum,nuclear reactors ad perfidiosus.....
1) Cures cancer, or at least treats it, for those who already have it,
hence,unknowingly they are and have been cured and are being cured of it
and so will be spared the horrible expense of hospital treatment for
their cancers.There's just no arguing that hospitals do not use radiation
to treat cancers formed, no indeed, they most certainly do.Radiation
therapy is proveably responsible for extending the life of many people,
and the application of radiation and radiopharmaceuticals has led to
greatly improved medical diagnoses and subsequent treatment of injuries
and diseases. More indirectly, applications of radiation and
radionuclides in industry have led to economic benefits that have
improved living standards and, consequently, better health.
2) Now for, those who have cancers generated due to the radiation, well,
they must enter the hospital stream, where they most certainly provide
the need for, and the employment of hospital staff, and the necessary
production of various large and expensive medical equipments and drugs
used to treat that cancer. That's a huge boost to the economy of any
nation without a doubt.
3) Causes the body to generate more vitamin D,a proven fact, a vitamin
most necessary to the body and so those so exposed would not have to
purchase said vitamin, a cost removed from their budgets,and a
beneficial humanitarian plus on the side of radiation!!
3) Reduces lifespan, and demand for pension and Social Security
pension benefits.Indeed it does, by killing off a large portion of the
population effectively exposed to high levels of radiations which
generate the cancer which will kill them quite early in life long
before they reach such pensionable ages.(Recall also the plus seen and
mentioned in 2) directly above.
4) With special night vision goggles, provides additional
illumination.Indeed cancers and radiations can cause that certain glow
you know and hence improve the night lighting in areas where they can
still live in concentrated fashion.
5) Helps kill germs on food and kitchen surfaces.Most certainly the
sterilization effects of radiations are well known, and their ability to
kill living cells and organisms which are in fact germs.
6) Reduces body odor for the living and the dead.Indeed yet another
positive effect, and reduces the need to purchase deoderents, both
personal hygene ones and also the air freshener types you know.
5) Simplifies funeral arrangements since no embalming is required -
Indeed radiation at certain levels purifies and mummifies.No doubt funeral
homes saving on embalming fluids usually necessary can pass on these
savings to the next of kin of those funeral customers they receive,and so
survivors benefit from lowered funeral costs.
6) Kills human parasites - such as the Malaria parasite.Indeed you
wouldn't even yet know it. Imagine this hidden effect,going on in you
now, if you have been irradiated, or even yet are being irradiated by the
consumption of foods of whatever kind grown in areas of such places as
Chernobyl and Fukushima,and suffering from vast sprays of radioactive
particles and dusts as are present in such events as Fukushima and
Chernobyl,events which are spread over vast areas,be they spinach or fish
and whatever in between.
7) Kills aliens from outer space - these are mostly nasty
anyway.Indeed we have many Hollywood movies proving out and using such a
scientific principle.
8) Reduces the homeless population.Indeed it does remove the homeless
population as they are mostly killed off as they tend to congregate in
certain areas, in flocks or groups or whatever their masses are called,
and so, they not being prone to evacuate such areas as being near nuclear
accidents, they die out,or off,and whatever.
9) Consumption of such things as higher level radioactive fish for
example, will result in a mild internal general radioactive medical
treatment helping to erradicate any hidden cancers developing much as
expensive cancer treatments hospitals offer do, a great saving for
you,and most beneficial. Most governments have realized this and so have
actually more than doubled the level of acceptable radiations in foods so
consumed, especially fish, as used here in the example, for just such
reasons you know.
10) Radiation actually has effects which are similar to the body's immune
system, indeed activate and boost the body's immune system, it's abilities
to fight disease.Radiation hormesis (also called radiation homeostasis)
scientifcally states that low doses of ionizing radiation (within the
region and just above natural background levels) are beneficial,
stimulating the activation of repair mechanisms that protect against
disease, that are not activated in absence of ionizing radiation. The
reserve repair mechanisms are hypothesized to be sufficiently effective
when stimulated as to not only cancel the detrimental effects of ionizing
radiation but also inhibit disease not related to radiation exposure This
seemingly counter-intuitive hypothesis has captured the attention of
scientists and public alike in recent years.
11) Mutations.Indeed a tippy subject to say the least, but consider,there
are beneficial sides to things.Longer arms for examples would and do cause
the abilities to reach things in much better fashion.Long legs, would
enable the average, or used to be, citizen to say run in the Olympics and
so beat those African runners(they had to learn to run, and so passed
this gene on to their sons etc, they had to learn to run from
slavers).Now a third eye, well, all the better to see with.Could we argue
against a case for massive webbed feet, why just look at the
Australian,Thrope, those massive feet easily allowed him to win Olympic
medals with their massive flipper like natures, unquestionably the result
of beneficial radiation mutations...And who could argue the case against
a third breast,errr in females, indeed a highly desired and muchly looked
forwards to form of mutation, long looked forwards to.Indeed there is yet
more in support of radiation mutation, here as reported by NBCNews...............
"Somewhere in Germany is a baby Superman, born in Berlin with bulging arm
and leg muscles. Not yet 5, he can hold seven-pound weights with arms
extended, something many adults cannot do. He has muscles twice the size
of other kids his age and half their body fat.DNA testing showed why: The
boy has a genetic mutation that boosts muscle growth.
The discovery, reported in Thursday’s New England Journal of Medicine,
represents the first documented human case of such a mutation."
Indeed this is a great step forwards for mankind,indeed this German
SuperBoy would have driven Adolf Hitler wild!
12) Sterility.Well now....is sterility caused by nuclear radiation all that bad.Not really. Imagine, all the sex one could have and no worries about having children,having to go through childbirth, having to pay for children?No indeed, none of it. No necessity for abortion, no problems for the unborn being bullied by such terms as "You should have been an abortion." And none of that from their fathers either. Jolly good all round I'd say, and do say, no worries there then,none at all, no expense of children in any numbers,great nor small, reduced necessity for welfare amongst those less endowed financially what with having children.A Jolly good thing.
So, given all these arguments, are they really debateble? No most
definitely not, a most definite undebateable supporting the beneficial
massive releases of radiations from what were formerly known as
disasters, the Chernobyls,the Three Mile Islands, the Fukushimas. Indeed
we should look forwards to many more such events as will without a doubt
occur, and revel in the massive releases of radiation that they cause.
Without a doubt a great boon to mankind brought to us curtesy of our
governments,nuclear scientists, and nuclear industry workers.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL,
MP,(Dunny On The Wold),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.
legged it over for the duration as it were, of the Fukushima fallout.In
the course of our discussions the course of conversation turned to
Fukushima and he remarked that no good come ever come out of Fukushima
for Japan and the Japanese. However I,ever known as The Master Debater
since my Secondary School days(that's Comprehensive High school to
Americans),also Head Prefect in my final year, which may have had to do
with the accolade so awarded to me, but in either case, what with the
massive global release of nuclear radiation by the Fukushima meltdowns,I
naturally took to the positive side of things in the nuclear accident
debate.
Previously I have been said to be anti-nuclear in my debates and
writings, but do point out that I am not,that those making such
statements have missed the point, that I am merely pointing out the
reality of things as they were and are, and indeed shall be in the light
of,in glowing terms, nuclear accidents and explosions and other
occurrences which are so very common with the nuclear industry as it
were,was is, and used to be.So to the good side of Fukushima and similar
events, the Chernobyls,the Three Mile Islands etc etc etc ad nauseum ad
infinitum,nuclear reactors ad perfidiosus.....
1) Cures cancer, or at least treats it, for those who already have it,
hence,unknowingly they are and have been cured and are being cured of it
and so will be spared the horrible expense of hospital treatment for
their cancers.There's just no arguing that hospitals do not use radiation
to treat cancers formed, no indeed, they most certainly do.Radiation
therapy is proveably responsible for extending the life of many people,
and the application of radiation and radiopharmaceuticals has led to
greatly improved medical diagnoses and subsequent treatment of injuries
and diseases. More indirectly, applications of radiation and
radionuclides in industry have led to economic benefits that have
improved living standards and, consequently, better health.
2) Now for, those who have cancers generated due to the radiation, well,
they must enter the hospital stream, where they most certainly provide
the need for, and the employment of hospital staff, and the necessary
production of various large and expensive medical equipments and drugs
used to treat that cancer. That's a huge boost to the economy of any
nation without a doubt.
3) Causes the body to generate more vitamin D,a proven fact, a vitamin
most necessary to the body and so those so exposed would not have to
purchase said vitamin, a cost removed from their budgets,and a
beneficial humanitarian plus on the side of radiation!!
3) Reduces lifespan, and demand for pension and Social Security
pension benefits.Indeed it does, by killing off a large portion of the
population effectively exposed to high levels of radiations which
generate the cancer which will kill them quite early in life long
before they reach such pensionable ages.(Recall also the plus seen and
mentioned in 2) directly above.
4) With special night vision goggles, provides additional
illumination.Indeed cancers and radiations can cause that certain glow
you know and hence improve the night lighting in areas where they can
still live in concentrated fashion.
5) Helps kill germs on food and kitchen surfaces.Most certainly the
sterilization effects of radiations are well known, and their ability to
kill living cells and organisms which are in fact germs.
6) Reduces body odor for the living and the dead.Indeed yet another
positive effect, and reduces the need to purchase deoderents, both
personal hygene ones and also the air freshener types you know.
5) Simplifies funeral arrangements since no embalming is required -
Indeed radiation at certain levels purifies and mummifies.No doubt funeral
homes saving on embalming fluids usually necessary can pass on these
savings to the next of kin of those funeral customers they receive,and so
survivors benefit from lowered funeral costs.
6) Kills human parasites - such as the Malaria parasite.Indeed you
wouldn't even yet know it. Imagine this hidden effect,going on in you
now, if you have been irradiated, or even yet are being irradiated by the
consumption of foods of whatever kind grown in areas of such places as
Chernobyl and Fukushima,and suffering from vast sprays of radioactive
particles and dusts as are present in such events as Fukushima and
Chernobyl,events which are spread over vast areas,be they spinach or fish
and whatever in between.
7) Kills aliens from outer space - these are mostly nasty
anyway.Indeed we have many Hollywood movies proving out and using such a
scientific principle.
8) Reduces the homeless population.Indeed it does remove the homeless
population as they are mostly killed off as they tend to congregate in
certain areas, in flocks or groups or whatever their masses are called,
and so, they not being prone to evacuate such areas as being near nuclear
accidents, they die out,or off,and whatever.
9) Consumption of such things as higher level radioactive fish for
example, will result in a mild internal general radioactive medical
treatment helping to erradicate any hidden cancers developing much as
expensive cancer treatments hospitals offer do, a great saving for
you,and most beneficial. Most governments have realized this and so have
actually more than doubled the level of acceptable radiations in foods so
consumed, especially fish, as used here in the example, for just such
reasons you know.
10) Radiation actually has effects which are similar to the body's immune
system, indeed activate and boost the body's immune system, it's abilities
to fight disease.Radiation hormesis (also called radiation homeostasis)
scientifcally states that low doses of ionizing radiation (within the
region and just above natural background levels) are beneficial,
stimulating the activation of repair mechanisms that protect against
disease, that are not activated in absence of ionizing radiation. The
reserve repair mechanisms are hypothesized to be sufficiently effective
when stimulated as to not only cancel the detrimental effects of ionizing
radiation but also inhibit disease not related to radiation exposure This
seemingly counter-intuitive hypothesis has captured the attention of
scientists and public alike in recent years.
11) Mutations.Indeed a tippy subject to say the least, but consider,there
are beneficial sides to things.Longer arms for examples would and do cause
the abilities to reach things in much better fashion.Long legs, would
enable the average, or used to be, citizen to say run in the Olympics and
so beat those African runners(they had to learn to run, and so passed
this gene on to their sons etc, they had to learn to run from
slavers).Now a third eye, well, all the better to see with.Could we argue
against a case for massive webbed feet, why just look at the
Australian,Thrope, those massive feet easily allowed him to win Olympic
medals with their massive flipper like natures, unquestionably the result
of beneficial radiation mutations...And who could argue the case against
a third breast,errr in females, indeed a highly desired and muchly looked
forwards to form of mutation, long looked forwards to.Indeed there is yet
more in support of radiation mutation, here as reported by NBCNews...............
"Somewhere in Germany is a baby Superman, born in Berlin with bulging arm
and leg muscles. Not yet 5, he can hold seven-pound weights with arms
extended, something many adults cannot do. He has muscles twice the size
of other kids his age and half their body fat.DNA testing showed why: The
boy has a genetic mutation that boosts muscle growth.
The discovery, reported in Thursday’s New England Journal of Medicine,
represents the first documented human case of such a mutation."
Indeed this is a great step forwards for mankind,indeed this German
SuperBoy would have driven Adolf Hitler wild!
12) Sterility.Well now....is sterility caused by nuclear radiation all that bad.Not really. Imagine, all the sex one could have and no worries about having children,having to go through childbirth, having to pay for children?No indeed, none of it. No necessity for abortion, no problems for the unborn being bullied by such terms as "You should have been an abortion." And none of that from their fathers either. Jolly good all round I'd say, and do say, no worries there then,none at all, no expense of children in any numbers,great nor small, reduced necessity for welfare amongst those less endowed financially what with having children.A Jolly good thing.
So, given all these arguments, are they really debateble? No most
definitely not, a most definite undebateable supporting the beneficial
massive releases of radiations from what were formerly known as
disasters, the Chernobyls,the Three Mile Islands, the Fukushimas. Indeed
we should look forwards to many more such events as will without a doubt
occur, and revel in the massive releases of radiation that they cause.
Without a doubt a great boon to mankind brought to us curtesy of our
governments,nuclear scientists, and nuclear industry workers.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL,
MP,(Dunny On The Wold),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Secret Squirrel On The Banana As A Measure Of Radiation Levels
Secret Squirrel recalls the ever changing levels of radioactivity at Fukushima,
and the also ever changing go around concerning what levels of what were measured in whatever and what were the safe levels then and the ever increasing upwards safe levels the government of Japan announced as things got ever worse.Well Secret Squirrel has pondered things and has considered that perhaps the Japanese government and others, were not actually lying to the people but just confused not only at the rising levels of radiation in the midst of the finally admitted three nuclear meltdowns,but to the actual ways and means of measuring things in a proper light so all things seemed to be pretty good all round. Well let's first start with the actual definitions and measurements of radioactivity.
Now...
1) The amount of radioactivity emitted by a source is measured in Becquerels or
Curies. The SI unit the becquerel (Bq), one decay per second. The traditional unit
Curie (Ci) is 3.7 × 1010 Bq and is about the radioactivity of a gram of radium.
2) The amount of radiation received by a source is measured in grays or rads. The
SI unit Gray (Gy) corresponds to one joule of energy absorbed by one kilogram of
matter. The traditional unit rad is 0.01 Gy.
3)The biological effect of radiation is measured in Sieverts or rems. Biologically
effective dose is the amount of radiation received multiplied by the relative
biological effectiveness (RBE) of the type of radiation source. For x-rays, the
RBE is 1. For alpha rays, the RBE is 20. The SI unit of effective dose is the
Sievert (Sv), which corresponds to one Gy of x-rays. A rem is 0.01 Sv.
In short it's coming at us every which way at the same time,and going in each and
every direction as well,so for some reason unbeknownst to us all, we have
Becquerels,Curies,Grays, Rads,Sieverts and Rems.Things have to be made much more simple, easier, we must simplify,and we can simplify things in such a manner that everybody can understand what's going on concerning emitted, received and
radiation absorbed biologically. Of course this has been beyond the ken and
abilities of nuclear scientists and politicians, it's rocket science it seems to
them all.Well, not so to Squirrel,nay, Squirrel has a solution. We must come up
with a suitably acceptable name and measure of radiation acceptable and easily
understood by all.and we have it, the Banana is proposed, the banana equivalent
dose, abbreviated BED to put it in simple terms that the lay men can understand
quite easily, as well as scientists and politicians as well. Besides bananas,
other foods that are rich in potassium (and therefore in 40K) are potatoes, kidney
beans, sunflower seeds, and nuts; especially brazil nuts, which may have up to 444
Bq/kg (12 nCi/kg) — four times the radioactivity of bananas.But I have selected
the banana since it is therefor a much finer form of measurement,much more
sensitive and therefor meaningful in a scientific measurement sort of way.
A banana equivalent dose (abbreviated BED) is a unit of radiation exposure,
informally defined as the dose a person will absorb from eating one banana,one
(1,and not more than one at any given time) Banana Equivalent Dose, 1 (One)
BED.The concept is based on the fact that bananas, like most organic material,
naturally contain a certain amount of radioactive isotopes—even in the absence of
any artificial pollution or contamination. The banana equivalent dose was meant to
express the severity of exposure to radiation, such as resulting from nuclear
power, nuclear weapons or medical procedures, in terms that would make sense to
most people,even politicians.
Specifically the BED is based on the banana itself, internally,having radioactive
potassium 40.The banana equivalent dose is the radiation exposure received by
eating a single banana. Radiation leaks from nuclear plants are often measured in
extraordinarily small units (the picocurie, a millionth of a millionth of a curie,
is typical). By comparing the exposure from these events to a banana equivalent
dose, a more realistic assessment of the actual risk can sometimes be obtained.
But why bother converting this to bananas? Partly because it's hoped BED is
friendlier than sieverts and grays and rads and rems, and all the other
paraphernalia.But the BED is useful for several reasons.
First, it reminds us that radiation is commonplace. You can't get much more
ordinary than a banana.
Second, we know eating one banana won't kill us.
Third, think about eating 20 million bananas, equal to a dose causing severe,
sometimes fatal, radiation poisoning. You'd probably die from something other than
the radiation well before you were anywhere near 20 million. Please do not attempt
this at home. Even over an 80-year lifetime it's nearly 700 a day.At low doses the
bananas come in bunches, then rise through the thousands to the millions,
corresponding to micro-sieverts, milli-sieverts and sieverts, the SI
unit.Generally 1 banana equates to .1usv.(The standard measure of the biological
effect of radiation is the sievert. One sievert is a heck of a big dose, but one
tenth of a millionth of a sievert, or 0.1 micro sieverts, is roughly the dose from
eating one banana.)
Imagine newscasts and public information bulletins using the BED
unit............let's have a look say at a Japanese broadcast of say the Fukushima
situation.....
Here is a report from Japanese newsanchor of a government annoucement by Japanese Politician, I Fook Yew
"Monitoring of radiation levels on the spot is ongoing. At point MP4, where a
reading of 1,015µSv was detected yesterday, a radiation level of 44.6µSv was
recorded at 00:30 this morning, and a level of 36.7µSv at 6:00am. After the start
of venting around 9:20, a reading of 76.9µSv was recorded at 9:20 and of 70.3µSv
at 9:30."
Now imagine the say, equivalent, but rather expressed in the much simpler and
easier to understand, Banana Equivalent Units....
"The radiation spiked up to 30 bananas a day (2 days ago) and then fell back down
to 1 to 2 bananas per day."
Now isn't that much more sane,simpler and easier to understand.Politicians and
government officals should love it, they could still lie by using incorrect BED
unit statements.
Now,what is it's relationship with standard units of radiation?Well the BED is a
radiation dose equivalent unit; that is, a unit for measuring potentially damaging
radiation absorbed by body tissue, rather than the total radiation (of any kind)
emitted by a source or absorbed by matter. The corresponding SI unit is the
sievert (Sv), defined as a radiation dose biologically equivalent to one joule of
absorbed gamma-ray energy per kilogram of tissue. In the U.S, an older unit, the
roentgen equivalent man (rem), equal to 0.01 sieverts, is sometimes used.
The absorbed radiation dose depends on the type and energy of the emitted
particles, as well as on the location of the source in the body (external,
inhaled, ingested, etc.). According to the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the conversion factor (CEDE) is 5.02 nanosieverts over 50 years for each
becquerel of isotopically pure potassium-40 ingested by an average adult.[7] Using
this factor, one banana equivalent dose comes out as about 5.02 nSv/Bq × 31 Bq/g × 0.5 g ˜ 78 nanosieverts = 0.078 µSv. In informal publications one often sees this estimate rounded up to 0.1 µSv.After the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, the NRC detected radioactive iodine in local milk at levels of 20 picocuries/liter, a dose much less than one would receive from ingesting a single banana. Thus a 12 fl oz glass of the slightly radioactive milk would have about 1/75th BED (banana equivalent dose).
Here is a table of the number of bananas exposure, and the event that it results
from
500 million Bananas
Ten minutes next to Chernobyl reactor core after explosion and meltdown
80 million Bananas
Fatal dose even with treatment
20 million Bananas
Severe radiation poisoning, fatal in some cases
500,000 Bananas
Maximum legal yearly dose for a US radiation worker
70,000 Bananas
Chest CT scan
40,000 Bananas
Ten years of normal background dose, 85% of which is from natural sources
4000 Bananas
Mammogram
1000 Bananas
Approximate total dose received at Fukushima Town Hall in two weeks following
accident
400 Bananas
Flight from London to New York
300 Bananas
Yearly release target for a nuclear power plant
200 Bananas
Chest X-ray
50 Bananas
Dental X-ray
1 Bananas
Eating a banana
0.5 Bananas
Sleeping with someone
Ah but what if politicians sense that we've gone bananas and all we understand and convert everything to is the singularity of the banana?
The answer is obvious; they'll say bananas should be banned.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL
MP,Dunny On The Wold,
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.
and the also ever changing go around concerning what levels of what were measured in whatever and what were the safe levels then and the ever increasing upwards safe levels the government of Japan announced as things got ever worse.Well Secret Squirrel has pondered things and has considered that perhaps the Japanese government and others, were not actually lying to the people but just confused not only at the rising levels of radiation in the midst of the finally admitted three nuclear meltdowns,but to the actual ways and means of measuring things in a proper light so all things seemed to be pretty good all round. Well let's first start with the actual definitions and measurements of radioactivity.
Now...
1) The amount of radioactivity emitted by a source is measured in Becquerels or
Curies. The SI unit the becquerel (Bq), one decay per second. The traditional unit
Curie (Ci) is 3.7 × 1010 Bq and is about the radioactivity of a gram of radium.
2) The amount of radiation received by a source is measured in grays or rads. The
SI unit Gray (Gy) corresponds to one joule of energy absorbed by one kilogram of
matter. The traditional unit rad is 0.01 Gy.
3)The biological effect of radiation is measured in Sieverts or rems. Biologically
effective dose is the amount of radiation received multiplied by the relative
biological effectiveness (RBE) of the type of radiation source. For x-rays, the
RBE is 1. For alpha rays, the RBE is 20. The SI unit of effective dose is the
Sievert (Sv), which corresponds to one Gy of x-rays. A rem is 0.01 Sv.
In short it's coming at us every which way at the same time,and going in each and
every direction as well,so for some reason unbeknownst to us all, we have
Becquerels,Curies,Grays, Rads,Sieverts and Rems.Things have to be made much more simple, easier, we must simplify,and we can simplify things in such a manner that everybody can understand what's going on concerning emitted, received and
radiation absorbed biologically. Of course this has been beyond the ken and
abilities of nuclear scientists and politicians, it's rocket science it seems to
them all.Well, not so to Squirrel,nay, Squirrel has a solution. We must come up
with a suitably acceptable name and measure of radiation acceptable and easily
understood by all.and we have it, the Banana is proposed, the banana equivalent
dose, abbreviated BED to put it in simple terms that the lay men can understand
quite easily, as well as scientists and politicians as well. Besides bananas,
other foods that are rich in potassium (and therefore in 40K) are potatoes, kidney
beans, sunflower seeds, and nuts; especially brazil nuts, which may have up to 444
Bq/kg (12 nCi/kg) — four times the radioactivity of bananas.But I have selected
the banana since it is therefor a much finer form of measurement,much more
sensitive and therefor meaningful in a scientific measurement sort of way.
A banana equivalent dose (abbreviated BED) is a unit of radiation exposure,
informally defined as the dose a person will absorb from eating one banana,one
(1,and not more than one at any given time) Banana Equivalent Dose, 1 (One)
BED.The concept is based on the fact that bananas, like most organic material,
naturally contain a certain amount of radioactive isotopes—even in the absence of
any artificial pollution or contamination. The banana equivalent dose was meant to
express the severity of exposure to radiation, such as resulting from nuclear
power, nuclear weapons or medical procedures, in terms that would make sense to
most people,even politicians.
Specifically the BED is based on the banana itself, internally,having radioactive
potassium 40.The banana equivalent dose is the radiation exposure received by
eating a single banana. Radiation leaks from nuclear plants are often measured in
extraordinarily small units (the picocurie, a millionth of a millionth of a curie,
is typical). By comparing the exposure from these events to a banana equivalent
dose, a more realistic assessment of the actual risk can sometimes be obtained.
But why bother converting this to bananas? Partly because it's hoped BED is
friendlier than sieverts and grays and rads and rems, and all the other
paraphernalia.But the BED is useful for several reasons.
First, it reminds us that radiation is commonplace. You can't get much more
ordinary than a banana.
Second, we know eating one banana won't kill us.
Third, think about eating 20 million bananas, equal to a dose causing severe,
sometimes fatal, radiation poisoning. You'd probably die from something other than
the radiation well before you were anywhere near 20 million. Please do not attempt
this at home. Even over an 80-year lifetime it's nearly 700 a day.At low doses the
bananas come in bunches, then rise through the thousands to the millions,
corresponding to micro-sieverts, milli-sieverts and sieverts, the SI
unit.Generally 1 banana equates to .1usv.(The standard measure of the biological
effect of radiation is the sievert. One sievert is a heck of a big dose, but one
tenth of a millionth of a sievert, or 0.1 micro sieverts, is roughly the dose from
eating one banana.)
Imagine newscasts and public information bulletins using the BED
unit............let's have a look say at a Japanese broadcast of say the Fukushima
situation.....
Here is a report from Japanese newsanchor of a government annoucement by Japanese Politician, I Fook Yew
"Monitoring of radiation levels on the spot is ongoing. At point MP4, where a
reading of 1,015µSv was detected yesterday, a radiation level of 44.6µSv was
recorded at 00:30 this morning, and a level of 36.7µSv at 6:00am. After the start
of venting around 9:20, a reading of 76.9µSv was recorded at 9:20 and of 70.3µSv
at 9:30."
Now imagine the say, equivalent, but rather expressed in the much simpler and
easier to understand, Banana Equivalent Units....
"The radiation spiked up to 30 bananas a day (2 days ago) and then fell back down
to 1 to 2 bananas per day."
Now isn't that much more sane,simpler and easier to understand.Politicians and
government officals should love it, they could still lie by using incorrect BED
unit statements.
Now,what is it's relationship with standard units of radiation?Well the BED is a
radiation dose equivalent unit; that is, a unit for measuring potentially damaging
radiation absorbed by body tissue, rather than the total radiation (of any kind)
emitted by a source or absorbed by matter. The corresponding SI unit is the
sievert (Sv), defined as a radiation dose biologically equivalent to one joule of
absorbed gamma-ray energy per kilogram of tissue. In the U.S, an older unit, the
roentgen equivalent man (rem), equal to 0.01 sieverts, is sometimes used.
The absorbed radiation dose depends on the type and energy of the emitted
particles, as well as on the location of the source in the body (external,
inhaled, ingested, etc.). According to the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the conversion factor (CEDE) is 5.02 nanosieverts over 50 years for each
becquerel of isotopically pure potassium-40 ingested by an average adult.[7] Using
this factor, one banana equivalent dose comes out as about 5.02 nSv/Bq × 31 Bq/g × 0.5 g ˜ 78 nanosieverts = 0.078 µSv. In informal publications one often sees this estimate rounded up to 0.1 µSv.After the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, the NRC detected radioactive iodine in local milk at levels of 20 picocuries/liter, a dose much less than one would receive from ingesting a single banana. Thus a 12 fl oz glass of the slightly radioactive milk would have about 1/75th BED (banana equivalent dose).
Here is a table of the number of bananas exposure, and the event that it results
from
500 million Bananas
Ten minutes next to Chernobyl reactor core after explosion and meltdown
80 million Bananas
Fatal dose even with treatment
20 million Bananas
Severe radiation poisoning, fatal in some cases
500,000 Bananas
Maximum legal yearly dose for a US radiation worker
70,000 Bananas
Chest CT scan
40,000 Bananas
Ten years of normal background dose, 85% of which is from natural sources
4000 Bananas
Mammogram
1000 Bananas
Approximate total dose received at Fukushima Town Hall in two weeks following
accident
400 Bananas
Flight from London to New York
300 Bananas
Yearly release target for a nuclear power plant
200 Bananas
Chest X-ray
50 Bananas
Dental X-ray
1 Bananas
Eating a banana
0.5 Bananas
Sleeping with someone
Ah but what if politicians sense that we've gone bananas and all we understand and convert everything to is the singularity of the banana?
The answer is obvious; they'll say bananas should be banned.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL
MP,Dunny On The Wold,
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.
Secret Squirrel Comments On Massive Radiation Increases In Food.
Secret Squirrel has considered that it is time to remark on radiation,
radiation which has found it's way in to food,food you may eat, due to such
events as Chernobyl,and Fukushima, the levels of radiation that the government,
in ever changing fashion,considers acceptable for YOU,and the measurement of
the self same said and stated radiations. Well, consider this, what with
Fukushima, as it developed, and develops, radiation levels have been detected
in such things, in Japan as tea,and various other foods, foods exported to
other countries,and fish, every and all fish, fish such as tuna.Well, the
governments had studied things and all things considered, they do actually
monitor imported foods for radiations,and have released guidelines,based on
scientific studies of what is termed to be, or were termed to be, safe levels of
radiation. Well lo and behold, what with Fukushima, they have,strangely,
upwardly raised levels of what they term to be acceptable levels of radiation
in YOUR foods, food YOU eat, everywhere and particularly from there, Japan in
these times. Europe has reacted so, America has reacted so. Well let us snicker
and look at their strangely termed and explained reasonings of the day.
PAGs (Protective Action Guides) being proposed by the EPA (Environmental
Protection Agency),specifically, deal with how the EPA should enforce laws such
as the Clean Air and Water Act in relation to disasters, and particularly now,
with respect to Fukushima,the present massive nuclear disaster. Although PAGs
had already been established by the EPA in 1992, the agency now plans to amend
these guidelines to much higher levels of acceptable radiation,that would raise
the acceptable levels of radiation allowed in the environment, food, and even
the general public themselves in the event of a nuclear emergency,though based
on what is anybody's guess you know, take one yourself,why not......like
inflation, as the number of nuclear accidents increase, so too will,and do,
acceptable levels of radiations in foods,and people for that matter,in the eyes
and minds of governments, of politicians.So much for all the studies that
originally medically and scientifically,based on their studies at the time, their
actual realistic findings,set the safe limits lower than the ones the
government now wishes, on the basis of.....well,what really, their thoughts on
things.....?
No congressional approval is legally needed to makes such changes, because the
EPA is a regulatory agency that sets “policy” and, although these types of
agencies can be directed by congress or the president, they often form their
own policies. All that is required when agencies such as the EPA wish to change
their policy is that they first publish the proposed changes in the Federal
Register for a designated period of “public comment.”So it seems scientifically
gathered evidence on which the earlier lower guidelines were based, are now as
nothing, as nothing as and as valued as, public opinion.according to PEER
(Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the new standards would
result in a “nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90, a 3000 to
100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and an almost 25,000 rise for
exposure to radioactive nickel-63” in drinking water.
Now in Europe,the new EU mirror of EPA policy,actually set as far back as 1989
(by amending standards set in 1987)EU ordinance 297/2011 raises the Maximum
Levels of radiation and radioactive isotopes for food and feed to rather
serious levels. In some cases, such as the case of Cesium-134 and Cesium-137,
the levels are actually twice the amount of previously acceptable levels. Many
of these increases are allowed in products such as infant formula and baby
foods.
It should be noted that the new EU changes only apply to food imported from
Japan. The justification behind this is that in the event of a nuclear
emergency the traditional levels of acceptable radiation should be ignored so
as not to cause a food shortage as a result of legal constraints.The European
Union has authorized radioactive load in foods in Japan has increased
substantially. Until now, a maximum of 600 becquerels of radioactivity (cesium
134 and cesium 137) per kilogram allowed, but since last weekend for example
oil or herbal suddenly 12,500 becquerels per kilogram, more than 20 times as
high. The increase was recorded in Emergency Ordinance 297/2011 on March 27 and was in force.
While politicians talk about “enhanced control measures” and “special
protection standards” they are universally silent on explaining,rationally,if at all, the huge increase in the allowable limits of radiation in food in,and FROM, Japan. Nevertheless we are reassured with the assurance that we have no worry about radioactive products from Japan,or the presence of elevated levels of radiation in food,especially coming from Japan.Curious,an increase, then increase the allowable(err "allowable"?) level of radiation in food.Much similar in fashion to rape as a crime, decriminalize it and then there's no problem.
Explain why a 20 times as high value allowable of radiations in food would make no difference for the consumer safety.
(EU-Verordnung 733/2008) applies to food and food imports
for cesium-134 and 137 and typically limits of 370 becquerels per kilogram for
infant formula and milk products and 600 Bq / kg for other foods (EU regulation
733/2008). The Emergency Ordinance 297/2011, which entered into force on March
2011, has increased the European Commission of these borders to products from
the affected regions Japanese clear: to 400 becquerels per kilogram for infant
formula, to 1000 Bq / kg for milk products and to 1250 Bq / kg for other foods.
Certain products such as fish oil or spices may even exceed this value by ten
times, ie up to 12,500 becquerels per kilogram to be charged – a 20-times the
previous limit.
Now,that you understand what's going on, and who's doing what to YOU and the
food YOU eat,or rather, must eat,very much similiar to forced to eat.
I've saved the very best,for last........
Background for the increase is about the Chernobyl disaster in 1987 adopted EU
Regulation 3954/1987. Accordingly, in the event of a “nuclear emergency” to be
raised the ceiling on allowable radioactive contamination of foods to prevent
food shortages. ‘These rules now to bring into force is absurd, because in
Europe there are no nuclear emergency, and certainly no shortage of food’.
Imports from Japan to play for the security of European citizens not matter,
“said Thilo Bode and Chris Hacker.Fascinating isn't it, the reasoning. In the
event of a nuclear disatser,there is an emergency,even with no food
shortages,what with food being available worldwide, procureable,purchasable,
importable,and so you just have to eat food with higher levels of radiation,
from any particular place where and said stated nuclear explosive event
occurred.
Wonderful?No.Reasonable?No.Justifiable?No.Intelligent?No.Logical?No.
Scientific?No.Are politicians sane and intelligent? No.Vote for insanity,you
know it makes sense.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Secret Squirrel Comments On Anti Swearing Laws.
It has come to the attention of Secret Squirrel that there have been
and are and are being made, certain laws, laws concerning profanity, in
short swearing. Lets' examine some specific developments of laws
concerning swearing, and the issue of swearing as such.
Residents of Middleborough, Massachussets were fed up with swearing in public. So, by a vote of 183 to 50, they decided in a public meeting to impose a fine of $20 for public profanity. How do you think such a regulation might go over in your locality?
Apparently the law must still be approved by the state's attorney general before it goes into effect. If approved, local police could issue tickets to offenders -- just as for other minor infractions.
One big hurdle the law will likely have to surmount is determining which words are actually swearing. Is that something which individual police officers may constitutionally be permitted to determine?
As Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote in the case of Cohen v. California, "One man's vulgarity is another man's lyric."
Well what is swearing, what is profanity?Profanity,is also known as swearing, cursing, foul speech, strong language, dirty words, cussing, bad words, bad language, adult language, or simply language, is pejorative language that shows disrespect, desecration or debasement. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures (such as flipping the middle finger), or other social behaviors that are construed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, obscene, obnoxious, foul, desecrating, or other forms.Profane language is by no means a recent phenomenon. The Bible sometimes uses strong language, such as mention of men who "eat their own dung, and drink their own piss" in the Authorized King James Version of 1611's close translation of Hebrew text of 2 Kings 18:27.
Shakespeare is replete with vulgarisms, though many are no longer readily recognized. Even the oldest traces of human writing include swear words.
There is a certain four-letter word that evokes much emotion, is often uttered by mothers giving birth, and whose usage by humans is thought to be evolutionarily adaptive: f___!
According to a new study by British researchers, saying the F word or any other commonly used expletive can work to reduce physical pain — and it seems
that people may use curse words by instinct. Indeed, as any owner of a banged shin, whacked funny bone or stubbed toe knows, dancing the agony jig —
and shouting its profane theme tune — are about as automatic as the response to a doctor's reflex hammer.The joy in unleashing an artful string of profanity is something that great minds have always relished, none less than Mark Twain who said "If I cannot swear in heaven I shall not stay there."
Twain knew that abuse is a high art, an alchemy of timing, intonation and le mot juste.Start with Shakespeare by all means,billed as the most artisicly intellectual master of the english language, swore like a sailor's parrot, and his plays contained the same as well,indeed the Globe Theatre was where it was due to the use of swearing by all the actors. In those days swearing was of a religious nature, not mostly as a sexual one is nowadays. For example they used ,as well still do but have forgotten, zooks,speficaly gad zooks, which in Shakespeare's day was the horrific God's Hooks as it were, referencing the nails of Jesus....and there was Swblood or God's Blood.The Frenchmen of the day are mostly religious oriented with words like Tabernac, referring to Tabernacle,the alos use colloquials such as moudzy fou as it is pronounced, actually meaning maudit fou,or in translation simply badly spoken of mental case,but to THEM it is a horrific swearing expression.Words words words.....swear words, what actually constitutes a swear word and
when.......by definition.
Years ago, a missionary shared the following story with me. He was at a service in Australia, and his wife was sick. He simply told the congregation that his wife was “under the weather.” The congregation looked shocked, so he immediately retorted “but she’s perking up now.” At that point the pastor of the church (who had spent time in the US) got up and told the guy, “In Australia, ‘under the weather’ means that she is slobbering drunk, and ‘perking up’ means that she is throwing up.”In another story a woman from the states had gotten a hotel room and the bellboy
asked if she wanted him to knock her up in the morning. Which meant to give her a wake up call or knock on the door to wake her up but of course to her that meant to get her pregnant.A missionary from the states was in Australia and he’d had a great meal with his hosts. Afterward he said, “I’m stuffed!” and they laughed at him because to them stuffed meant pregnant.Americans use the term fanny pack for a pack worn about the waist to carry things in, but for them too fanny means arse,in Britain and Australia, fanny means a woman's genitals.So swearing goes by definition of acceptability and shifts from one persons version of english to another dependant on the nation one is or is not in,and, of ourse, each has words and phrases unique to their cultural environment which constitute swearing as such.The bottom line is profanity laws differ by state,by nation,and what's acceptable in one state,or one nation, may land you in jail in another.Who knows, who knew...In early America, laws banning profanity were based on religion. Back
then, serious infractions involved breaking the biblical commandment to honor God's name and laws against profanity often banned using God's name "in vain."
In 1775, General George Washington banned cursing among his troups and required church attendance. Demands like this prompted Judge Zephaniah Swift, in
1796, to declare the government unable to punish a person on religious violation alone, that person must be disturbing the peace as well.Is 'No Cussing' Law Constitutional?The following is the text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the context in which the allegedly profane language is spoken generally decides whether the language
is protected by the First Amendment.Acceptance of profanity evolves over time,and so too does it evolve and change definitionally, What was once a bad
word may now be common language.However, cursing is still not considered socially acceptable. ABC's John Stossel reports 48% of Americans are still offended by profanity,but then 52%,the majority,there for,aren't.
Growing up, they teach you that swearing is a bad habit — but no one ever explained why it was a bad habit for so many people. If swearing has negative
social repercussions — and certainly in some social situations it still does — then why are people compelled to do it?
Well Police in Middleborough won’t be able to write tickets for swearing in public until the state attorney general’s office determines if the new bylaw is constitutional. That process could take months, and at least one person thinks the new bylaw might not go into effect.
Selectman Stephen McKinnon told The Enterprise of Brockton that his gut feeling was that the attorney general wouldn’t OK the bylaw. He said good behavior and common courtesy can’t be legislated.
Residents in Middleborough last week voted to approve a proposal from the police chief to impose a $20 fine on public profanity.Officials say the proposal wasn’t intended to censor casual or private conversations, but instead to crack down on loud, profanity-laden language used by teens and other young people in the downtown area and public parks.
But swearing does have a place in the psyche of man.In July 2009, scientists at Keele University in the UK concluded that swearing can help reduce pain. In fact, it was found that those who swore in reaction to pain could endure pain 50 percent longer than those who didn’t swear.But there is opposition to swearing so much so there are laws against it.
There's more though to be consdiered.If you visit Virginia Beach today, you’ll along Atlantic Avenue, its main strip, signs that say “No Swearing” or “No Profanity.”These signs aren’t just friendly reminders—they are actually the law!
The “No Cursing” Law was put in place in the early 1990’s in Virginia Beach as part of a “Beach Behavior Campaign” meant for the community and local police to keep a handle on any wild behavior.
When you’re vacationing in Virginia Beach today, you’ll see police chaplains patrolling the Oceanfront, the boardwalk, and Atlantic Avenue areas to ensure that youth and teens are following the No Cursing or No Profanity Law.
One example we found of an enforcement of this rule, known as a Class 4 misdemeanor: A 15-year-old girl who had been caught using a four-letter word
stringed multiple times throughout a sentence received a ticket: $250 and 10 days of community service.
A hundred year old Michigan state criminal law against cussing in front of women and children.All states have laws concerning and dealing with profanity,used,abused and or ignored dependant on whatever,wheresoever and however.
Based on a series of cases decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s, it is clear that the use of profanity is protected speech under the First Amendment, at least when the profanity is used as part of the political message. The most famous of these cases was Cohen vs. California, in which a man was prosecuted for walking through the courthouse wearing a jacket that said "F*ck the Draft," referring to the military draft during the war in Vietnam. The Court held that the profanity used in that case was protected speech. In the other cases, the Court left open the possibility that the government could properly criminalize offensive profanity not connected with a particular message, but the Court overturned the specific convictions for generalized profanity because the government had not sustained its heavy burden of writing a law that would not apply to and chill protected speech. Such legal drafting is so difficult that, in practice, it is probably impossible to criminalize plain profanity without restricting protected speech that contains profanity.
In Victoria, Australia, State legislature passed an anti-swearing law.Critics of the law say it is an attack on free speech, a revenue raising and an attempt to act to bolster the Government’s law and order credentials allowing police to issue on-the-spot fines of up to $A240 (£158) for language that is indecent, disorderly, offensive or threatening.
The anti-swearing legislation doesn't define what a 'swear-word' actually is. This gives the police extraordinary power to use these laws in discriminatory way.However the laws are much too broad,and what is disturbing they can be used, and abused. While they define profanity and swearing and the laws reference to that definition,one man's swear word is another man's ordinary,everyday. Ponder for example, a Disney character, the Genie, in,the film,cartoon,Alladin...he frequently uses the expletive, but evidently acceptable term, word,"Crimmini........the name of a mushroom, but the obvious taken reference in his use of the expletive, is as.a swear word. The series Battlestar Galactica, made up it's own for use as well,"Fellgercarb." So is and ,are ,those included in the definition, legal, of swearing, The laws define, but fail to.provide and exact list of terms and words, which constitute swearing, terms which would be in violation of and said and stated law.in short, either the law is clear and well and properly defined for all to see and know, including the list of violating "swear" words, or there had best be no law at all.
Residents of Middleborough, Massachussets were fed up with swearing in public. So, by a vote of 183 to 50, they decided in a public meeting to impose a fine of $20 for public profanity. How do you think such a regulation might go over in your locality?
Apparently the law must still be approved by the state's attorney general before it goes into effect. If approved, local police could issue tickets to offenders -- just as for other minor infractions.
One big hurdle the law will likely have to surmount is determining which words are actually swearing. Is that something which individual police officers may constitutionally be permitted to determine?
As Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote in the case of Cohen v. California, "One man's vulgarity is another man's lyric."
Well what is swearing, what is profanity?Profanity,is also known as swearing, cursing, foul speech, strong language, dirty words, cussing, bad words, bad language, adult language, or simply language, is pejorative language that shows disrespect, desecration or debasement. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures (such as flipping the middle finger), or other social behaviors that are construed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, obscene, obnoxious, foul, desecrating, or other forms.Profane language is by no means a recent phenomenon. The Bible sometimes uses strong language, such as mention of men who "eat their own dung, and drink their own piss" in the Authorized King James Version of 1611's close translation of Hebrew text of 2 Kings 18:27.
Shakespeare is replete with vulgarisms, though many are no longer readily recognized. Even the oldest traces of human writing include swear words.
There is a certain four-letter word that evokes much emotion, is often uttered by mothers giving birth, and whose usage by humans is thought to be evolutionarily adaptive: f___!
According to a new study by British researchers, saying the F word or any other commonly used expletive can work to reduce physical pain — and it seems
that people may use curse words by instinct. Indeed, as any owner of a banged shin, whacked funny bone or stubbed toe knows, dancing the agony jig —
and shouting its profane theme tune — are about as automatic as the response to a doctor's reflex hammer.The joy in unleashing an artful string of profanity is something that great minds have always relished, none less than Mark Twain who said "If I cannot swear in heaven I shall not stay there."
Twain knew that abuse is a high art, an alchemy of timing, intonation and le mot juste.Start with Shakespeare by all means,billed as the most artisicly intellectual master of the english language, swore like a sailor's parrot, and his plays contained the same as well,indeed the Globe Theatre was where it was due to the use of swearing by all the actors. In those days swearing was of a religious nature, not mostly as a sexual one is nowadays. For example they used ,as well still do but have forgotten, zooks,speficaly gad zooks, which in Shakespeare's day was the horrific God's Hooks as it were, referencing the nails of Jesus....and there was Swblood or God's Blood.The Frenchmen of the day are mostly religious oriented with words like Tabernac, referring to Tabernacle,the alos use colloquials such as moudzy fou as it is pronounced, actually meaning maudit fou,or in translation simply badly spoken of mental case,but to THEM it is a horrific swearing expression.Words words words.....swear words, what actually constitutes a swear word and
when.......by definition.
Years ago, a missionary shared the following story with me. He was at a service in Australia, and his wife was sick. He simply told the congregation that his wife was “under the weather.” The congregation looked shocked, so he immediately retorted “but she’s perking up now.” At that point the pastor of the church (who had spent time in the US) got up and told the guy, “In Australia, ‘under the weather’ means that she is slobbering drunk, and ‘perking up’ means that she is throwing up.”In another story a woman from the states had gotten a hotel room and the bellboy
asked if she wanted him to knock her up in the morning. Which meant to give her a wake up call or knock on the door to wake her up but of course to her that meant to get her pregnant.A missionary from the states was in Australia and he’d had a great meal with his hosts. Afterward he said, “I’m stuffed!” and they laughed at him because to them stuffed meant pregnant.Americans use the term fanny pack for a pack worn about the waist to carry things in, but for them too fanny means arse,in Britain and Australia, fanny means a woman's genitals.So swearing goes by definition of acceptability and shifts from one persons version of english to another dependant on the nation one is or is not in,and, of ourse, each has words and phrases unique to their cultural environment which constitute swearing as such.The bottom line is profanity laws differ by state,by nation,and what's acceptable in one state,or one nation, may land you in jail in another.Who knows, who knew...In early America, laws banning profanity were based on religion. Back
then, serious infractions involved breaking the biblical commandment to honor God's name and laws against profanity often banned using God's name "in vain."
In 1775, General George Washington banned cursing among his troups and required church attendance. Demands like this prompted Judge Zephaniah Swift, in
1796, to declare the government unable to punish a person on religious violation alone, that person must be disturbing the peace as well.Is 'No Cussing' Law Constitutional?The following is the text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the context in which the allegedly profane language is spoken generally decides whether the language
is protected by the First Amendment.Acceptance of profanity evolves over time,and so too does it evolve and change definitionally, What was once a bad
word may now be common language.However, cursing is still not considered socially acceptable. ABC's John Stossel reports 48% of Americans are still offended by profanity,but then 52%,the majority,there for,aren't.
Growing up, they teach you that swearing is a bad habit — but no one ever explained why it was a bad habit for so many people. If swearing has negative
social repercussions — and certainly in some social situations it still does — then why are people compelled to do it?
Well Police in Middleborough won’t be able to write tickets for swearing in public until the state attorney general’s office determines if the new bylaw is constitutional. That process could take months, and at least one person thinks the new bylaw might not go into effect.
Selectman Stephen McKinnon told The Enterprise of Brockton that his gut feeling was that the attorney general wouldn’t OK the bylaw. He said good behavior and common courtesy can’t be legislated.
Residents in Middleborough last week voted to approve a proposal from the police chief to impose a $20 fine on public profanity.Officials say the proposal wasn’t intended to censor casual or private conversations, but instead to crack down on loud, profanity-laden language used by teens and other young people in the downtown area and public parks.
But swearing does have a place in the psyche of man.In July 2009, scientists at Keele University in the UK concluded that swearing can help reduce pain. In fact, it was found that those who swore in reaction to pain could endure pain 50 percent longer than those who didn’t swear.But there is opposition to swearing so much so there are laws against it.
There's more though to be consdiered.If you visit Virginia Beach today, you’ll along Atlantic Avenue, its main strip, signs that say “No Swearing” or “No Profanity.”These signs aren’t just friendly reminders—they are actually the law!
The “No Cursing” Law was put in place in the early 1990’s in Virginia Beach as part of a “Beach Behavior Campaign” meant for the community and local police to keep a handle on any wild behavior.
When you’re vacationing in Virginia Beach today, you’ll see police chaplains patrolling the Oceanfront, the boardwalk, and Atlantic Avenue areas to ensure that youth and teens are following the No Cursing or No Profanity Law.
One example we found of an enforcement of this rule, known as a Class 4 misdemeanor: A 15-year-old girl who had been caught using a four-letter word
stringed multiple times throughout a sentence received a ticket: $250 and 10 days of community service.
A hundred year old Michigan state criminal law against cussing in front of women and children.All states have laws concerning and dealing with profanity,used,abused and or ignored dependant on whatever,wheresoever and however.
Based on a series of cases decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s, it is clear that the use of profanity is protected speech under the First Amendment, at least when the profanity is used as part of the political message. The most famous of these cases was Cohen vs. California, in which a man was prosecuted for walking through the courthouse wearing a jacket that said "F*ck the Draft," referring to the military draft during the war in Vietnam. The Court held that the profanity used in that case was protected speech. In the other cases, the Court left open the possibility that the government could properly criminalize offensive profanity not connected with a particular message, but the Court overturned the specific convictions for generalized profanity because the government had not sustained its heavy burden of writing a law that would not apply to and chill protected speech. Such legal drafting is so difficult that, in practice, it is probably impossible to criminalize plain profanity without restricting protected speech that contains profanity.
In Victoria, Australia, State legislature passed an anti-swearing law.Critics of the law say it is an attack on free speech, a revenue raising and an attempt to act to bolster the Government’s law and order credentials allowing police to issue on-the-spot fines of up to $A240 (£158) for language that is indecent, disorderly, offensive or threatening.
The anti-swearing legislation doesn't define what a 'swear-word' actually is. This gives the police extraordinary power to use these laws in discriminatory way.However the laws are much too broad,and what is disturbing they can be used, and abused. While they define profanity and swearing and the laws reference to that definition,one man's swear word is another man's ordinary,everyday. Ponder for example, a Disney character, the Genie, in,the film,cartoon,Alladin...he frequently uses the expletive, but evidently acceptable term, word,"Crimmini........the name of a mushroom, but the obvious taken reference in his use of the expletive, is as.a swear word. The series Battlestar Galactica, made up it's own for use as well,"Fellgercarb." So is and ,are ,those included in the definition, legal, of swearing, The laws define, but fail to.provide and exact list of terms and words, which constitute swearing, terms which would be in violation of and said and stated law.in short, either the law is clear and well and properly defined for all to see and know, including the list of violating "swear" words, or there had best be no law at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)